globalwarming at Yahoo! Groups

Killer energy and technology group

hawkerforest — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 02:14:59 GMT

Killer energy and technology group Cleantech.org is now operating the 4 year old, 2,100 member Krystal Planet group on yahoo. All on renewable and alternative

Delays and cost overruns on nuclear

poitsplace — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 01:43:08 GMT

I was reading about a new nuclear plant in europe http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8138869.stm And after thinking about it, I realized that it IS a new design

Re: A nice tool to work out CO2 absorption (PT1)

poitsplace — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 02:39:05 GMT

I agree with him on the CO2 in the 1700's. Man had negligible affects on CO2 in the 1700's.

Re: A nice tool to work out CO2 absorption (PT1)

Mark Koskenmaki — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:53:00 GMT

Maybe you could explain to him thermal runaway in a germanium transistor, and then explain why silicon transistors don't. Then have him apply the same concept

Re: A nice tool to work out CO2 absorption (PT1)

Mark Koskenmaki — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:52:17 GMT

That's illogical. You can't create a one way valve. You have X amount of total energy reaching the earth, that is, the sunlight and all the spectra included.

Re: A nice tool to work out CO2 absorption (PT1)

Mark Koskenmaki — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:52:17 GMT

Why do you think man had no influence on CO2 levels in 1700? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ... From: "Ken MacClune"

GM sale gets OK from bankruptcy judge - new company will be called N

tallex2002 — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 08:52:06 GMT

GM sale gets OK from bankruptcy judge - new company will be called NGMCO Inc General Motors was given approval by bankruptcy judge Robert Gerber on Sunday to

Re: A nice tool to work out CO2 absorption (PT1)

poitsplace — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:47:24 GMT

... LOL, not so much Q.E.D. You've simply overwhelmed your capability to bring together concepts and replaced two with an oversimplified version...something

Re: A nice tool to work out CO2 absorption (PT1)

Ken MacClune — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:31:16 GMT

So in summary, water vapor is a feedback to changes in CO2 concentration (and as cited literature shows, a strong one) which amplifies the forcing from CO2.

Re: A nice tool to work out CO2 absorption (PT1)

poitsplace — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:23:47 GMT

... ...and the overall forcing from feedbacks was well short of CO2, which is what we were actually talking about.

Re: A nice tool to work out CO2 absorption (PT1)

Ken MacClune — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 11:22:16 GMT

Right, temperatures will fall. And since a cooler airmass holds less water the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would also go down. It does not matter

Aerosol cooling...oops, maybe not

poitsplace — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 06:25:52 GMT

If this is right it would REALLY throw a wrench in the models, now wouldn't it? http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/21437

Re: A nice tool to work out CO2 absorption (PT1)

poitsplace — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 06:02:44 GMT

... Assuming there's a significant impact from CO2 (roughly correlating to the change in absorption) temperatures would fall. They would likely fall harder

Re: A nice tool to work out CO2 absorption (PT1)

Ken MacClune — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 02:00:53 GMT

OK, let's step back and think of a hypothetical past. Let's go back to 1700 when the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was not influenced by human activities.

Re: A nice tool to work out CO2 absorption (PT1)

poitsplace — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:58:38 GMT

... No, you're suggesting (or seem to be) that the higher temperatures cause more water vapor to go into the air which in turn increases absorption and that