contrails

delboy wrote:
...
The more interesting question is: what is the effect of changing the
atmospheric CO2 concentration?

Most of the IR absorption spectrum of CO2 is so strong that at these
wavelengths, the little CO2 in the atmosphere is optically dense

/snip/
-Evan Ludeman / T8

Relevant info?

http://tiny.cc/o22Sr

Derek Copeland


It's not fair to call James Delingpole just a columnist: he has written
fiction too: of which the best known is
"How to be Right: The Essential Guide to Making Lefty Liberals History"

Brian W

Gary Evans wrote:
And if you are a scientist who relies on government grants all the
more pressure to fill in your own dots.

http://tinyurl.com/yex55dm

I tried to open this but couldn't. I grasped the title though:
it included the words Climate-Gate and Scandal.

This indicates it's a solid scientific examination, I would think?

Brian W

Scott wrote:
Mark Jardini wrote:

The USGS says a complete melt of the Greenland ice sheet would raise
sea level 6.5 meters or 21 feet -http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/
Yikes!! I think I am going to build an arc....

mj


Ya, and Al Gore SAYS he invented the Internet
Nah, he didn't say that; a reporter said that. I have heard the guys
that DID invent the Internet and the World Wide Web (aka www) say Al
Gore was instrumental in the development of the Internet, and they
clearly had a lot of respect for him.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Brad wrote:

The USGS says a complete melt of the Greenland ice sheet would raise
sea level 6.5 meters or 21 feet -http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/ If
that melted, there would be enough ice melt elsewhere to double
that.

Of course, the temperature rise that would do that would cause the
ocean waters to expand enough to raise it another 200 feet or so
putting 80% of the homes in the world underwater.

That much ice melt would expose darker oceans and ground surface so
more of the sun's heat would be absorbed instead of reflected back to
space.

Like most of the climate variables, there's always pesky multiplier
effects which makes exact predictions extremely difficult.


my house sits at 650 ft msl.............I got it made...............

Brad

Be prepared for a LOT of guests when Seattle is under water! And that is
the end of flying out of Arlington, too.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

delboy wrote:
On 9 Jan, 00:57, Mark Jardini wrote:

Add: John Coleman owns the weather channel. While this gives him a
forum from which to sound off, it is hardly "bona fides" for an
informed opinion on climate change.

As long as he is not being sponsored by the Oil or Coal Industries, I
would tend to believe him. The data he presents is accurate as far as
I can tell.

The UK Government is now running an advertising campaign to persuade
us to drive 5 miles less per week to 'save the planet'. Fat lot of
difference that will make in our tiny country, compared with all the
CO2 and other pollutants being pumped out by US and Far Eastern power
stations, manufacturing plants and vehicles. Have we actually proved
that CO2 is a greenhouse gas anyway,
OMG! Delboy, it's time to take your confusion about science back to
the forums that are made for it (and you know where they are). That
CO2 is a greenhouse gas isn't even controversial amongst the skeptics.
and should we give up all modern
technology because of an unproven mathematical model?

Should we listen to someone who has no idea of the physical
characteristics of CO2? Derek, please visit this well known skeptic
site and look up the blog entries by Mr. Watts and his guest bloggers
to see what they have to say on the subject (also check out the
entries of Venus, the premier display of CO2 in action):

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Those that want to learn more about climate science, but don't know
where to start, try this site for a good grounding, and explanations
covering the usual questions and claims.

http://skepticalscience.com/

If you are yearning for science at a higher level (but still
accessible), try this site, which is run by real, practicing,
publishing, climate scientists at the highest level:

http://www.realclimate.org/

RAS is NOT a good place to rehash decades old climate questions, as
Derek is trying to do, because these sites are well organized, easy
to search, and have comments by people that have been paying attention
for years. And if you are interested in the political and economic
aspects of global climate change, you'll find plenty of those, too.

And while Derek's off catching up on the science, we can go back to
soaring.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

Doug Hoffman wrote:
Al Gore currently owns several rather large houses. Presumably they
are equipped with air conditioning, heating, lights, large screen TVs,
pool heaters, and so forth. But he says that's OK because he is (or
would) pay an offsetting "carbon credit tax" which I gather would go
towards reforestation or something equivalent. Is that like buying
your way into heaven? Gore would be much more credible, at least to
me, if he were to *both* downsize/mostly eliminate his energy-hogging
abodes and also contribute funds for reforestation etc. He certainly
has the money to do the latter. Meanwhile I watch what he does, not
what he says, and find his credibility on GCC to be questionable.

Doug, Gore's home is also his office, and his wife's office, so it's not
just a large home. It's been heavily weatherized, solar panels are in
place or on the way, and so on. Check he

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp

More to the point, he has earned tens of millions with his books, movie,
and clean energy investments, and all this money is put into the
nonprofit Alliance for Climate Protection to fight climate change.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

T8 wrote:
On Jan 9, 6:56 am, Tom Gardner wrote:

On Jan 9, 9:27 am, delboy wrote:


Have we actually proved
that CO2 is a greenhouse gas anyway,

Yes, of course it has been proven. If you can't accept
that then there is never going to be the basis of any
form of useful discussion.


Of course CO2 is a selective IR filter. That's basic physics.

The more interesting question is: what is the effect of changing the
atmospheric CO2 concentration?

Most of the IR absorption spectrum of CO2 is so strong that at these
wavelengths, the little CO2 in the atmosphere is optically dense, and
increasing (or decreasing) its concentration has only tertiary and
probably unmeasurable effects on climate. There are weaker absorption
bands that may make a difference, but some/most(?) of these are in
areas of the spectrum where water vapor dominates completely as long
as water vapor is present.
If this explanation made sense, we'd be as hot as Venus; in fact, heat
does work it's way up to the top of the atmosphere, and radiate into
space. It is up there, where the heat is actually escaping the planet,
that the concentration of CO2 is important, and the concentration of
water vapor is very low by comparison. Increasing the CO2 in the upper
levels of the atmosphere does significantly effect how easily heat
leaves the planet. This site has a pretty good explanation:

http://skepticalscience.com/link_to_...?Argument0=133

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* Sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

Please do read the reference I've given below. It is readable
and regarded as authoritative by *all* "sides" in this debate
because it is a disinterested analysis of our options w.r.t.
energy futures.

On Jan 10, 12:32*am, Scott wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote:

Summary: Can't prove what'll happen in the future. So the best thing
is
to Carry On Regardless.

Not an impressive intellectual position.

Not meant to be. *Point is, can you (or anyone) prove that what we might
be doing IS harmful? *

Your argument is silly and unhelpful.

Can you prove the sun is going to come up tomorrow morning?
Can you prove that 1+1=2?

No, you can't.

In this life on this planet (as opposed to any other life on any
other planet) we have to make best guesses to the future,
and bet our health and lives on those guesses.

All I know is someone seems to be making a lot of money off this issue.
* Carbon credits, for example...who will get the money? *

Carbon credits are, IMNSHO, a scam in multiple dimensions:
- they are a fig leaf to allow us to continue unchanged
- simple criminal fraud, as is beginning to become apparent

Do you want
electricity? *How will it get generated?

Ah, now that one I can answer, by reference...

A book that has won plaudits from *all* sides (i.e. big oil, big
electricity, politicians, multiple environmental organisations) is
http://www.withouthotair.com/ or its backup site
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/

"For anyone with influence on energy policy, whether in
government, business or a campaign group, this book
should be compulsory reading." Tony Juniper
Former Executive Director, Friends of the Earth

"At last a book that comprehensively reveals the true
facts about sustainable energy in a form that is both
highly readable and entertaining." Robert Sansom
EDF Energy

"The Freakonomics of conservation, climate and energy."
Cory Doctorow,

"...a tour de force..." The Economist
"... a cold blast of reality ... a must-read analysis..." Science
magazine
"...this year's must-read book..." The Guardian

On Jan 10, 1:57*am, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Doug, Gore's home is also his office, and his wife's office, so it's not
just a large home. It's been heavily weatherized, solar panels are in
place or on the way, and so on. Check he

Eric,

Thanks for doing the googling for me. You're right, it's not just a
large home, it's a huge home at 10,000 sq.ft.

More to the point, he has earned tens of millions with his books, movie,
and clean energy investments, and all this money is put into the
nonprofit Alliance for Climate Protection to fight climate change.

*All* the money? That is impressive. One might wonder how he pays
his bills.

Regards,

-Doug

On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 02:25:00 -0800, Tom Gardner wrote:

Please do read the reference I've given below. It is readable and
regarded as authoritative by *all* "sides" in this debate because it is
a disinterested analysis of our options w.r.t. energy futures.

..../snippage/...

A book that has won plaudits from *all* sides (i.e. big oil, big
electricity, politicians, multiple environmental organisations) is
http://www.withouthotair.com/ or its backup site
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/

A quick comment: this is a *great* reference site. However I've just
found out that www.withoutair.com is hosted on a bandwidth-limited server
that forbids access once the monthly limit is exceeded. If you get a
'bandwidth exceeded' error when trying to access it, use the backup site.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |