Jump to content

Who here is a global warming skeptic?


Recommended Posts

Change is global, but the changes are not uniform.

So, while some places will get warmer, other places will get cooler?

More here: https://www.climate.gov/maps-data Yes. Sulfate aerosols.They scatter and reflect light from the sun so tend to have a short-term cooling effect when concentrations increase. Industrial and volcanic events caused these levels to increase in the mid-20th century, and this was only further magnified with the industrial activities that ramped up to support wartime activities in WWII. With that said, sulfate concentrations were largely curbed with the Clean Air Acts implemented in North America and Europe and consequently their cooling effects were quickly outweighed by the warming effects of greenhouse gas emissions.http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11639-climate-myths-the-cooling-after-1940-shows-co2-does-not-cause-warming.htmlNote also that there seem to have been some sampling and instrument errors introduced during the 1940s. This implies that the sharp decline in temperatures you reference didn't actually occur. Basically, human error led to us under-represent the actual ocean temperatures: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7195/full/nature06982.html

The reason I remained skeptical on the issue was due to this seeming inconstency. Now that it has been addressed, I will set my skepticism aside for now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 942
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I am a global warming skeptic. I think it is not only plausible to have doubts, but essential, especially if we wish to honour the memories of Bacon and Galileo and Newton. We should doubt the data ga

Lots of things.   I am pretty well convinced that there is a problem with CO2 levels and decreasing Ph of the oceans. This could be serious indeed.   I am also convinced, based on isotope abundan

Can you please post some kind of evidence - preferably new evidence - which made you come to this conclusion? And FOX News does not count. Instead of forcing the climate sciences to "prove" that clim

Posted Images

It might or it might not. At present, our emissions are far exceeding plants ability to adapt or increase the rate of uptake, and there're no signs of that changing in the foreseeable future, and certainly not on a timeline that will matter to us in the current century or likely even in the next several centuries.

Edited by iNow
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well beyond those questions, I have none at the moment. I am convinced at the moment, unless I can find some inconsistency within the data.

 

I appreciate interacting with someone like you who is willing to alter his views when new information is presented, who asks reasonable questions and appreciates / reviews the answers given. Thank you.

 

If you do happen to find data to overturn the conclusion that humans are having a strong climatic affect, perhaps I can join you in Stockholm when your prize is awarded? :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate interacting with someone like you who is willing to alter his views when new information is presented, who asks reasonable questions and appreciates / reviews the answers given. Thank you.

 

If you do happen to find data to overturn the conclusion that humans are having a strong climatic affect, perhaps I can join you in Stockholm when your prize is awarded? :)

I don't know if I would be the one to do so since I am not very strong within the climate sciences, but sure if I do. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

RE plant's as carbon sinks.

 

Note 1). Increasing plants has the unfortunate consequence of reducing the planet's albedo. This would also contribute to global warming.

 

Note 2). The current major carbon sink: the ocean, is doing a pretty good job of soaking up our emissions. (Still not "good enough" if you think that way.) However, this has the unintended consequence of reducing the ocean's PH. i.e. the ocean is increasing in acidity. This has major implications for many marine ecosystems, especially those that build thin calcium-carbonate shells that are vulnerable to dissolve with even slight changes in ocean acidity.

 

Bottom line, we have to reduce emissions.


RE carbon is anthropogenic.

 

Note 1) CO2 concentration is accelerating (MacFarling Meure et al. 2006). Obviously this would be expected given increasing emissions.

 

Note 2) O2: N2 is decreasing (Keeling et al., 1996). This indicates that O2 is being used up, which is consistent with a combustion process.

 

Note 3) Concentration of isotope 13C is increasing relative to 14C. 13C comes from terrestrial "fossil fuel" sources which are low in 14C because it radioactively decays. (Suess, 1955; Stuiver and Quay, 1981; Keeling et al, 1989; Levin and Kromer, 1997). Again, pointing the finger at anthropogenic source.

Edited by billiards
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well beyond those questions, I have none at the moment. I am convinced at the moment, unless I can find some inconsistency within the data.

What are you convinced of?

 

There are several sections to this meam.

 

1 Does the activity of humans add substantial amounts of CO2 to the air? I think it does, at least in comparison to the very low levels of CO2.

 

2 Does this cause warming? Absorption and emission of various wavelengths of infra red light are beyond my knowledge.

 

3 To what degree does it cause warming? This is a big question.

 

4 What are the consequences likely to be if it does warm up? This is an even bigger question.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you convinced of?

 

There are several sections to this meam.

 

....

4. What are the consequences likely to be if it does warm up? This is an even bigger question.

 

Without getting into specifics, we can still ask if the likely consequences will be significant ...or even unprecedented.

 

Science has only further confirmed this understanding, over the past few decades, but here is snippet from an Oxford Monograph on Paleoclimatology, Crowley & North [1991], for a geologic perspective.

 

A future greenhouse warming therefore represents a climate change of very significant levels. …

Furthermore, the rate of change of future global temperatures is comparable to or exceeds the greatest rates that occurred during the catastrophic deglaciations of the Pleistocene—the most extreme and abrupt well-documented climate change recorded in the geologic record. –page 252

 

If CO2 values reach several times the present level, the earth may therefore experience non-glacial level air temperatures and yet retain cold poles due to the inertial presence of the ice sheets. There is only one moderately well-documented example of this conjunction in the geologic record—the late Ordovician glaciation around 450 Ma. Since this glaciation occurred after the atmosphere warmed, the sequence of events is opposite of that which will occur in the future. –p. 254

 

Oxford Monographs on Geology and Geophysics no.16; Paleoclimatology; Crowley & North, 1991.

 

"The CO2 perturbation therefore represents a major climate change, which will occur at a rate comparable to or exceeding any known to have occurred in earth history. The magnitude and duration of the event is significant even on geologic scales. Since there are no completely satisfactory geologic analogs for the warm atmosphere-cold pole combination, the future climate may represent a unique climate realization in earth history." –p. 254

 

“The magnitude and duration of the event is significant even on geologic scales."

===

 

...without getting specific:

How has evolution previously responded to events comparable to this (contributor to the) Sixth Mass Extinction Event?

 

~

Edited by Essay
Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys want reasons why I am a skeptic, and claim the sun is the primary cause of change?

 

Try this paper out for size:

 

http://omicsgroup.org/journals/grand-minimum-of-the-total-solar-irradiance-leads-to-the-little-ice-age-2329-6755.1000113.pdf

 

Conclusion

 

Thus long-term cyclic variations of the total energy of solar
radiation entering the upper layers of the Earth’s atmosphere are the

main fundamental cause of corresponding climate variations. They
also control and totally determine the mechanism of cyclic alternations
of climate changes from warming to short - term Little Ice Ages and
long – term Big Glacial Periods and set corresponding time – scales for
practically all physical processes taking place in the system Sun – Earth.
All observed changes in climate on the Earth and the Solar system are
common cosmic events. The Sun is the main factor controlling the
climatic system and even non-significant long-term TSI variations
may have serious consequences for the climate of the Earth and other
planets of the Solar system. Quasi-bicentennial solar cycles are a key to
understanding cyclic changes in both the nature and the society.

 

 

An article a few years older than that paper:

 

http://en.ria.ru/russia/20070115/59078992.html

 

First four paragraphs:

 

ST. PETERSBURG, January 15 (RIA Novosti) - Rising levels of carbon dioxide and other gases emitted through human activities, believed by scientists to trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere, are an effect rather than the cause of global warming, a prominent Russian scientist said Monday.

 

Habibullo Abdusamatov, head of the space research laboratory at the St. Petersburg-based Pulkovo Observatory, said global warming stems from an increase in the sun's activity. His view contradicts the international scientific consensus that climate change is attributable to the emission of greenhouse gases generated by industrial activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

 

"Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity," Abdusamatov told RIA Novosti in an interview.

 

"It is no secret that when they go up, temperatures in the world's oceans trigger the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

 

 

I am not alone in this idea. Scientists from other nations aren't ostracized like a heretic, like western scientists are for falling outside of the consensus view.

 

How about this:

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

 

"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance,"

 


 

Without getting into specifics, we can still ask if the likely consequences will be significant ...or even unprecedented.

 

<snip>

 

There is little disagreement in the forcing in W/m^2 that CO2 and other greenhouse gasses cause, when their source energy for these forcings remains the same.

 

Haven't you ever wondered what happens in the upper atmosphere?

 

In the upper atmosphere, CO2 is not in competition with H2O, and CO2 mixes quite well at all levels. As CO2 increases, it actually reduced the solar forcing that makes to to the clouds and surface. This means there is less energy for the greenhouse effect to hold in.

 

All these alarmist claims are ignoring the cooling effect CO2 also exhibits. There are a very small handful of scientists that claim CO2 causes more cooling than warming. I disagree with the net cooling aspect, but to omit certain facts becomes a lie that these scientists are perpetrating on society.

Edited by Wild Cobra
Link to post
Share on other sites

The sun cannot account for the changes we are seeing nor the pace at which they are occurring.

 

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm

 

Further, the sun and the climate have been going in opposite directions these last 35 years, And the sun would result in a slight cooling trend right now... So, there's that.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites

The sun cannot account for the changes we are seeing nor the pace at which they are occurring.

 

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm

 

Further, the sun and the climate have been going in opposite directions these last 35 years, And the sun would result in a slight cooling trend right now... So, there's that.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm

 

Can you say "thermal inertia?"

Also, IIRC, he famously claimed that in 2014 there will be a sharp temperature drop which will lead to a new ice age. That is not consistent with existing data either.

 

I think you are reading that incorrectly. He made claims to after this current solar cycle, and predicts a little ice age around 2060.

 

In the abstract:

 

 

This will lead to a drop in the temperature and to the beginning of

the epoch of the Little Ice Age approximately since the year 2014.

--

The start of Grand

Maunder-type Minimum of the TSI of the quasibicentennial cycle is to be anticipated around the year 2043 ± 11 and the

beginning of the phase of deep cooling of the 19th Little Ice Age in the past 7,500 years in the year 2060 ± 11. Longterm

cyclic variations of the TSI are the main fundamental cause of the corresponding climate variations.

 

Now of course, the body of the material is more detailed:

 

The epoch of the new Little Ice Age is expected to begin around

the year 2014

after the maximum of solar cycle 24, and begin the phase

of deep cooling the Little Ice Age-in around the year 2060 ± 11

 

Edited by Wild Cobra
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is little disagreement in the forcing in W/m^2 that CO2 and other greenhouse gasses cause, when their source energy for these forcings remains the same.

 

Haven't you ever wondered what happens in the upper atmosphere?

 

In the upper atmosphere, CO2 is not in competition with H2O, and CO2 mixes quite well at all levels. As CO2 increases, it actually reduced the solar forcing that makes to to the clouds and surface. This means there is less energy for the greenhouse effect to hold in.

 

All these alarmist claims are ignoring the cooling effect CO2 also exhibits. There are a very small handful of scientists that claim CO2 causes more cooling than warming. I disagree with the net cooling aspect, but to omit certain facts becomes a lie that these scientists are perpetrating on society.

"...when their source energy ...remains the same?" Do you mean the sun?

===

 

You ask, "Haven't you ever wondered what happens in the upper atmosphere?"

 

Sure I've wondered "what happens in the upper atmosphere." But after I learned about this effect you mention, in several climate science classes, I’ve assumed it is widely known about within the climatology community, so I don't wonder much about that. Is this your first encounter with the idea that GHGs don’t always act the same?

 

This effect you mention is also one of the “proofs” or ‘lines of evidence’ supporting the AGW theory; since, as predicted, a surface warming with simultaneous cooling in the upper atmosphere (which could not occur due to solar changes, but would occur due to GHG effects) is being observed.

===

 

"Haven't you ever wondered what happens in the upper atmosphere?"

 

I wonder much more about the stability of our Temperate Zone, down here where its agriculture-supporting weather affects us, as both the Tropical and the Polar Zones expand due to a bit of extra, non-stop, greenhouse heating.

===

 

Have you ever wondered about the stability of our climate, or the planetary food chain?

 

~

Edited by Essay
Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you say "thermal inertia?"

Yes, I can. I can also use it in a sentence. "We have mountains of evidence across varied lines of research all converging and supporting the conclusion that solar activity cannot explain the rapid warming trend we are currently experiencing in our global climate, and this remains true even when self-proclaimed skeptics invoke the concept of thermal inertia to distract from the fact that their arguments are bunk and that they are entirely on the wrong side of history with this issue."

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you understand thermal inertia, then why the statement about the opposite direction for 35 years?

 

To me, you proved you do not understand.

 

Skeptics were the first to use thermal inertia, and we were laughed at. Funny how now, it is being used to explain the hiatus claim with CO2 by warmers.

Edited by Wild Cobra
Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys want reasons why I am a skeptic, and claim the sun is the primary cause of change?

 

Try this paper out for size:

 

 

 

http://omicsgroup.org/journals/grand-minimum-of-the-total-solar-irradiance-leads-to-the-little-ice-age-2329-6755.1000113.pdf

In this article there is the claim that the planet hasn't warmed since 1998. This is quite simply false. This recent decade is the warmest on record, but the rate of warming since 1998, the year of a very strong El Nino, has been slower than predicted, but its still warming. The five warmest years on record: 2010, 2005, 1998, 2003, and 2013. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/9/supplemental/page-1

 

 

An article a few years older than that paper:

 

http://en.ria.ru/russia/20070115/59078992.html

 

First four paragraphs:

 

 

I am not alone in this idea. Scientists from other nations aren't ostracized like a heretic, like western scientists are for falling outside of the consensus view.

I am sure you are aware that the CO@ levels lag the triggering event, then sustain the trend through the subsequent events. Overly simplified yes, but the whole lead lag spin has been addressed and verified. Looking at pieces rather than the whole is the only way to dismiss the "consensus" view.

 

From the reviews I have done, it seems to me the biggest source of "skeptical publication" has been the Bush administration, and the big oil companies, who employed numerous "experts" who also happened to be experts in the lack of evidence on the link between tobacco and cancer.

How about this:

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

 

 

 

There is little disagreement in the forcing in W/m^2 that CO2 and other greenhouse gasses cause, when their source energy for these forcings remains the same.

 

Haven't you ever wondered what happens in the upper atmosphere?

 

In the upper atmosphere, CO2 is not in competition with H2O, and CO2 mixes quite well at all levels. As CO2 increases, it actually reduced the solar forcing that makes to to the clouds and surface. This means there is less energy for the greenhouse effect to hold in.

 

All these alarmist claims are ignoring the cooling effect CO2 also exhibits. There are a very small handful of scientists that claim CO2 causes more cooling than warming. I disagree with the net cooling aspect, but to omit certain facts becomes a lie that these scientists are perpetrating on society.

Just a process observation: It seems to me you are trying to poke holes in the existing knowledge, not present a comprehensive big picture. This is not how science works. If you hypothesize that the last 50 years of accumulated knowledge, with several thousand publications from numerous nations are all part of a conspiracy to toe the line, then you need to provide pretty compelling evidence. When I look at the evidence against ACC or AGW, I see similarities to the attempt to use "intelligent design" to replace evolution. There are pieces that could be plausible, if one stretches their imagination, and ignores a whole lot of other well established principles. When one looks at the evidence in its entirety, its a landslide in the opposite direction though.

 

May I ask what your agenda is, and I don't mean that in a subversive way. What is the point you want people to see, or discuss? I think you are approaching the discussion with a battering ram, rather than open arms.

 

What is the common ground between the consensus position, and what you think is correct, then where do you diverge from that consensus position?

Edited by swansont
fix quote tags
Link to post
Share on other sites

Willie, I post articles that show reasons to remain skeptical, and you post others as evidence to reamain in denial.

 

Please stop being a denier of relavant information in science.

 

If anyone allows this to be a debate on who has the most research, then it is a populatrity contest and no longer science. There are easily more than 20 times more artciles supporting the idea than mankind has caused most of the tbserved climate change and warming. Correlation only implies cause. It does not prove cause in such complex systems.

 

I'll ask again. Can you explain what RE and GWP actually indicate, in your own words, rather than what they imply? It really should be a requirement for all debating, to understand some of these simple concepts involved in a thread topic, before posting.

 

A debate about science should be about science. Actually debating what happens at the chemistry or physics of material. If you don't understand the material, then you are simply taking a side, and using what isn't viewed any better than propaganda by others.

Edited by Wild Cobra
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please stop being a denier of relavant information in science.

 

Please explain why your outlier information should be considered relevant. You know, some actual science discussion. Willie71 cited some actual facts and all you can muster is a blanket dismissal of being a denier? Really?

 

You've mentioned thermal inertia and tried to use it as a bludgeon, but have not cited any actual detail about it. The paper you cite says it has a time lag of about 20 years, and also focuses on solar cycles 21, 22 and 23 in figures 3 and 5. But figure 7 shows a longer span, and ~1960 (cycle 19) is even higher, with the following cycle being smaller (smells a little like cherry picking). So we should have seen some cooling starting in the 1980's and lasting through the turn of the century. But that's not what we observe. iNow mentioned 35 years, but it's really more than 50.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Please explain why your outlier information should be considered relevant. You know, some actual science discussion. Willie71 cited some actual facts and all you can muster is a blanket dismissal of being a denier? Really?

 

I've lost track of what context "outlier" was used, and not going to go back to look. I do recall using it to say I believe in the under 5% possibility the consensus community allows for error in their judgment.

 

 

You've mentioned thermal inertia and tried to use it as a bludgeon, but have not cited any actual detail about it. The paper you cite says it has a time lag of about 20 years, and also focuses on solar cycles 21, 22 and 23 in figures 3 and 5. But figure 7 shows a longer span, and ~1960 (cycle 19) is even higher, with the following cycle being smaller (smells a little like cherry picking). So we should have seen some cooling starting in the 1980's and lasting through the turn of the century. But that's not what we observe. iNow mentioned 35 years, but it's really more than 50.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm

 

My complaint is that I have, for more than a decade, tied the thermal inertia of the ocean and sun together, and just been laughed at by everyone. Now there are recent papers that are assigning CO2 warming of the ocean and thermal inertia together. The 20 +/- 8 years is their assessment and may or may not be correct. I have revised my own assessments down to 55 from 70 years. I am completely open to being wrong on the time of equalization, but I will never agree there is no lag.

 

Bludgeon? Sure, for those laughing at me before. If CO2 can show lag with thermal inertia, why not the sun? To me, it's silly to think CO2 has any appreciable thermal inertia with the ocean when all its spectral lines are absorbed in the top microns of the waters. The ocean so effectively absorbs the solar shortwave, and deep enough for this longer period equalization than CO2.

 

Cooling starting in the 80's? Why? Because the graph shows a very minimal reduction of output? That reduction is nothing compared to increase starting at the beginning of the 20th century. Please stop believing what the bloggers at skeptical science say, and think about the science yourself. They are clearly agenda driven to protect the consensus. There is no one source of energy change that in such small changes can easily be seen in the climate. Too many other influences with radiative flux. We shouldn't forget extra energy the arctic ocean absorbs from the extra uncapped exposure. This is probably more than enough to counter the very small reduction is solar output since 1980.

 

 

 

If I find the time, I will experiment with shorter timespans, but 20 years does seem short to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've lost track of what context "outlier" was used, and not going to go back to look. I do recall using it to say I believe in the under 5% possibility the consensus community allows for error in their judgment.

Outlier, as in disagrees with the vast majority.

 

My complaint is that I have, for more than a decade, tied the thermal inertia of the ocean and sun together, and just been laughed at by everyone. Now there are recent papers that are assigning CO2 warming of the ocean and thermal inertia together. The 20 +/- 8 years is their assessment and may or may not be correct. I have revised my own assessments down to 55 from 70 years. I am completely open to being wrong on the time of equalization, but I will never agree there is no lag.

The thermal lag of the sun is about 8 minutes. That is, if the solar output changes, we will see it about 8 minutes later. Why would the ocean warm differently from a warmer atmosphere that comes from solar heating vs one that comes from CO2 heating?

 

As far as your estimates go, unless you've shown how you arrive at them, why should anyone give them any notice at all?

 

Bludgeon? Sure, for those laughing at me before. If CO2 can show lag with thermal inertia, why not the sun? To me, it's silly to think CO2 has any appreciable thermal inertia with the ocean when all its spectral lines are absorbed in the top microns of the waters. The ocean so effectively absorbs the solar shortwave, and deep enough for this longer period equalization than CO2.

 

Cooling starting in the 80's? Why? Because the graph shows a very minimal reduction of output? That reduction is nothing compared to increase starting at the beginning of the 20th century. Please stop believing what the bloggers at skeptical science say, and think about the science yourself. They are clearly agenda driven to protect the consensus. There is no one source of energy change that in such small changes can easily be seen in the climate. Too many other influences with radiative flux. We shouldn't forget extra energy the arctic ocean absorbs from the extra uncapped exposure. This is probably more than enough to counter the very small reduction is solar output since 1980.

That contradicts your claim that solar is the primary driver of climate change. If we are heating up when the solar output has gone down (or even leveled off) after the thermal lag period has elapsed, then something else is driving that change.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The thermal lag of the sun is about 8 minutes. That is, if the solar output changes, we will see it about 8 minutes later. Why would the ocean warm differently from a warmer atmosphere that comes from solar heating vs one that comes from CO2 heating?

 

So you didn't read Wild Cobra's bit where he explained that then,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Willie, I post articles that show reasons to remain skeptical, and you post others as evidence to reamain in denial.

 

Please stop being a denier of relavant information in science.

When you provide real science, and I claim its not real, then I am a denier. Hasn't happened yet.

 

If anyone allows this to be a debate on who has the most research, then it is a populatrity contest and no longer science. There are easily more than 20 times more artciles supporting the idea than mankind has caused most of the tbserved climate change and warming. Correlation only implies cause. It does not prove cause in such complex systems.

There is a much simpler reason why there is a much larger number of studies supporting AGW and ACC.

 

I'll ask again. Can you explain what RE and GWP actually indicate, in your own words, rather than what they imply? It really should be a requirement for all debating, to understand some of these simple concepts involved in a thread topic, before posting.

Mere distraction from discussing the actual topic, which is skepticism, and the use of pseudoscience to support one's claims.

 

A debate about science should be about science. Actually debating what happens at the chemistry or physics of material. If you don't understand the material, then you are simply taking a side, and using what isn't viewed any better than propaganda by others.

I am sure that you are aware that climate science is about probabilities in complex system, much like psychology. What you are stating about chemistry and physics is true, but about as useful as using chemistry to predict brain processes that result in behaviour. In reality, the more variables one knows, the better the predictions. When I did risk assessment for court, I was able to produce a 80% accurate prediction of future offending. Considering the complexity of human interactions, that is about as good as it gets. Its the same with climate, scientists are using probabilities to predict what is likely to happen, based on what has been measured historically, and what is known about the correlations and causations of previous climate shifts.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So you didn't read Wild Cobra's bit where he explained that then,

 

 

I read it. "The ocean so effectively absorbs the solar shortwave, and deep enough for this longer period equalization than CO2." is an unquantified claim, not an explanation. It's also contradictory. Something that is an effective absorber would not have a deep penetration.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.