FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Climate Change 'The Proof is Out There'
Climate Change 'The Proof is Out There'
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *atEvolution OP Couple 31 weeks ago
atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke |
I don't suppose anyone can deny climate change as a real and very present and observable phenomenon now.
Scotland, the latest to get it sums all shockingly wrong. But I doubt there is a nation on Earth that is getting it right in any shape or form whatsoever.
We and a few friends were sat at home the other week discussing just how depressing the outlook really is. We could have harped on for a week, but finally got around to thinking . . . as people, what could we do. We quickly realised 'not much'.
So. we then start talking about prepping for the coming storm. Food Water Armoury to fend off the Zombies, that kind of stuff.
The conversation has stayed with us all and one friend said 'I have put extra food in my cupboard this week'.
All a bit Cold War, but practical, do you think?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't suppose anyone can deny climate change as a real and very present and observable phenomenon now.
Scotland, the latest to get it sums all shockingly wrong. But I doubt there is a nation on Earth that is getting it right in any shape or form whatsoever.
We and a few friends were sat at home the other week discussing just how depressing the outlook really is. We could have harped on for a week, but finally got around to thinking . . . as people, what could we do. We quickly realised 'not much'.
So. we then start talking about prepping for the coming storm. Food Water Armoury to fend off the Zombies, that kind of stuff.
The conversation has stayed with us all and one friend said 'I have put extra food in my cupboard this week'.
All a bit Cold War, but practical, do you think?
"
If we all did the small amount of "no much". We'd be okay. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't suppose anyone can deny climate change as a real and very present and observable phenomenon now.
Scotland, the latest to get it sums all shockingly wrong. But I doubt there is a nation on Earth that is getting it right in any shape or form whatsoever.
We and a few friends were sat at home the other week discussing just how depressing the outlook really is. We could have harped on for a week, but finally got around to thinking . . . as people, what could we do. We quickly realised 'not much'.
So. we then start talking about prepping for the coming storm. Food Water Armoury to fend off the Zombies, that kind of stuff.
The conversation has stayed with us all and one friend said 'I have put extra food in my cupboard this week'.
All a bit Cold War, but practical, do you think?
If we all did the small amount of "no much". We'd be okay. "
*Not much |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
If we all did the small amount of "no much". We'd be okay.
Doing that already, as are millions of others, but it's still getting worse."
Good to know.
The problem is solvable, many more millions aren't doing their part. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atEvolution OP Couple 31 weeks ago
atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke |
"Search YouTube for "Climate: The Movie" for an interesting alternative point of view."
Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth) is a good example of a fake documentary. To some extent it is a reboot of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" ...
or
“Climate the Movie” portrays today's climate denier agenda by rehashing the same old fossil fuel talking points and trolling the left.
I would rather look out of my window and watch live News to see what the truth is.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Search YouTube for "Climate: The Movie" for an interesting alternative point of view."
Every point of misinformation in this has been thoroughly debunked scientifically. Science feedback is a good website that details this.
Interesting though you did call it "alternative point of view", which it is, as in, it's an alternative to reality.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
If we all did the small amount of "no much". We'd be okay.
Doing that already, as are millions of others, but it's still getting worse.
Good to know.
The problem is solvable, many more millions aren't doing their part."
Some things are inherently within the scope of our representatives to be able and responsible, to manage and change, on our behalf. It doesn't mean that individual people can do nothing, just that fundamental, substantial changes, especially under duress, are likely to be within the total responsibility of states. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
If we all did the small amount of "no much". We'd be okay.
Doing that already, as are millions of others, but it's still getting worse.
Good to know.
The problem is solvable, many more millions aren't doing their part.
Some things are inherently within the scope of our representatives to be able and responsible, to manage and change, on our behalf. It doesn't mean that individual people can do nothing, just that fundamental, substantial changes, especially under duress, are likely to be within the total responsibility of states. "
Voting responsibility is a part of the things we can be doing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *appyPandaMan 30 weeks ago
Kilkenny, but Dublin is more fun |
The depressing reality is that anthropogenic climate change isn't THE problem, just like ecological degradation, ocean acidification, soil erosion, pollution of plastics and other chemicals and major chemical imbalance in the biosphere aren't. They're merely symptoms of THE problem: human overshoot and that's far harder to deal with (and wouldn't trust the self serving crooks at the top of our political systems to deal with that.
Best prepare for a world drastically different, and back to a far more simpler (in terms of complexity, even if much more difficult) way of life.
Complex hierarchical civilisation has a tendency to fall apart under its own weight after it reaches a certain point (like what's happened so many times before with previous societies that grew too complex, top heavy and resource, energy and manpower hungry), and we'd likely have been due a large scale societal collapse regardless of what's happening above the human bubble we imagined around ourselves. This one will be different as the world after the collapse will be radically different to the world complex civilisation dependent on agriculture was born from.
Focus on small scale resilient communities that were the epitome of the human societies before they got corrupted. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 30 weeks ago
|
All well say is there is a clear reason all focus is on 'climate' as opposed to 'environment'.
We need to produce less meat so wealthy vested interests can sell us processed seed and bug alternatives. We need to buy expensive technologies to try and cool the planet despite not treating human waste properly. We need to knock down perfectly fine buildings to build crappy new builds on the green belt.
It's all bollox until folk focus on environment. The key thing is addressing the environment is actually feasible, but it's not profitable. Sorry for the rant but theres too many folk out there brainwashed who cannot fathom a point if mass media dont spell it oit to them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
No matter what we do in the uk it will do nothing until China gets on board, the uk has already reduced its carbon footprint and everything we have done has been wiped off the score sheet many times over. We are too small to make any difference, and noone cares about us enough to follow along. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It is a natural process.
"
This is not a natural process. We're increasing the amount of CO3 and other greenhouse gasses that absorb sunlight and reradiated it as heat. The cumulative effect is changing the climate of the planet.
"
I like this quote, we are not destroying the planet, only ourselves, what we can do to make it easier is to reduce the pollution levels."
The planet will survive, but we might make it uninhabitable. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No matter what we do in the uk it will do nothing until China gets on board, the uk has already reduced its carbon footprint and everything we have done has been wiped off the score sheet many times over. We are too small to make any difference, and noone cares about us enough to follow along."
The UK is close to China for CO2 emissions per head of population. This is a global issue that we all need to address. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It is a natural process.
This is not a natural process. We're increasing the amount of CO3 and other greenhouse gasses that absorb sunlight and reradiated it as heat. The cumulative effect is changing the climate of the planet.
I like this quote, we are not destroying the planet, only ourselves, what we can do to make it easier is to reduce the pollution levels.
The planet will survive, but we might make it uninhabitable."
*CO2 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No matter what we do in the uk it will do nothing until China gets on board, the uk has already reduced its carbon footprint and everything we have done has been wiped off the score sheet many times over. We are too small to make any difference, and noone cares about us enough to follow along.
The UK is close to China for CO2 emissions per head of population. This is a global issue that we all need to address."
And their population is way bigger which is why anything we do is completely undone seeing as they are increasing rather than reducing co2. All were doing it's making life worse in the uk for absolutely no positive gain. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No matter what we do in the uk it will do nothing until China gets on board, the uk has already reduced its carbon footprint and everything we have done has been wiped off the score sheet many times over. We are too small to make any difference, and noone cares about us enough to follow along.
The UK is close to China for CO2 emissions per head of population. This is a global issue that we all need to address.
And their population is way bigger which is why anything we do is completely undone seeing as they are increasing rather than reducing co2. All were doing it's making life worse in the uk for absolutely no positive gain."
Okay, so the point of showing that CO2 emissions per head of population is supposed to show that we all need to do our part.
Secondly, the quicker we can transition away from externally priced fuel, the better for the UK, the better for energy users.
Thirdly, reduced energy use through efficiencies will save us all money.
Fourthly, the "look at china" excuse for continued support of oil company profits over the environment and over energy independence and fairly priced energy, is an extremely poor reason.
Filthy, china is one of the world leaders on green energy.
Sixthly, there is nothing to gain by lagging being the rest of the world.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Is china's co2 output increasing faster than ours is decreasing ?
Per head of population, no.
And as a country .. is China the countries output increasing at a faster rate than all of the UK's"
I'll be honest, there are no arbitrary questions that you can ask me that will make me think that the UK shouldn't do what it can to tackle climate change.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Looks like you may need to update your figures too on the per capita argument. https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/"
I don't think you read this. These figures show that the UK is not far behind China per head of population. Which is what I had said. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Looks like you may need to update your figures too on the per capita argument. https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/
I don't think you read this. These figures show that the UK is not far behind China per head of population. Which is what I had said. "
And it's a chunk ahead, and there's a while lot more of them hence why it's undoing anything we do. So no point in the uk rushing to destroy quality of life. Life's short enjoy it .. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Looks like you may need to update your figures too on the per capita argument. https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/
I don't think you read this. These figures show that the UK is not far behind China per head of population. Which is what I had said.
And it's a chunk ahead, and there's a while lot more of them hence why it's undoing anything we do. So no point in the uk rushing to destroy quality of life. Life's short enjoy it .."
Hold on, you were saying we shouldn't do anything about climate change, now you're saying we should? "no point in the uk rushing to destroy quality of life". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"More the avoiding the destruction of industry, prosperity and jobs.
"
Why would tackling climate change have a negative impact on industry, prosperity and jobs?
Surely cheaper energy would be good for prosperity, and more jobs in the green energy sector would mean, well, more jobs.
"
Just stop being a big worry wart, get yourself a nice V8 convertable and enjoy the impending south of france climate."
They do say that ignorance is bliss, but once you have a rudimentary understanding of climate science. You can't un-learn it.
Oh, and let's keep the chat to the forum instead of sending silly DMs. Cheers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Dm was an innocent mistake, and I said exactly as I did in the forum.
End of the day, the uk is reducingnits co2, and any gains made are bing undone by other countries, we are far from falling behind by no need to cripple ourselves further with a race to the bottom. If you really want to make a difference maybe go and block some roads in China.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Dm was an innocent mistake, and I said exactly as I did in the forum.
End of the day, the uk is reducingnits co2, and any gains made are bing undone by other countries, we are far from falling behind by no need to cripple ourselves further with a race to the bottom. If you really want to make a difference maybe go and block some roads in China.. "
Why do you think that the UK tackling climate change is "a race to the bottom?" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There are populations who regularly now live during summer in temps of 40c
Met Office - 22 July 2050 will be 43deg based on UK climate predictions "
They can't even predict the next week let alone 30 years time  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There are populations who regularly now live during summer in temps of 40c
Met Office - 22 July 2050 will be 43deg based on UK climate predictions "
Sounds unbelievable, but when I discovered countries around the equator have been living in such conditions that's when I began to listen. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They do say that ignorance is bliss, but once you have a rudimentary understanding of climate science. You can't un-learn it."
Apparently you can. You keep posting that the mechanism for climate change is "CO2 and other greenhouse gasses that absorb sunlight and reradiate it as heat", despite being told several times that that's wrong.
Unless your claim is that you only have a rudimentary understanding of the issue, in which case you are correct. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They do say that ignorance is bliss, but once you have a rudimentary understanding of climate science. You can't un-learn it.
Apparently you can. You keep posting that the mechanism for climate change is "CO2 and other greenhouse gasses that absorb sunlight and reradiate it as heat", despite being told several times that that's wrong."
I haven't been told that's wrong. Because it's not wrong.
"
Unless your claim is that you only have a rudimentary understanding of the issue, in which case you are correct."
I'm not making any claims. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I think when you see the oil giants bribing our politicians, red or blue we know we are in trouble.
I believe that huge sway to the Green party would wake a few of these political muppets up.
Forget the Left / Right political agenda both sides are bought and paid for.
Debating on if climate change is really happening is futile let's just say it is as worse case scenario & act accordingly
Because if climate change is real we are all fucked.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atEvolution OP Couple 29 weeks ago
atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke |
"They do say that ignorance is bliss, but once you have a rudimentary understanding of climate science. You can't un-learn it.
Apparently you can. You keep posting that the mechanism for climate change is "CO2 and other greenhouse gasses that absorb sunlight and reradiate it as heat", despite being told several times that that's wrong.
Unless your claim is that you only have a rudimentary understanding of the issue, in which case you are correct."
CO2 produced by human activities is the largest contributor to global warming. By 2020, its concentration in the atmosphere had risen to 48% above its pre-industrial level (before 1750).
Other greenhouse gases are emitted by human activities in smaller quantities. Methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, but has a shorter atmospheric lifetime. Nitrous oxide, like CO2, is a long-lived greenhouse gas that accumulates in the atmosphere over decades to centuries. Non-greenhouse gas pollutants, including aerosols like soot, have different warming and cooling effects and are also associated with other issues such as poor air quality.
Natural causes, such as changes in solar radiation or volcanic activity are estimated to have contributed less than plus or minus 0.1°C to total warming between 1890 and 2010. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't suppose anyone can deny climate change as a real and very present and observable phenomenon now.
Scotland, the latest to get it sums all shockingly wrong. But I doubt there is a nation on Earth that is getting it right in any shape or form whatsoever.
We and a few friends were sat at home the other week discussing just how depressing the outlook really is. We could have harped on for a week, but finally got around to thinking . . . as people, what could we do. We quickly realised 'not much'.
So. we then start talking about prepping for the coming storm. Food Water Armoury to fend off the Zombies, that kind of stuff.
The conversation has stayed with us all and one friend said 'I have put extra food in my cupboard this week'.
All a bit Cold War, but practical, do you think?
If we all did the small amount of "no much". We'd be okay. "
Would we? How do you know? It seems logical. But much pollution is by companies which are hard to control. Eg. I try to avoid plastic bags, but I can’t see how much extra packaging is inside the opaque outside layer of those vegan crackers.
That said, from what I understand, if we all became vegan and stopped driving, things would be much improved. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They do say that ignorance is bliss, but once you have a rudimentary understanding of climate science. You can't un-learn it."
"Apparently you can. You keep posting that the mechanism for climate change is "CO2 and other greenhouse gasses that absorb sunlight and reradiate it as heat", despite being told several times that that's wrong."
"CO2 produced by human activities is the largest contributor to global warming..."
You misunderstand me. I wasn't disputing that CO2 (and others) is the cause of climate change, I was disputing the claim that "greenhouse gasses absorb sunlight and reradiate it as heat". That's just wrong. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atEvolution OP Couple 29 weeks ago
atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke |
Just to be clear . . .
"The main driver of climate change is the greenhouse effect. Some gases in the Earth's atmosphere act like the glass in a greenhouse, trapping the sun's heat and stopping it from leaking back into space and causing global warming."
Splitting hairs is missing or purposefully obfuscating the point.
And this is the problem with the climate change issue - too many people want to just raise points of dubious order. It's best that we all get behind the notion that there is a serious issue with our behaviour on the planet, and it's causing real and observable climate change.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Just to be clear . . .
"The main driver of climate change is the greenhouse effect. Some gases in the Earth's atmosphere act like the glass in a greenhouse, trapping the sun's heat and stopping it from leaking back into space and causing global warming."
Splitting hairs is missing or purposefully obfuscating the point.
And this is the problem with the climate change issue - too many people want to just raise points of dubious order. It's best that we all get behind the notion that there is a serious issue with our behaviour on the planet, and it's causing real and observable climate change.
"
Global population growth is predicted +25% to 10bn by 2080. Most of the growth from emerging economies aspiring to western living standards.
UN reports +50% food supply required by 2050
Uk in July 2050 predicted to 43deg according to met office
I just don’t see how this is avoidable.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atEvolution OP Couple 29 weeks ago
atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke |
"Just to be clear . . .
"The main driver of climate change is the greenhouse effect. Some gases in the Earth's atmosphere act like the glass in a greenhouse, trapping the sun's heat and stopping it from leaking back into space and causing global warming."
Splitting hairs is missing or purposefully obfuscating the point.
And this is the problem with the climate change issue - too many people want to just raise points of dubious order. It's best that we all get behind the notion that there is a serious issue with our behaviour on the planet, and it's causing real and observable climate change.
Global population growth is predicted +25% to 10bn by 2080. Most of the growth from emerging economies aspiring to western living standards.
UN reports +50% food supply required by 2050
Uk in July 2050 predicted to 43deg according to met office
I just don’t see how this is avoidable.
"
It's a difficult one for sure - but not immpossible I think. There are emerging tecnologies that can scrub the atmosphere - goverments need to bring the tools to bear and not act like tools bearing political me me me vision. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
….. “We could have harped on for a week, but finally got around to thinking . . . as people, what could we do. We quickly realised 'not much'.”
The challenge for society (whether international, national, local, household) is to alter the existing thinking and behaviours driving climate change (yes, an enormous ask!) so that we don’t look for individual led solutions to the problem (aka global crisis) but we rally around different banners for change. For example; are we prepared to shelve our escalating consumerism? happy to donate wealth to less fortunate? vote for non-mainstream political parties? accept degrowth principles? develop global views which unite across borders and cultures? …… For the record I am not advocating anything in this response but only suggesting there are solutions available but grasping them will require a fundamental paradigm shift way beyond our efforts to recycle domestic waste or reduce our carbon footprints. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't suppose anyone can deny climate change as a real and very present and observable phenomenon now.
Scotland, the latest to get it sums all shockingly wrong. But I doubt there is a nation on Earth that is getting it right in any shape or form whatsoever.
We and a few friends were sat at home the other week discussing just how depressing the outlook really is. We could have harped on for a week, but finally got around to thinking . . . as people, what could we do. We quickly realised 'not much'.
So. we then start talking about prepping for the coming storm. Food Water Armoury to fend off the Zombies, that kind of stuff.
The conversation has stayed with us all and one friend said 'I have put extra food in my cupboard this week'.
All a bit Cold War, but practical, do you think?
If we all did the small amount of "no much". We'd be okay.
Would we?
"
Yes
"
How do you know?
"
Because it's the only way.
"
It seems logical. But much pollution is by companies which are hard to control.
"
Some is, take your business to companies that are greener.
Some is domestic. Which you also have control over.
"
Eg. I try to avoid plastic bags, but I can’t see how much extra packaging is inside the opaque outside layer of those vegan crackers.
That said, from what I understand, if we all became vegan and stopped driving, things would be much improved. "
Sure, but we don't need to. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They do say that ignorance is bliss, but once you have a rudimentary understanding of climate science. You can't un-learn it.
Apparently you can. You keep posting that the mechanism for climate change is "CO2 and other greenhouse gasses that absorb sunlight and reradiate it as heat", despite being told several times that that's wrong.
CO2 produced by human activities is the largest contributor to global warming...
You misunderstand me. I wasn't disputing that CO2 (and others) is the cause of climate change, I was disputing the claim that "greenhouse gasses absorb sunlight and reradiate it as heat". That's just wrong."
Is this back to the thread where you argued with me that climate science isn't understandable based that in my original statement that I didn't specify the frequency of reradiated electromagnetic radiation, in some kind of bizarre attempt to "win" a perceived internet argument?
If you Google the phrase "Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation" you'll find various scientific papers that explain this process for you, along with the EM frequencies.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They do say that ignorance is bliss, but once you have a rudimentary understanding of climate science. You can't un-learn it."
"Apparently you can. You keep posting that the mechanism for climate change is "CO2 and other greenhouse gasses that absorb sunlight and reradiate it as heat", despite being told several times that that's wrong."
"Is this back to the thread where you argued with me that climate science isn't understandable based that in my original statement that I didn't specify the frequency of reradiated electromagnetic radiation, in some kind of bizarre attempt to "win" a perceived internet argument?"
As usual you've misremembered the details, but it's the same issue, yes. You keep claiming that CO2 "absorbs sunlight". This just isn't true. If it did we'd be experiencing global cooling as the CO2 blocked the sunlight from getting to the earth. It's nothing to do with you not discussing particular frequencies, it's about you not understanding the basic mechanism, and yet constantly telling others that the science is simple.
"If you Google the phrase "Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation" you'll find various scientific papers that explain this process for you, along with the EM frequencies."
Yes you will, and if you read them (and understand them) you'll find that the radiation that the CO2 absorbs is not from sunlight. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 29 weeks ago
|
8 billion people on the planet, the fastest way to improve the environment would be a global war that killed lots of them off. That or a eugenics program that encouraged folk to adopt lifestyles that are less likely to result in children. Hold on a minute... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"8 billion people on the planet, the fastest way to improve the environment would be a global war that killed lots of them off. That or a eugenics program that encouraged folk to adopt lifestyles that are less likely to result in children. Hold on a minute... "
By 2050, estimated, that of the world’s population, 25% or 1 in 4 (2.1bn) will be aged 60 and over.
Given all the health problems, diets, poor quality food, obesity, predicted 50% rise in strokes, etc etc, who is going to look after all these sick people, the younger generations… |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"8 billion people on the planet, the fastest way to improve the environment would be a global war that killed lots of them off. That or a eugenics program that encouraged folk to adopt lifestyles that are less likely to result in children. Hold on a minute... "
Unfortunately apart from the nuisance of a global war killing off 8 billion people, to achieve that level of extinguishment you'd need to go full nuclear. And full nuclear isn't terribly good for the environment.
.
A better solution would be reducing offspring and thus demand on resources, but that takes time, and quicker solutions are needed.
.
(And reducing demand on resources means less volume of product sold, meaning less profit for shareholders, so it's not in their financial interests to see demand reduced, or population restricted in any way).
.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They do say that ignorance is bliss, but once you have a rudimentary understanding of climate science. You can't un-learn it.
Apparently you can. You keep posting that the mechanism for climate change is "CO2 and other greenhouse gasses that absorb sunlight and reradiate it as heat", despite being told several times that that's wrong.
Is this back to the thread where you argued with me that climate science isn't understandable based that in my original statement that I didn't specify the frequency of reradiated electromagnetic radiation, in some kind of bizarre attempt to "win" a perceived internet argument?
As usual you've misremembered the details, but it's the same issue, yes. You keep claiming that CO2 "absorbs sunlight". This just isn't true. If it did we'd be experiencing global cooling as the CO2 blocked the sunlight from getting to the earth. It's nothing to do with you not discussing particular frequencies, it's about you not understanding the basic mechanism, and yet constantly telling others that the science is simple.
If you Google the phrase "Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation" you'll find various scientific papers that explain this process for you, along with the EM frequencies.
Yes you will, and if you read them (and understand them) you'll find that the radiation that the CO2 absorbs is not from sunlight."
Okay, let's pretend for a moment that it's not from the sun. Where is this radiation coming from? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They do say that ignorance is bliss, but once you have a rudimentary understanding of climate science. You can't un-learn it."
"Apparently you can. You keep posting that the mechanism for climate change is "CO2 and other greenhouse gasses that absorb sunlight and reradiate it as heat", despite being told several times that that's wrong."
"Is this back to the thread where you argued with me that climate science isn't understandable based that in my original statement that I didn't specify the frequency of reradiated electromagnetic radiation, in some kind of bizarre attempt to "win" a perceived internet argument?"
"As usual you've misremembered the details, but it's the same issue, yes. You keep claiming that CO2 "absorbs sunlight". This just isn't true. If it did we'd be experiencing global cooling as the CO2 blocked the sunlight from getting to the earth. It's nothing to do with you not discussing particular frequencies, it's about you not understanding the basic mechanism, and yet constantly telling others that the science is simple."
"If you Google the phrase "Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation" you'll find various scientific papers that explain this process for you, along with the EM frequencies."
"Yes you will, and if you read them (and understand them) you'll find that the radiation that the CO2 absorbs is not from sunlight."
"Okay, let's pretend for a moment that it's not from the sun. Where is this radiation coming from?"
From the earth.
The phrase to search for is "radiative forcing". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They do say that ignorance is bliss, but once you have a rudimentary understanding of climate science. You can't un-learn it.
Apparently you can. You keep posting that the mechanism for climate change is "CO2 and other greenhouse gasses that absorb sunlight and reradiate it as heat", despite being told several times that that's wrong.
Is this back to the thread where you argued with me that climate science isn't understandable based that in my original statement that I didn't specify the frequency of reradiated electromagnetic radiation, in some kind of bizarre attempt to "win" a perceived internet argument?
As usual you've misremembered the details, but it's the same issue, yes. You keep claiming that CO2 "absorbs sunlight". This just isn't true. If it did we'd be experiencing global cooling as the CO2 blocked the sunlight from getting to the earth. It's nothing to do with you not discussing particular frequencies, it's about you not understanding the basic mechanism, and yet constantly telling others that the science is simple.
If you Google the phrase "Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation" you'll find various scientific papers that explain this process for you, along with the EM frequencies.
Yes you will, and if you read them (and understand them) you'll find that the radiation that the CO2 absorbs is not from sunlight.
Okay, let's pretend for a moment that it's not from the sun. Where is this radiation coming from?
From the earth.
The phrase to search for is "radiative forcing"."
Lol.
You should read up. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
