From: "Robert Comer" 

> It does if you want to change anything.

I disagree, true that's the case if you want to change something by
reversing the cause, but there are also easier ways to change things.

> Kill the butterfly before it flaps it's wings?

Nah, just change the conditions by having another butterfly flap it's wings
somewhere else.

> I don't know about that. I've never seen an atomic explosion live so I
> can't gauge it but I've also not heard of one spawing tornados so I don't
> know how big an effect it would have. Mabey it could affect a really small
> thunder storm.

It effects more than that, first there's the shock wave that would break up
any wind concentrations, then the heat which makes the wind blow even more,
but possibly in a direction you want, and then there's the pure breaking
down water and atmosphere down into component atoms, and ygagam what that
might do to a weather system.

I'm betting there are much easier ways to effect it though...

> I'm not saying we can't do anything if we really try.

That's all I want researched.

>I mean heck it wouldn't take much to start massive forest fires and burn
>down the forests.. But what I am saying is if you think .038% to .040%
>change in the mixture of CO2 to atmosphere is going to make squat
>difference to the amount of reflected solar energy you deserve to have
>carbon credits deprive the fool from his money.

Again, I disagree, the atmosphere and it's heat retention capabilities are
a very fine balance, any change can effect things.  The earth's ability to
"heal" after a change like that is not in doubt, but I want as
many people to survive the bump as can.

--
Bob Comer


"Geo."  wrote in message
news:45e20f7c$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
> news:45dae2dd$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>
>> I think we have a much greater effect than you seem to, but that's really
>> secondary to my point, cause *doesn't* matter.
>
> It does if you want to change anything.
>
>> Not directly with our current tech, no, but that doesn't mean we cannot
>> effect the conditions that create something like a santa anna.
>
> Kill the butterfly before it flaps it's wings?
>
>> We will be able to eventually, and even now we can effect thunderstorms
>> by cloud seeding. (set off a nuke in the middle of a storm I bet it goes
>> away too. )
>
> I don't know about that. I've never seen an atomic explosion live so I
> can't gauge it but I've also not heard of one spawing tornados so I don't
> know how big an effect it would have. Mabey it could affect a really small
> thunder storm.
>
>> This attitude that we can't do anything is no different than the attitude
>> that people had about earth being the center of the universe and flat,
>> and of those that said if man were meant to fly, we'd have had wings, and
>> various other things that we can't do but eventually did.
>
> I'm not saying we can't do anything if we really try. I mean heck it
> wouldn't take much to start massive forest fires and burn down the
> forests.. But what I am saying is if you think .038% to .040% change in
> the mixture of CO2 to atmosphere is going to make squat difference to the
> amount of reflected solar energy you deserve to have carbon credits
> deprive the fool from his money.
>
> Geo.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5