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.

 

Climate-change activists call for tax policies to discourage childbirth

page: 3
16
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2016 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn


CO2 is opaque to IR radiation.

Sorry, but I simply can't let that go unanswered. No, it is not.

Carbon dioxide is 'opaque' (really not the correct terminology, but kinda accurate) to three specific frequencies, one of which is in the theoretical black-body radiation spectra of the earth.

Source: www.middlebury.net...

Lasers use carbon dioxide as a lasing material because it is the cheapest, most readily-available material that has a tight absorption spectra. If it did not have such specific absorption frequencies, carbon dioxide lasers would not work. The chart above is not the best around because it is coarsely quantized. I just didn't have time to search for a better one. Look it up in a chemistry textbook and those bars are replaced by sharp spikes. Any frequencies of radiation not corresponding to the absorption spectra are not affected by carbon dioxide... and that includes the vast majority of the earth's outgoing radiation.

TheRedneck

edit on 8/27/2016 by TheRedneck because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 27 2016 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

You know if they found another planet they would turn the whole thing into a national park so no one could disturb it. So they could go on vacation to it to the unspoiled wilderness and then return back to their ivory towers.

"OMG have you been to Proxima B, it is sooo much better than earth, so much nature and its organic. It's so nice that humans have not spoiled the land with their pollution and urban sprawl. Why can't we just get along with nature. We should make it a park"

"On this new planet there will be no disturbing the nature, this includes drilling, mining, farming, land clearing, hunting, fishing, dams, levees, locks, bridges, dredging, tunnels and all construction activity will be severely regulated"



posted on Aug, 27 2016 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: jellyrev

The problem with that is that, in my experience anyway, those who claim to care so much about nature, the climate, the planet, etc. are the ones who couldn't spend a single night in nature without crying about how terrible it is. They think nature is fawns playing with bunnies by a clear babbling brook in a manicured forest. Heck, most of them would be crying about the wild grass not being mowed...

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 27 2016 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

No it isn't? Wow.

www.math.umn.edu...



posted on Aug, 27 2016 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Carbon dioxide is 'opaque' (really not the correct terminology, but kinda accurate) to three specific frequencies, one of which is in the theoretical black-body radiation spectra of the earth.

Point well-made RedNeck. I regard you as one of the most knowledgeable people on this forum when it comes climate science and physics in general.

Here is another graph showing the very sparse absorption spectra of CO2 compared to water vapour (H2O). Taken from Kauffman 2004, Journal of Chemical Education.



We can see then that the CO2 contribution is a trivial one. By far and away the chief contributor to the greenhouse effect is water vapour, which is about 25 times more abundant than CO2 and whose greenhouse potency is stronger than that of CO2 as well. It seems apparent that CO2’s effects are utterly overwhelmed by those of water vapour.



posted on Aug, 27 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Nope. Read that paper; it shows carbon dioxide operation centered in a narrow band around 15 micrometers wavelength. Water vapor spectra is much, much broader. Combine the two and it can be difficult to pick out the carbon dioxide contribution.

That paper also assumes a linear response with respect to concentration (which has been proven incorrect), but that's a little off-topic. Look at the equation for energy starting on page 21.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 27 2016 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Nathan-D

Nice graph! I'm on my tablet, so it can be difficult to handle a lot of graphics.

And thank you for the compliment.


TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 27 2016 @ 06:01 PM
link   
They evidently don't realize that in many of the "richer nations" the birthrate is already below replacement levels. The population is increasing in those nations due to immigration only.

The poor countries are the ones who are producing huge amounts of people, and taxing them seems like a dick move.

Basically the global population is not increasing due to the rich nations, this is about control and money.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join