Re: Human vs. natural influences on the environment
A lot of environmental posters have the nasty tendency of
only worrying about the variables that "prove" their point.
If these guys started attempting to worry about all of the
variables that they can identify, they will find many
negative feedback loops that they haven't thought about. At
this point, I am tempted to believe that many of these guys
cannot conceptualize of more than two or three variables at
a time. Too bad. A full understanding of the subject
material may require an understanding of dozens or perhaps
hundreds of simultaneous variables. Do you guys really
think that you are up to this task?
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
email@example.com (Harold Brashears) wrote:
>firstname.lastname@example.org (Scott Nudds) wrote for
all to see:
>>: it just *might* turn out that climate is just
>>: situation where positive feedback was present - for a
>> Warmer oceans can hold less CO2.
>Warmer oceans release more water, forming cloud cover,
>light, and incidently trapping some IR.
>> Melted tundra rots and moves more CO2 into the
>Why would it rot? Higher CO2 stimulates plant growth.
>> More forest fires, more CO2 released into the
>Warmer oceans mean more water evaporated into the
>resulting in more rain.
>> Higher temperatures, higher demand for air conditioning,
>> used, more fossil fuels consumed.
>> It would appear that there are a host of positive
>>many of which are certain.
>It would appear that there are a host of feedback
mecanisms, many of
>which you failed to mention. Is that because you did not
>"If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in
doubts, but if he
>will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in
> ---Francis Bacon, The Advancement of Learning, ch. 5