ForumGarden

Wild Cobra

Wow, I just received a "happy birthday" message. I even forgot I subscribes here, and eight years later, this is the last thread I responded to...

Wild Cobra

<t>Bored_Wombat;894851 wrote: Sure, it's significant. Even this paper which is suggesting a higher significance that earlier body of work, and it might be partly right or wholly right, CO2 should not be dismissed such as ... It is still the main cause. You will change you...

Wild Cobra

<t>Bored_Wombat;894850 wrote: That's wrong. Even choosing the most favourable definition of absorbed by water vapour, only 66% (or so) is absorbed in the entire atmosphere, much less the first 30 feet. I agree with the 30 feet for CO2. I think that should be 30 miles. A...

Wild Cobra

<t>Bored_Wombat;892914 wrote: I notice from your link: â€œâ€¦. soot and other forms of black carbon could have as much as 60 percent of the current global warming effect of carbon dioxide, more than that of any greenhouse gas besides CO2″ Which does rather contradict your claim...

Wild Cobra

<t>Bored_Wombat;892903 wrote: This isn't even close to the figures that are being published by the scientific community. Removing water vapour alone would only reduce the greenhouse effect by about 36%. Removing everything except water vapour would leave about 66% of the greenhouse effect...

Wild Cobra

<r>A few quotes out of a few articles related to Global Warming: The Faithful Heretic: What is normal? Maybe continuous change is the only thing that qualifies. Thereâ€™s been warming over the past 150 years and even though itâ€™s less than one degree, Celsius, some...

Wild Cobra

<t>Consider this also: Notice that alarmists will pick a starting period of low temperature to today's relative high. This shows highs to highs, and lows to lows, correlating to under 0.2 C increase over your coveted 100 years. Now here's a kicker... Solar irradiance in now ab...

Wild Cobra

<t>Here is an article from the ICACAP webpage: May 28, 2008 Correlation of Carbon Dioxide with Temperatures Negative Again By Joseph D'Aleo, CCM The temperatures over the last century correlated positively with carbon dioxide in the early 20th...

Wild Cobra

<t>gmc;876586 wrote: What a load of bollocks. What is it about Americans that they can't discuss things issues like the environment rationally without having to categorise it as either a conspiracy or some new form of religion? There's surely been enough environmental damage done in the ...

Wild Cobra

<t>This got long, and I could have done better if I spent longer. I only have so much time, so please bear with me. Clodhopper;874930 wrote: Ok, I'm floundering along trying to follow you (bit out of my depth) but does this/do these cycles explain the great rapidity of climate wobble we s...

Wild Cobra

<t>The second link in my last posting is from an article about 20 years old. I find it very insightful for the knowledge at the time. Here is the site home page and publications index: Home Page Publications I cannot endorse or repudiate the site for accuracy at this...

Wild Cobra

<t>Bored_Wombat;873267 wrote: This is the sort of inaccuracy you might come to believe if you read blogs instead of proper science. I would say YES. We have an impact. Just not to the extent that the 'greens' would have us believe. Bored_Wombat;873267 wrote: <...

Wild Cobra

<t>Bored_Wombat;873260 wrote: There needs to be legislation that prices fossil fuel use out of the market so that alternatives start to be manufactured and produced. Why, so far supply and demand has done the job rather well along with the drop in the dollar. ...

Wild Cobra

<t>Jester;872900 wrote: I heard this morning on the radio it wont matter anyway... some religious freak was on saying he calculated the end of the world to be May 22 2011. Do they know better than the Mayan's? They say it will be 12/21/12 by some interprtations. At least...

Wild Cobra

<t>Bryn Mawr;870446 wrote: I do look, very closely, at cause and effect so why don't you, instead of accusing me of making an incorrect assumption, point out what that assumption is and then we can discuss why you feel that it is incorrect. A generalised "you got it wrong" doesn't help a...

Wild Cobra

<t>Bored_Wombat;869960 wrote: There are a lot of non peer reviewed and political sources. Peer review is not what it's cracked up to be. It has many problems. It is fine for an organization wanting such academic standards to proceed on a work because they don't understan...

Wild Cobra

<t>Bryn Mawr;869076 wrote: You stress that these are "mere possibilities" without mention of the "probability" of their occurring. What needs to be evaluated is the probability - put a number to it and we can judge what best to do. I look over the lifetime of my children and I see greate...

Wild Cobra

<t>Jester;867859 wrote: Are guns green? :-2 Depends on your point of view I guess. Probably not. When used for defense, we want to give the bad guys lead poisoning, right? Just make sure to use steel shot instead of lead shot when hunting birds in areas with wa...

Wild Cobra

<t>Jester;866880 wrote: I vow to buy up as many incandescent bulbs between now and 2012. I will sell my bulbs at a premium price. I doubt it would make you any money. Compact fluorescents are getting cheap. Most people will conform. Jester;866880 wrote: Does t...

Wild Cobra

<r>qsducks;866577 wrote: They are a pain to light. Usually you just click on your lamp once with the regular bulbs, but not these things. Have to click on twice before it "decides" to light. Guess, I'll have to stock up on the regular bulbs.<E>:mad:</E> Some brands are simply no goo...

Wild Cobra

<t>rjwould;866828 wrote: Too bad we have to wait sooo long. I'd rather have it mandatory now. Incidentally, the companies that are making your bulbs now are the same companies which will make the new ones. It is foolish to take away the freedom of choice. Doesn't the term pro-choice have any re...

Wild Cobra

<t>Well, I like the compact fluorescents. Really, the only thing you need to worry about is breaking one. I sort of laughed at the energy savings part when people talk about changing them in the winter. They really don't save much in energy because the heat that you are not heating your ...

Wild Cobra

<t>Here are two good pieces to read on the subject of Global Warming: A Skeptics Guide to An Inconvenient Truth Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics The first is pretty easy to understand. The second one is very scientif...

Wild Cobra

<t>For those who read pictures and chart: Looks like a very nice concentration of sea ice above. The ice shelves here look rather nice too. Notice how 2008 is exceeding the 31 year average? ...

Wild Cobra

<t>Bored_Wombat;856713 wrote: There are no farther temperature changes that correspond to increased CO2 levels. I wouldn't say that. It looks like the temperature changes and CO2 levels follow each other pretty well over smaller rises and falls. There's a couple of rises about 60,000 ybp, and o...

Wild Cobra

<t>Something else about the rising sea level. There were times in known nautical history that the sea was higher than today. This was likely when the Vikings went to America, there are photos somewhere out there of ancient high water marks. As for other increases in the ocean, there is er...

Wild Cobra

<t>Snidely Whiplash;852275 wrote: Honestly people, and I mean no disrespect to anyones views, but the more I look and search for credible info on man made G.W., the more info I find that supports natural climate changes and what probably is most true that we just don't know for certain i...

Wild Cobra

<t>Bryn Mawr;852261 wrote: Be it ever so humble six weeks of rain could not raise sea level by five miles to cover the highest land - nor could such a volume of water drain away afterwards. Well, if some celestial phenomena made it happen, let's say it was as intense as ...

Wild Cobra

<t>spot;852126 wrote: Good lord, I put the figure earlier. If all the world's ice melted the rise in sea levels will be 70 feet, to go on top of the current 400 foot rise which already happened in the last 10,000 years since the last ice age started to retreat. 70 feet still to go, you've...

Wild Cobra

<t>Bryn Mawr;851461 wrote: I'll ignore the whole issue of Noah being a world wide flood as I know you're not concerned with practicalities but are you seriously suggesting that you believe that, if the Antarctic ice were to melt, there would be no change in mean sea level? If so, would yo...

Wild Cobra

<t>Bored_Wombat;848228 wrote: It is likely that the United States is the only industrialized nation where GHG emissions fell in 2006. Right. But taking into account that the United States had record increases in emissions in 2005. The 2006 decrease might merely be ...

Wild Cobra

<t>Bored_Wombat;848778 wrote: I apologise if I missed one of the points that you raised. I am a simple acoustician. I have neither the training nor the resources to reproduce the work that the scientific community is producing on climate change. I believe that I can understand...

Wild Cobra

<t>Bored_Wombat;848774 wrote: It still looks wrong. The link from RealClimate you supplied has: See what it looks like when I flip it: Looks allot like the first now when you change transmission to absorption.<br/...

Wild Cobra

<t>Wombat. None of that explains the temperature vs. CO2 levels over the last 11,000 years. You have not addressed than in any manner that shows me you understand the sciences. Quoting other people simply tell me you would be one that believed the world was flat 500 years ago. You listen to what oth...

Wild Cobra

<t>Bored_Wombat;847911 wrote: That 9Â°C change didn't happen in the first few hundred years after the increase in CO2. We have started to see a rise in temperature, and it is enough to be confidently attributed to human activity, but it is likely that the lion's share of the warming is still in the ...

Wild Cobra

<t>I'll bet you would like to discredit the place I found this in, but this is probably what I heard was based on: Yale Universityâ€™s professor Daniel Esty, chief author of the World Economic Forumâ€™s very useful Environmental Performance Index (EPI), a new iteration of which appeared i...

Wild Cobra

<t>Bored_Wombat;847429 wrote: I can verify that's it's very difficult to believe. Kyoto requirements are based on 1990 levels. As at 2004 the USA had a 21.1% increase in emissions since 1990. The EU-15 averaged a 2.6% reduction since 1990. I doubt that the USA has ef...

Wild Cobra

<t>mikeinie;842562 wrote: I think that the practice of trading carbon credits is a disgrace. I know the that the company I work for, year after year comes in under the emissions requirement, and although approached, refuses to sell credits (even though it could be profitable). There was a big debate...

Wild Cobra

<r>spot;846471 wrote: I agree entirely. What will make the jump from current conditions to different conditions will be a major shift in one of the previously fixed components of the balance. I'd suggest the first is the removal of the reflectivity from the Arctic cap when it totally dis...

Wild Cobra

<t>spot;846446 wrote: No, no dispute at all, that's in your graph and if "active" means pushing out more energy then that's what it means. Good. That was what I was driving sat is that the sun's output changes. The actual science behind the sunspot numbers isn...

Wild Cobra

<t>Sunspot;845702 wrote: The problem with your graph is, it gave no correlation to anything. Nothing causitive. It just showed the variation in estimated solar irradiance over a few hundred years. I went and looked at the data you based it on, and it shows a narriow range, I think based ...

Wild Cobra

<t>spot;845701 wrote: It was what you wrote that had my hackles raised. "Sunspot activity is a visual indicator of radiated heat", that really got up my nose. Well, in geneal that is true. I never said it was an absolute indicator. Would you agree sunspots are...

Wild Cobra

<t>Bored_Wombat;845697 wrote: However, this is not near saturation, so it is at full "power". Note also that in the upper atmosphere where pressures are low and interactions with other air molecules are rare the absorbance peaks are much more well defined, and gaps appear in between peak...

Wild Cobra

<t>I wonder if I joined a useless forum. I posted graphs from both NASA and NOAA showing radiated power. Since the sun is the driving force for heat on our planet, are any of you going to deny this has an effect? Criticism is all about what I don't post and no response to what should be ...

Wild Cobra

<t>Bored_Wombat;844493 wrote: I don't recognise the graph, and it doesn't look very right. Where is it from? It is the reverse of the graph in your RealClimate link for CO2 in a gas cell. Does it look right now? The zero point on mine starts at 230 ...

Wild Cobra

<t>Bored_Wombat;844506 wrote: It's good to see a moderate opinion. Thanks for your input. I would say that this is perhaps more moderate than is likely. If you look at the atmospheric CO2 concentration from ice cores, you can see that the current atmosphere is not an acceleration of a nat...

Wild Cobra

<t>Wombat, the graph you show from RealClimate dot org doesn't account for all the truth involved. First of all, this is the most significant range of CO2 for IR absorption in the atmosphere. However, the right side of it is only about 1/4 power because it overlaps H2O which already absorbs about 75...

Wild Cobra

<t>spot;843301 wrote: There's a complete lack of communication in this, you know. I ask a question and nothing you write reflects what I asked at all. You have no clue as to who first observed the phenomena? Neither do I but I didn't ask who first observed it. They're your words, not min...

Wild Cobra

<t>spot;843262 wrote: Actually, it might help if we just discuss what your phrase "a correlation between the heat output of the Sun and sunspot activity" means. I'm reading it to mean "oh look, there's a sunspot, gosh the heat output of the sun just dipped". Or "oh look, there's a sunspo...

Wild Cobra

<t>Bryn Mawr;843224 wrote: Would you care to quote sources for this - personally, without them, the IPCC has more credibility. What is more important to you? Sources I cannot yet link, or understanding what is discussed. It doesn't matter what one source vs. another says. If you are...

Search found 56 matches