ERD50
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Originally Posted by ERD50
Yes, you do seem to believe that CFB, but you have not explained this statement (from the IPCC) that I've posted numerous times:
The rest of your post is a 'red herring' to the above, and taken out of context. The IPCC analysis of the causes are embodied in the above statement, and I've already discussed them with you. Doesn't change anything. Focus.
It's appears to be a very fundamental statement. I think it's tough to have any meaningful discussion w/o first understanding it.
I'd be more than glad to discuss the other point (mitigating non-human sources) with you or anyone else - after you answer this one.
-ERD50
And, I keep falling back on the IPCC's own words (as I understand them). If we make *large* improvements regarding fossil fuel usage, we are still left with 80% of the problem.
I dont believe the IPCC or any supported credible entity associated with the scientific community has made such a claim.
Yes, you do seem to believe that CFB, but you have not explained this statement (from the IPCC) that I've posted numerous times:
So - (stay focused here CFB) - what *does* that claim mean?# Scenario A1T - * A1T - Emphasis on non-fossil energy sources.
* Sea level rise likely range [20 to 45 cm] (8 to 18 inches)
# Scenario A1FI - * A1FI - An emphasis on fossil-fuels.
* Sea level rise likely range [26 to 59 cm] (10 to 23 inches)
A1T - non-fossil fuel energy sources dominate.
The rest of your post is a 'red herring' to the above, and taken out of context. The IPCC analysis of the causes are embodied in the above statement, and I've already discussed them with you. Doesn't change anything. Focus.
It's appears to be a very fundamental statement. I think it's tough to have any meaningful discussion w/o first understanding it.
I'd be more than glad to discuss the other point (mitigating non-human sources) with you or anyone else - after you answer this one.
-ERD50