Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 34 of 34

Thread: What is a good source to refute this denialist argument?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,393
    All

    Let's stick narrowly to the topic of the thread and Tom's original question, and stop the debate about Greta Thunberg, climate change activism, etc., which will certainly get us into political discussions not allowed on CQ.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    3,009
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    The issue is how much that flocking can be slowed, especially in certain nations relative to others, by disinformation campaigns that we are seeing altogether too much of lately. Vested interests in carbon-based energy have a stake in allying with wishful thinkers that are used to placing preconceived preferences above scientifically established truths. I hope you are right that strong economic pressures will in some sense automatically fix this problem, but I don't have that much faith in blind luck. I can better see Greta Thunberg's point that this is an adult problem that kids shouldn't have to be the ones to fix, but if the adults won't do it, then their kids will.
    The following chart. I found 12/4/2019 shows that the growth in emissions is dramatic, from 3 percent per year in the first decade, to now 0.9 percent per year the last decade of the new millenium. No reason to think that trend will change. We could probably be expecting 2.1 percent drop per year by 2029. If the trend keeps going 2050 emissions will be a quarter of what they are now.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EK5w0qEW4AI6PHR.jpg
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,790
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec View Post
    I am a Furry. On a far right Furry forum, I am debating Global Warming deniers.
    One made the "CO2 greenhouse effect is saturated" argument, and I posted the Skeptical Science link to that argument:

    https://skepticalscience.com/saturat...t-advanced.htm

    Here is what he replied:
    "HOWEVER. As the temperature climbs, the radiation frequencies of the heat transmission go up as well, until they reach a point where the primary emission frequencies are not absorbed by the gas in question and it escapes.
    Adding more gas at this point will not further increase the temperature, since the heat that is trapped continues to radiate at frequencies that CO2 will not trap. The writer does not comprehend that the absorption patterns themselves change as the temperature goes up."

    I gave an answer based on my 40 year old memory of Bachelor Level Astronomy, but I would like a much better reply (I don't even remember what the fact that emission curves do not intersect as temperature goes up is called, so I don't know how to Google it.)
    OK KenG's point is the answer to that. The radiated frequencies are not changing significantly when you consider the rise in absolute (Kelvin). The bands of frequencies absorbed by CO2 will not be affected by a 2 degree rise, for example. You could also add that the increased water vapour in the air, which absorbs many more frequencies, is a bigger shift by far. The CO2 effect is thus amplified. That rise is much more sensitive to say, 2 degrees.
    https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fe...r_warming.html
    Last edited by profloater; 2019-Dec-04 at 08:22 PM. Reason: added typical reference
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,393
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    The following chart. I found 12/4/2019 shows that the growth in emissions is dramatic, from 3 percent per year in the first decade, to now 0.9 percent per year the last decade of the new millenium. No reason to think that trend will change. We could probably be expecting 2.1 percent drop per year by 2029. If the trend keeps going 2050 emissions will be a quarter of what they are now.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EK5w0qEW4AI6PHR.jpg
    When I say stop the discussion about something, I mean it. When I say stick narrowly to the OP's question, I mean it. Maybe an infraction will show that I really mean it.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •