"Xeno" wrote in message
...
On 16/6/19 9:02 pm, Keema's Nan wrote:
On 16 Jun 2019, abelard wrote
(in ):

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 11:50:29 +0100, Keema's Nan
wrote:

On 16 Jun 2019, abelard wrote
(in ):

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 11:31:02 +0100, wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 12:05:16 +0200
abelard wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 10:39:30 +0100, wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 08:57:06 +0100
Keema's Nan wrote:



It is what happened on Venus.

Do some research.

It's what we are currently being told happened on Venus, which is
not
necessarily the same thing.

You know that the Earth was much hotter in the past, and had a high
atmospheric carbon dioxide content (not just a paltry fraction of a
percent) and yet for some reason it didn't stick like that. Why
not?

It's glaringly obvious that the Earth's atmosphere is a system with
overall *negative* feedback, if not then it would have moved to an
extreme and *stayed* *there*, at least millions of years ago. The
whole 'positive feedback' thing shows the global warming theories
to
be rubbish. A positive feedback system is unstable, and would not
have permitted many thousands of years of human history. If nothing
else, the time of the dinosaur extinction would have permanently
pushed the planet to one extreme or other.

as a rule of thumb, *any* closed system reaches equilibrium...
until some factor disturbs that equilibrium....

digging up the carbon deposits is such a factor

that moves the 'point' of equilibrium higher...

hence the atmosphere becomes warmer

i could go further!

what 'global warming theories' are you labeling 'rubbish'?

The one that depends on positive feedback.

more co2 higher temperature...that is a positive feedback

but
as stated all positive feedback is unstable...
eventually there will be a new equilibrium...

i think you know all this but i feel the need to check your
details :-)

continuing to dig up more carbon can be called positive feedback...
that positive feedback can set of new positive inputs...which is
what i believe sorrel is trying to say...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_climate_change

the article is blustering and unclear

Here speaks the voice of clarity?



i see no clear meaning to 'runaway'

You dont understand running and/or away?

Sorry to be pedantic here but the concept of a *runaway* in terms of
climate change cannot be gleaned from the individual words *run* and
*away*. For example, a *runaway* in a smelter furnace, and I've seen them,
is something like a leak of molten metal whose action of leaking serves to
accelerate the leak. Running away (from the leak) is exactly the wrong
thing to do. What is required is a run towards the leak with appropriate
equipment in order to stanch the flow of molten metal and prevent the leak
from enlarging itself. It is very confronting, as is the prospect of
climate change, and it needs to be confronted head on. Deal with the
problem early and all you need is a patch and a few new firebricks. Run
away, let the leak accelerate to destruction, and you then need a complete
new furnace and adjacent equipment. It takes cool heads to resist the urge
to run from what can look like Dante's Inferno.

I see climate change as the same sort of scenario.

More fool you. It is nothing even remotely like the same scenario.

Deal with it early

Not even possible with climate change except in the
sense of scrapping all power generation and using
nukes and electric cars and that just isnt feasible
with electric cars alone. And doesnt do a damned
thing about aircraft.

and it will cost less

Thats bull****. The cost of just nukes and electric
cars and no planes would be immense.

and involve much less destruction.

You havent established that doing what we are
currently doing will produce any destruction.