ENVIRONET Archives

July 2006

EnviroNet@IPC.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
MA/NY DDave <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Environmental Issues <[log in to unmask]>, MA/NY DDave <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 18 Jul 2006 00:36:40 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (25 lines)
Hi Chuck, Brain, Joe, Bev, ENet Listservers,

Back in College, decades ago, I took a course on equation writing.
I think it was called Dimensional Analysis.

It was amazing how one could write equations based on common engineering/
science knowledge and then put things in the numerator or the demoninator
to postulate a solution for an equation.

If we look at Global Warming in simple terms for equation writing what
would it show us? For such simple things as the number of humans, and the
effect of human industrialized consumption would these factors go in the
numerator or the demoninator. I hope you would agree that they should go in
the numerator. On the demoninator side we could do things to effect a
balance, what would they be??  I know Killing, or Culling is one of them,
yet this has some bad ramifications. Tera our Earth is only limited in it's
response and depends on human habitation/de-planation.

I guess my point is that as long as we are in an expanding human population
universe, with all that we and our fellow humans want, Global Warming has
to be dealt with in the demoninator.

Yours in Engineering, Dave
YiEngr, MA/NY DDave

ATOM RSS1 RSS2