In message , Orator
writes
John Beardmore wrote:
In message , Retief
writes
On Fri, 03 Nov 06 11:22:33 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
The "greenhouse gases" has been defines as "CO2" it is clear as
clear
can be! The "equivalent to" refers to "parts per million (ppm)" -
measure!
"gases" is plural, doofus.
That in no way addresses the challenge to the assertion that CO2 is a
"prototypical greenhouse gas, whose characteristics explain and define
all other GHGs..."
You've put this in quotes as though somebody had said it, but
searching for the phrase suggests otherwise.
The article makes that claim, doesn't matter if you can't see the
precise text. The meaning is there nevertheless.
Seems to be a pretty sloppy approach to quoting.
CO2 is greenhouse gas. It doesn't explain and define others
however, but given that the effect of each gas can be measured and
characterised, any given amount of another gas can have an effect
which can be expressed as an amount of CO2 that would have the same effect.
Wrong wrong wrong.
I don't think so.
The purpose of the "paper" was to point to a remedy not debate the
cause and effect.
So ?
As I have noted elsewhere, that their "remedy" is solely related to
CO2, and THAT is what defines the "gasses" as being CO2 alone,
irrespective of the use of the plural!
I don't think it does. It would be pretty to stupid to deny the
existence of other GHGs, even if you only plan to act by cutting carbon
emissions.
This said, whatever the strap line, I've yet to see a climate change
remediation program that would turn down the change to cut the emissions
of GHGs other than CO2.
_IF_ it was as you and the AGW Mufti Lloyd say then they have missed
out including the most important of all "greenhouse gases" - water
vapour! Why would they do that if they intended an "equivalent to.."
meaning for all greenhouse gases? I'll tell you why, because it would
have been too blatantly obvious that it is all a SHAM.
This is an ancient and unworthy diversion as nobody disputes the effect
of water. You should know better, but it is interesting that you are
clearly of the opinion that GHGs do exist, and are "important".
-- which is what your "equivalence" implies...
In your dreams I think...
You are unable to arrive a conclusions from a given set of conditions?
No - I think I understand perfectly well, that unable to find anything
of significance wrong with Stern, you will pick at anything to try and
discredit it.
Unfortunately for you, most readers will be familiar with equating the
effect of one GHG with another and won't be fooled, and others may read
it and make up their own minds.
You aren't going to turn the tide without something more substantive
than you have 'found'.
J/.
--
John Beardmore