It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Let's Get Physical About Climate Change

page: 8
16
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 12:44 AM
link   
a reply to: glend

Point is once its trapped in 100% of the outgoing radiation within its absorption lines there is no more energy remaining for it to trap (saturation occurs).

That makes zero sense.

The more CO2 there is, the more energy is re-emitted back to the surface, where it heats things up. CO2 is not the only molecule in the atmosphere which absorbs heat. But it does have an affinity for infrared. Sometimes it transfers that energy to other molecules through conductive transfer, sometimes not.

An energetic CO2 molecule bumps into a not so energetic O2 molecule. The O2 molecule has absorbed energy from the CO2 molecule (it gets "warmer") which now can absorb more infrared energy. Perhaps emitted from the surface, perhaps emitted from another CO2 molecule. Energy which it can transfer to another molecule or re-emit once again.

And this is without considering the effects of reduced density with altitude. The "saturation" claim is specious.

edit on 8/30/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 01:02 AM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared

Just have two questions. Let's assume for a moment that climate change is due to human based carbon emissions. Oil, gas, etc. We need to address this. Now we can't do this transition all at once it's just too expensive. We have to slowly or moderately move from fossil fuels to other forms (solar, wind,etc). Fair enough.

But even at a moderate pace we are years, even decades out from a complete transition. Cars, plants, homes, etc. This will all take time to switch out. In the meantime as we are switching out the harmful stuff is still going on and it might be overtime we become neutral. Meaning at some point in time we have changed out enough so that the bad stuff still going on has been offset, yet enough has been changed out so it's not still having negative effect.

Question one. That solution to me we works but only if population held steady as is. As the population keeps growing and much of the replacement technology might not be affordable to people as we need more cars, more houses, more everything those people are going on the old bad technology. This makes the time to switch over even longer. Seems to me this is a real serious problem. Mainly because if we are to believe the claims we don't have much time left . Accounting for expanding population, limited time available, and quote honestly not a single workable solution to make the required change over in the limited time stated, how's that work?

Question two..say we pull off the impossible on a global level. We over come all obstacles and we hit that magic carbon neutral scenario. Great. Now we still have damage. Is the plan here to roll the dice and hope the earth naturally repairs existing damage? Large phase 2 repair? What.

If we accept the problem as defined I haven't seen a single workable, logical , feasible plan to address the problem as defined given all obstacles and constraints. I'm asking for someone to amaze me.
edit on 30-8-2015 by Reallyfolks because: Spelling



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 01:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

No, CO2 can only absorb certain frequencies and its already blocked 100% of the energy at those frequencies from being reflected back into space so adding CO2 into the mix does nothing. Another absorption graph sourced from NASA also shows 100% absorption for CO2 frequencies.

That explains the hiatus from warming for last 15 years quite nicely.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 01:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Reallyfolks




Meaning at some point in time we have changed out enough so that the bad stuff still going on has been offset, yet enough has been changed out so it's not still having negative effect.

Meaning that the level and rate of change are mitigated. No point in attempting to do that? Just roll over, belly up? We can't completely fix it so...carry on with the status quo!


If we accept the problem as defined I haven't seen a single workable, logical , feasible plan to address the problem as defined given all obstacles and constraints. I'm asking for someone to amaze me.
Sorry. No magic wand. Just gradual progress.

edit on 8/30/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 01:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Reallyfolks




Meaning at some point in time we have changed out enough so that the bad stuff still going on has been offset, yet enough has been changed out so it's not still having negative effect.

Meaning that the level and rate of change are mitigated. No point in attempting to do that? Just roll over, belly up? We can't completely fix it so...carry on with the status quo!


If we accept the problem as defined I haven't seen a single workable, logical , feasible plan to address the problem as defined given all obstacles and constraints. I'm asking for someone to amaze me.
Sorry. No magic wand. Just gradual progress.


There is a difference between rolling over and having a workable solution to a problem like this especially given time constraints. Now that is a standard response, a false one at that, given by people who don't honestly have a solution given the reality of our obstacles, specifically the little amount of time that is being stated. Care to answer these issues or are you comfortable with " well what do you want to do roll over" no if this is a problem as defined we have very real obstacles and not much time. What I want is to see someone lay out a workable solution before time runs out. If you can't then let someone try.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 01:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Reallyfolks
The solution to the problem of the rate of increase of global temperatures is a reduction in carbon emissions . The implementation of that is another matter but steps such as those specified by the recent EPA requirements are steps in the right direction.

Can we stop the use of fossil fuels, right now? Of course not. No one says we can. Can we work to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels? Can we reduce the amount of carbon being released? Yes. And we are doing so.

I don't know what you mean by "not much time". A great deal of damage has been done but I know of no deadline that we are working against. Things will be progressively worse for a while no matter what we do. So if you're looking at the short term, we might as well roll over. However, we do have the ability have a significant effect on the longer term prospects and, as I said, the first steps in that direction are being made (not without a good deal of bitching by some, btw). Steps. One after another. No magic wand. No magic solution at all. Just work. And for some, a reduction in profits.




edit on 8/30/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 01:31 AM
link   
a reply to: glend

That is a false claim(again). Are you trying to be intellectually dishonest here?

There has been no hiatus in warming over the past 15 years.....



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 01:40 AM
link   
a reply to: glend



No, CO2 can only absorb certain frequencies and its already blocked 100% of the energy at those frequencies from being reflected back into space so adding CO2 into the mix does nothing.

Your link does not work. Does it show satellite data of no infrared emissions from Earth in the CO2 absorption bands? Because, if it did, it would demonstrate your point.

So, you don't understand the concept of re-emission at all.
edit on 8/30/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 01:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Reallyfolks
The solution to the problem of the rate of increase of global temperatures is a reduction in carbon emissions . The implementation of that is another matter but steps such as those specified by the recent EPA requirements are steps in the right direction.

Can we stop the use of fossil fuels, right now? Of course not. No one says we can. Can we work to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels? Can we reduce the amount of carbon being released? Yes. And we are doing so.

I don't know what you mean by "not much time". A great deal of damage has been done but I know of no deadline that we are working against. Things will be progressively worse for a while no matter what we do. So if you're looking at the short term, we might as well roll over. However, we do have the ability have a significant effect on the longer term prospects and, as I said, the first steps in that direction are being made (not without a good deal of bitching by some, btw). Steps. One after another. No magic wand. No magic solution at all. Just work. And for some, a reduction in profits.





Last week on ats there was an article posted by someone named I think Michael Mann who seems to be well respected in climate change research stating we have almost reached the point of no return on climate change. That's what I mean by little time.

So If our point of no return is 2 years out a 15, 10, or 5 year plan will not cut it. Just won't. So if the point of no return is 2 years out then we need a 2 year plan. One that accounts and over comes all obstacles . Also the plan cannot just be based in the us, climate is global so the plan must be a workable, global plan, implementied before we hit the point of no return. So what is that plan? If you don't know, cool. Say you don't know and let someone else give it a shot. But if the problem is as defined, has time limits, has obstacles, needs to be global. I have yet to see a solution presented.
edit on 30-8-2015 by Reallyfolks because: Spelling



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 01:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Reallyfolks



That's what I mean by little time.
Sorry, that's a bit vague. As far as "point of no return" goes, in some sense we passed that a while back.


So what is that plan? If you don't know, cool.
There is no global plan and likely never will be, human nature being what it is.


But if the problem is as defined, has time limits, has obstacles, needs to be global. I have yet to see a solution presented.
I know of no time limits. There are plenty of obstacles. I don't know if it needs to be global to at least reduce the overall impact, there are only a few major players. I stated the solution.

You definitely seem to be saying there's no point in trying.

edit on 8/30/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:03 AM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared
Geoengineering ?



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:04 AM
link   
a reply to: 2giveup

Avacado?



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

No, but satellite data must exist somewhere, did find an interesting comment from an infrered astronomer....



I'’m a professional infrared astronomer who spent his life trying to observe space through the atmosphere’s back-radiation that the environmental activists claim is caused by CO2 and guess what? In all the bands that are responsible for back radiation in the brightness temperatures (color temperatures) related to earth’s surface temperature (between 9 microns and 13 microns for temps of 220K to 320 K) there is no absorption of radiation by CO2 at all. In all the bands between 9 and 9.5 there is mild absorption by H2O, from 9.5 to 10 microns (300 K) the atmosphere is perfectly clear except around 9.6 is a big ozone band that the warmists never mention for some reason. From 10 to 13 microns there is more absorption by H2O. Starting at 13 we get CO2 absorption but that wavelength corresponds to temperatures below even that of the south pole. Nowhere from 9 to 13 microns do we see appreciable absorption bands of CO2. This means the greenhouse effect is way over 95% caused by water vapor and probably less than 3% from CO2. I would say even ozone is more important due to the 9.6 band, but it’s so high in the atmosphere that it probably serves more to radiate heat into space than for back-radiation to the surface. The whole theory of a CO2 greenhouse effect is wrong yet the ignorant masses in academia have gone to great lengths trying to prove it with one lie and false study after another, mainly because the people pushing the global warming hoax are funded by the government who needs to report what it does to the IPCC to further their “cause”. I’m retired so I don’t need to keep my mouth shut anymore. Kept my mouth shut for 40 years, now I will tell you, not one single IR astronomer gives a rats arse about CO2. Just to let you know how stupid the global warming activists are, I’ve been to the south pole 3 times and even there, where the water vapor is under 0.2 mm precipitable, it’s still the H2O that is the main concern in our field and nobody even talks about CO2 because CO2 doesn’t absorb or radiate in the portion of the spectrum corresponding with earth’s surface temps of 220 to 320 K. Not at all. Therefore, for Earth as a black body radiator IT’S THE WATER VAPOR STUPID and not the CO2
[url=https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/ir-expert-speaks-out-after-40-years-of-silence-its-the-water-vapor-stupid-and-not-the-co2/]link[/u rl]



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Reallyfolks



That's what I mean by little time.
Sorry, that's a bit vague. As far as "point of no return" goes, in some sense we passed that a while back.


So what is that plan? If you don't know, cool.
There is no global plan and likely never will be, human nature being what it is.


But if the problem is as defined, has time limits, has obstacles, needs to be global. I have yet to see a solution presented.
I know of no time limits. There are plenty of obstacles. I don't know if it needs to be global to at least reduce the overall impact, there are only a few major players. I stated the solution.

You definitely seem to be saying there's no point in trying.


We passed the point of no return some while back? If there's no return what are we doing or even solving?


Climate is global, there is no global plan and likely never will be? What solution will ever work than on a global problem if there is no global plan? Really makes absolutely no sense, problem is global, no global plan, we can't solve the problem. You find this odd or is it just me?

I'm saying if we passed the point of no return, we can't solve a global problem on a global level. What exactly are we trying to do? Feel better about it as catastrophe hits? Really. This makes sense how? We can't fix it , it will be catastrophic, well feel better, but we passed the point of no return and have no plan to solve the global problem.

Well then we should run forward with current ideas but we won't solve the problem? Is that the best offer there is? Ok. Tell me this isn't what the plan of action is.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage u must not like climate control tech. This September is the point of no return for this climate crisis. Avocado s won't help. New to this site .first post I get an intellectual idiot response . Data posted shows sun cooling yet all planet temp. Data shows all planets in system getting hotter.co2 is not the problem it's magnetic and uv problem. Plus who is to say data is accurate.



edit on 30-8-2015 by 2giveup because: typo



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:12 AM
link   
a reply to: jrod



That is a false claim(again). Are you trying to be intellectually dishonest here?

There has been no hiatus in warming over the past 15 years....


That comment I made was in relation to a previous comment in which I added that it was sourced from RSS data that has not been fudged with any IPCC variations, Actually Hiatus is 18 years.

link



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:17 AM
link   
a reply to: glend



No, but satellite data must exist somewhere

Yes, it does. Have you looked for it?


As for the claims of that self proclaimed "retired professional astronomer", you won't find anyone who says that water vapor is not a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. The thing is, the amount of water vapor content in the atmosphere is driven by temperature, CO2 is not. The higher the temperature, the more water vapor the atmosphere can carry. So, if CO2 increases temperatures a bit, there is a feedback effect. That's the point.

You really need to work on your linking skills.





edit on 8/30/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/30/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 03:09 AM
link   
I am not sure if this has been brought to this thread or any other thread regarding climate change.

This video is one, like others of it's kind, that makes me feel like there is no hope.

What action can we take globally, quickly, to make a way for us to survive this crisis?

If we all stop driving cars will that help us? Do we have the time?

What if everyone planted a tree?

What do we do?

Methane has been an issue that has been brought to ATS over the past few years with a lot of people denying there is an issue.

Reminds me of what Edgar Cayce said about Earth changes involving the Arctic.




The earth will be broken up in many places. The early part will see a change in the physical aspect of the west coast of America. There will be open waters appear in the northern portions of Greenland.



There will be upheavals in the Arctic and in the Antarctic that will make for the eruption of volcanoes in the torrid areas, and there will then be the shifting of the poles so that where there have been those of a frigid or semi-tropical will become the more tropical, and moss and fern will grow.
www.bibliotecapleyades.net...
edit on 30-8-2015 by MamaJ because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 03:13 AM
link   
a reply to: MamaJ



What action can we take globally, quickly, to make a way for us to survive this crisis?
Globally, nothing happens quickly. But I don't know if crisis is the right word.


If we all stop driving cars will that help us?
Cars powered by petroleum, yes. A bit.


What if everyone planted a tree?
Not so much for warming, but aesthetically nice.



What do we do?
Stop denying it and/or ignoring it. Fire your representatives if they don't support initiatives to reduce carbon emissions. For starters.



Reminds me of what Edgar Cayce said about Earth changes involving the Arctic.
Not me.








edit on 8/30/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 03:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Welp.... you see that its a problem (climate) but would rather argue the cause instead of really doing anything about it. We don't have time to worry with the cause. We need to take all measures into consideration and focus on what we have control over to see if that will even work to reduce the warming.

Most people don't understand the seriousness the melting and methane present.

There is nothing we can do at this point because people believe we should acknowledge it's a problem while lowering emissions. That's not going to work. There isn't enough time for calling representatives either. If they don't already have a plan for us then we need to be rallying every day in their faces instead of working. They would feel the effects of that within a few days.

A world plan is what we need quick or we will likely all be migrating within 10 years if we are alive and able.

Politicians are focusing on the wrong issues. The main issue facing the human race is methane and oceans rising. It's real doom.

ETA: Have you watched the film I provided? All the hype surrounding Sept. 23..... that video was published on Sept. 23.

edit on 30-8-2015 by MamaJ because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join