Easily understood graphs

Old Rocks - Do you have a degree in Science and/or Mathematics? If so, can you provide us details?

No, just a lifelong interest in earth sciences, and about three years worth of classes in geology and related fields. The highest class completed Eng. Geo. 470/570.

Then you're in luck. I have advanced degrees in Physics, Mathematics and Electrical Engineering. If you ever have any questions about Science or Statistics, just let me know.

JunkScience.com -- Steven Milloy, Publisher

Excellant. Then why would you assume that, when we see what rapid increases in GHGs have created in past geological periods, that the present runup will not cause a similiar effect? Just because we are the causitive agent, rather than trapp volcanics.
 
No, just a lifelong interest in earth sciences, and about three years worth of classes in geology and related fields. The highest class completed Eng. Geo. 470/570.

Then you're in luck. I have advanced degrees in Physics, Mathematics and Electrical Engineering. If you ever have any questions about Science or Statistics, just let me know.

JunkScience.com -- Steven Milloy, Publisher

Excellant. Then why would you assume that, when we see what rapid increases in GHGs have created in past geological periods, that the present runup will not cause a similiar effect? Just because we are the causitive agent, rather than trapp volcanics.

"Just because we are the causitive agent..."

And therein lies the debate.

Any other questions?
 
Isotopal analysis of the carbon in the CO2 in the atmosphere says that the carbon that has been added is from old sources that has little C14. And we are putting billions of tons of CO2 in the air annually. That would seem to nail down that factor pretty well. We know and understand the absorbtion spectra of CO2, and how it works in differant layers in the atmosphere. So what is there to debate, as nothing else we know of is putting old C in this amount into atmosphere?
 

Forum List

Back
Top