Climate Change a Hoax

September 12, 2019, 10:00 am

Agree34 Disagree73

32%
68%

The debate "Climate Change a Hoax" was started by Aiyaz on September 12, 2019, 10:00 am. By the way, Aiyaz is disagreeing with this statement. 34 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 73 people are on the disagree side. That might be enough to see the common perception. It looks like most people are against to this statement.

marky posted 42 arguments to the agreers part.
jrardin12 posted 2 arguments, Nemiroff posted 9 arguments, TheExistentialist posted 15 arguments to the disagreers part.

thabiso, econt5, marky, Millenialist and 30 visitors agree.
Aiyaz, historybuff, jrardin12, codyray16, YEET, lolopopo, Shrivali_16, TheExistentialist, dinosaurrawr, CastLight, Agrumentman, diecinueve, Bnice80 and 60 visitors disagree.

TheExistentialist
replied to...

"These aren't isolated. These actually took place. " Isolated meaning outlier events.

In the past 24 years, 16 have seen above normal hurricane numbers.

Also, the rate of intensification is trending upward as oceans heat up.

2 days, 16 hours ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

"I don't want science based off predictions, I want Science based off conclusions."

All science makes predictions. It's the verification of these predictions that make good science. So in terms of climate science, we make a 100 year prediction, then every few years we evaluate the data points that would indicate whether or not we're on track to actually meet those predictions. If we run a model in 2005 that says sea levels will rise by "x" amount by 2100, we look at sea levels in 2010, 2015, 2020, etc.... And see if the changes we predicted in 2005 are on Pace. Essentially asking, are ocean levels rising at a rate which would indicate the levels predicted in a given model run? So far, real world measurements have outpaced many of the most conservative models.

2 days, 16 hours ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

"Because there are others saying that Ice in Antarctic are rising and rising for years now. "

This is true, however there is a really good reason for this; the ocean currents around the Antarctic have largely kept the temps of the waters around the Antarctic the same. However, the Arctic sea ice, which isn't isolated by such currents is melting and melting fast. Furthermore, we expect the Antarctic sea ice to melt as the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) reverts back to a positive phase.

2 days, 16 hours ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

"As if Plants don't play a role."
They do; however, their role as carbon recyclers is compromised by deforestation. Dead plant matter in the permafrost layers that are melting and thus decaying are releasing enormous amounts of CO2 as well. These are simple feedback mechanisms that contribute to the climate change issue.

2 days, 16 hours ago
marky
replied to...

"This point has no value to what we're discussing. No one is disputing that we need CO2. The point is TOO MUCH CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE IS BAD. You're focused on the benefits of CO2 when no one is arguing them and trying to substitute that claim as a way to deny climate science."

No, It wasn't a substitution. It was saying plants have nothing to do with the discussion as if it had no correlation to Climate change which more specifically CO2. I even state reasons why it's good. You aren't denying the good CO2 brings now, but it was only the heat of the moment i am not attacking you. We all already agree on that subject anyway now. I just had an issue with that response that you gave. As if Plants don't play a role.

2 days, 21 hours ago
marky
replied to...

"Are you just not well versed enough on the subject to understand the interconnectivity between ocean temps, weather, and climate?"

No i have been very versed actually i have been taking consideration to your arguments and disagreed with some. Oceanic Hurricanes i can't say isn't the because of climate change. It would have to do with the water being warm. Which it becomes water vapor when it's being absorbed which form clouds. That one i understand.

2 days, 21 hours ago
marky
replied to...

well, I know how climate change works. So, here is one thing to say. Data based off of predictions the way I see it. All seemingly pointing at Climate change. People always migrated. People always fought in wars, sea levels have always been rising, not due to climate change but do to the Ocean water melting the ice. Mass extinctions which could actually be true out of most of them. Low rating of droughts. Actually most of the heavy rainfalls come from water that was warm, cools the air and it rains. Some states may experience doubt, cause they have no water. So it's lack of climate not to much CO2. Also the lack of cooling, which water helps cool your body. So maybe Climate change is somewhat at fault, or maybe it's the shortage of just water.

2 days, 21 hours ago
marky
replied to...

"The real question is then can we trust climate models. The answer would seem to be "yes", however, we should note that most predictions are actually more conservative than the reality and the timelines we see in models is actually much more generous than what we see in the real world."

We should be able to trust those models, it helps indicate trends and growth and maturity. As for predictions, like i said. I don't want science based off predictions, I want Science based off conclusions.

2 days, 21 hours ago

"Projection: In the 2001 report, the IPCC projected a sea rise of 2 millimeters per year. The worst-case scenario in the 2007 report, which looked mostly at thermal expansion of the oceans as temperatures warmed, called for up to 1.9 feet of sea-level-rise by century's end.
Today: Observed sea-level-rise has averaged 3.3 millimeters per year since 1990. By 2009, various studies that included ice-melt offered drastically higher projections of between 2.4 and 6.2 feet sea level rise by 2100."

If observed there is also one that states if a sea level was to raise, the other would seem to shrink. Now, another one would be the the moon and how it could effect the tides of the ocean. Do to it's placement, when water seems short, the tides are shorter, when the water seems hire, the tides are longer. Although it may not hold to much value when it comes to melting ice. So here's another thing i would note. The one that's actually melting the ice would be the ocean water, you know how you put ice in a cup, you pour a little bit of water in it, and the ice will melt away and become water.

2 days, 21 hours ago
marky
replied to...

I don't think it's a underestimation. There are also data showing that the world is getting cooler, and it also gets warmer at times. Like i said, 2017 was the third hottest year in the U.S. So it's bound to go up or down in temperature. Not just up. I also think it's a miss cause in a way, people just didn't agree with it so they searched one they thought was better. That's my understanding. This isn't to say you're wrong. It's just that it probably wasn't a popular estimate. (if that makes sense.)

There's another thing, some actually state that it really isn't CO2 being the reason why it's hot. I believe the person said. "The energy heat and light that flows from the sun. Actually flow away from electromagnetic radiation." Also stating that solar energy is the reason for warming the Earth. It causes wind and whether also sustains plant life. You think it's just CO2 or do you think it's Solar Energy or both?

Just thought i through that out there.

2 days, 21 hours ago

"Well; you're in luck because that data is available. What we do is make predictions using models and then use real life data to compare that to the predictions. The results are quite worrisome. Most of the climate model predictions from the IPCC reports actually understated the facts (sea ice is melting more rapidly than predicted for example). This is largely due to the fact that we actually underestimated the growth of CO2 emissions." I do appreciate it, i am still looking into it. Because there are others saying that Ice in Antarctic are rising and rising for years now. So I'm still iffy on that. So on the side note, I am considering it.

2 days, 22 hours ago
marky
replied to...

actually, I later found out it was in fact a hind caster being one of the models scientist are using. Thanks for the URL though.

2 days, 22 hours ago
marky
replied to...

"If you bothered to read the article or my synapsis, you would have easily seen that the claim was that climate change caused the initial economic crisis. It wasn't the main source of the fighting, but a significant contributing factor. Please try an actually address my point rather than strawmanning my position. I never made the claim that climate change was the sole reason, but rather a compounding reason."

I did see it, I said it wasn't not the issue. You said previously was "Wars." I said it could not have been climate change which i was disputing. Now one of the worlds largest corporate emitter of green house gas I think is oil.Sorry if i made anything to much of. I'm not saying one of there problems isn't actually Climate change, it may be a problem they have but not why they are fighting.

Now actually the big economic crises they actually had was when the oil the state-owned company which "Saudi Aramco."(Don't know if it's actually the kingdom) I think it's called was attacked. Which is one of the reasons of there wealth. Isn't climate change. The attack on the oil said it would be a environmental issue though, so that's also on the table.

2 days, 22 hours ago
marky
replied to...

owe your arguing how many storms the Earth has received, yeah that's true, during these time periods it's been around 7 Hurricanes compared to the last 25 years. Which was 6? I don't know how true the data shows, but again though. The ones I brought up were said to the worst Hurricanes the world to say has ever encountered. These aren't isolated. These actually took place. So this is how Storms are increasing. I don't know if they are actually getting worse. They might be worse. So that's still on the table.




"The coldest day in the U.S Jan 20th, 1954"
again; you're using isolated dates not trends.

So, you rather have a trend. That somehow indicates we are getting hotter? In Chicago Jan 1, 2019, it reached 60 degrees below zero.
https://wjla-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/wjla.com/amp/news/nation-world/heres-why-the-us-is-getting-colder-while-the-world-gets-warmer?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCKAE%3D#aoh=15760028331831&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwjla.com%2Fnews%2Fnation-world%2Fheres-why-the-us-is-getting-colder-while-the-world-gets-warmer

in fact, the world is said to actually be getting colder. This doesn't mean it's denying climate change, climate will, in fact, change no matter what.


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-26/u-s-is-about-to-get-real-cold-again-blame-it-on-global-warming

In fact, you can say the world is getting hotter and colder as each season passes. It's not just one way it's both ways. here's the thing though. The hottest date and coldest date, we're never surpassed by any other date in the U.S.

So I can't really say the trend you presented is true. Not the Hurricane one cause i believe it has some truth to it.

2 days, 22 hours ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

well yes, co2 itself does not affect storms. the warmer air does.

what i was asking was, do you believe humans are changing the climate?

2 days, 22 hours ago
marky
replied to...

"so to set the record straight, you believe climate change is a hoax and is unrelated to human activity. and based on your arguments of storm data, im guessing you dont think its happening at all (or unrelated to storms)? can you clarify? and i think we should focus away from the effects of something we arent in agreement is even happening."

No, I don't think it's related to storms, at least when it comes to CO2. Water Vapor, might be more acceptable to say. I bring the storms up cause they seem to be dying down over the years. Yes we had a bad one last year. 2018 was bad, might have been worse the Katrina. Remember, Hurricanes could be cause by climate change do to how water vapor i believe form clouds when they are about to rain. And the water does have to be warm. Again though, There have been far worse Hurricanes over the past years.

2 days, 22 hours ago
marky
replied to...

No, climate has been changing for years. First thing to clarify. It's not me saying it doesn't exist at all. (Which I do apologize for even saying what i said in the first place without clarifying why i believe it in the first place. So it's right to judge me on it.)


"you did mention that you only hear democrats not scientists talking about climate change... thats because scientists dont often hold press conferences and are not public figures. did you try to look up scientific articles on the matter?"

That's right i did, I only hear them touting how bad climate change is and how it's going to kill us all. So, my beef is manly with them on that. Plus, there solutions are stupid.

"no other developed nation considers this controversial. no liberal or conservative wing of any other 1st world nation denies this science." I will say this, I don't think people that say Climate is a hoax, not all think climate doesn't exist. It's not really a denial of science, It's more so the denial of how bad people are making it out to be. Does that make sense?

"the american right cannot agree on their view on climate change." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2019/12/10/the-energy-202-these-republicans-want-to-show-they-re-serious-about-climate-change-so-they-put-on-a-fair/5dee890b602ff1440b4de8de/

i don't think it's really they can't agree with climate change it's just that they don't agree with there view.

2 days, 23 hours ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

"As if it had no value to anything we were discussing? Like I said plants need CO2 too survive."

This point has no value to what we're discussing. No one is disputing that we need CO2. The point is TOO MUCH CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE IS BAD. You're focused on the benefits of CO2 when no one is arguing them and trying to substitute that claim as a way to deny climate science.

Without emission of CO2 from human industry, travel, etc..plants would be just fine (as a matter of fact, they'd be better off).


The Crocs of the issue is:
The excess emissions of CO2 caused by human activity is harmful to life on Earth as we know it.

3 days, 2 hours ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

noone said it has no value. and noone is advocating the elimination of co2 from our atmosphere. there was co2 before industry started dumping massive extra amounts that were buried underground as oil and coal. this threw off the balance of our planet, we should try to restore the balance.

co2 is very useful not just to plants, but also to us. im not sure what point you are trying to make with this claim.

3 days, 3 hours ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

We have a hole interconnected network of scientists to who share data to come up with these conclusions. The climate science tells us that ocean levels are rising, that ocean acidification is occurring, that temperatures are rising, etc...

We know that ocean acidification is occurring (we can measure it already); we can see the impact it's having (marine biologists have recorded the rate of reef death, etc... have looked at the actual coral and determined the cause of the mass die off, is in part ocean acidification).

We know that sea levels are rising (we can measure it); the rates that climate science gives us actually is less than that measured in the real world (year by year); we know that ocean level rising means land masses disappearing (we can measure that rate independently). Anthropological evidence shows us that people and animals will migrate (or die) when their habitat is no longer viable.

we know how hurricane intensification occurs and thus we know that we will (on average) have stronger hurricanes as the oceans warm. We know how ENSO osscilations work and so we know that rising ocean temperatures will change the jet stream and thus precipitation patterns.

"yeah all this being caused by climate change. That's apparently the data that's blaming it on"
huh? what are you trying to say here? Are you arguing that hurricane intensification isn't due to warm ocean temps? are you saying that ENSO oscillations don't affect the jet stream?

Or

Are you just not well versed enough on the subject to understand the interconnectivity between ocean temps, weather, and climate?

3 days, 3 hours ago
marky
replied to...

didn't you say. "This is a non-sequitur. It has nothing to do with whether or not CO2 is also a greenhouse gas." As if saying CO2 too survive? As if it had no value to anything we were discussing? Like I said plants need CO2 too survive.

3 days, 3 hours ago
marky
replied to...

Umm, let's see if I can just pull up all of the Existentialist said. "From stronger hurricanes (as oceans warm) to longer droughts, Oceanic acidification which will lead to mass extinctions (bleaching of reefs) etc.. Oceans are already 40% more acidic than they used to be. Rising sea levels from melting ice will consume island nations, coastal cities, etc...."

yeah all this being caused by climate change. That's apparently the data that's blaming it on.

3 days, 3 hours ago

@marky

thank you for the info about water vapor, you are correct it is by far the mosy abundant... however it is transient, it doesnt stay in the atmosphere for more then days and is completely irrelevant to any long term effects.

you mentioned alot of things in your responses all the way to its effects on geopolitics, but going all the way back to your original post on this thread, you seem to think its not even a thing, so rather then discuss what climate change will cause, lets focus first on whether climate change is a thing.

you did mention that you only hear democrats not scientists talking about climate change... thats because scientists dont often hold press conferences and are not public figures. did you try to look up scientific articles on the matter?

a few points of suspicion regarding climate change denial.
1. no other developed nation considers this controvertial. no liberal or conservative wing of any other 1st world nation denies this science.
2. the american right cannot agree on their view on climate change.
first it was fake, then it was naturual, then it was man made but we shouldnt do it unilateral, then despite every nation pitching in it was still real but uneconomical. then it reverted to a chinese hoax somehow. currently i can find all of these views (also gods punishment from evangelicals) in play at once depending on the conservative or on the talking point the feel like repeating at the moment. the whole thing is mind boggling.

meanwhile in international politics and in the international scientific community, it is a non controvertial fact.

so to set the record straight, you believe climate change is a hoax and is unrelated to human activity. and based on your arguments of storm data, im guessing you dont think its happening at all (or unrelated to storms)? can you clarify? and i think we should focus away from the effects of something we arent in agreement is even happening.

3 days, 9 hours ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

"I want the result of the test after the prediction."
Well; you're in luck because that data is available. What we do is make predictions using models and then use real life data to compare that to the predictions. The results are quite worrisome. Most of the climate model predictions from the IPCC reports actually understated the facts (sea ice is melting more rapidly than predicted for example). This is largely due to the fact that we actually underestimated the growth of CO2 emissions.

https://www.climatecentral.org/news/ipcc-predictions-then-versus-now-15340

So here is some information for you in terms of model prediction and real world data:
Projection: The IPCC's 2007 assessment projected a worst-case temperature rise of 4.3° to 11.5°F, with a high probability of 7.2°F.
Reality: We are currently on track for a rise of between 6.3° and 13.3°F, with a high probability of an increase of 9.4°F by 2100, according to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Why the miss? IPCC emission scenarios underestimated global CO2 emission rates, which means temperature rates were underestimated too. And it could get worse: IPCC projections haven’t included likely feedbacks such as large-scale melting of Arctic permafrost and subsequent release of large quantities of CO2 and methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent, albeit shorter lived, in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide.

Projection: In the 2001 report, the IPCC projected a sea rise of 2 millimeters per year. The worst-case scenario in the 2007 report, which looked mostly at thermal expansion of the oceans as temperatures warmed, called for up to 1.9 feet of sea-level-rise by century's end.
Today: Observed sea-level-rise has averaged 3.3 millimeters per year since 1990. By 2009, various studies that included ice-melt offered drastically higher projections of between 2.4 and 6.2 feet sea level rise by 2100.

"what have they found exactly?"
They predict mean global temps, mean ocean levels, ocean acidification, changes to carbon cycles, predict habitability zones for various wild/plant life, ENSO oscillations, ocean currents (thermohaline circulation), precipitation patterns, etc...

The real question is then can we trust climate models. The answer would seem to be "yes", however, we should note that most predictions are actually more conservative than the reality and the timelines we see in models is actually much more generous than what we see in the real world.

3 days, 12 hours ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

"The worst Hurricanes..."
The examples you gave are simply isolated cherry picked incidents. So let's look at larger samples because that shows patterns not isolated incidents.

https://www.theguardian.com/weather/ng-interactive/2018/sep/11/atlantic-hurricanes-are-storms-getting-worse

here is some data that shows the number of storms by year an the avg strength of the storms. As you can clearly see, the number of storms is increasing and so is the average strength. This is far more telling than any one given storm.

"The coldest day in the U.S Jan 20th 1954"
again; you're using isolated dates not trends.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
You can clearly see the yearly average going up.

"Listen, they aren't fighting cause of climate change."
If you bothered to read the article or my synapsis, you would have easily seen that the claim was that climate change caused the initial economic crisis. It wasn't the main source of the fighting, but a significant contributing factor. Please try an actually address my point rather than strawmanning my position. I never made the claim that climate change was the sole reason, but rather a compounding reason.

" don't know what model they are using to say anything of sorts"
There isn't just one model. There are literally thousands of different models that have been designed throughout the world

Here s a review of the accuracy of climate models:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

3 days, 13 hours ago

2018 said to be warmer then 1951 to 1980 mean and also it's temperatures ranked behind 2016 and 2017.

3 days, 13 hours ago

2017 was actually the third hottest year to be recorded. 2.6F

3 days, 13 hours ago

2016 Reported by NOAA i believe it was 1.69 degrees they reached

3 days, 13 hours ago

The coldest day in the U.S Jan 20th 1954

3 days, 13 hours ago

, 1913
the hottest da

3 days, 13 hours ago

I will be back problem with upload lol

3 days, 14 hours ago
marky
replied to...

"ever greens (like christmas trees) survive in cold weather." Well Plants do hamper either in hot or cold weathers so... you right.

3 days, 14 hours ago
marky
replied to...

Yes, but again though. Sense when has Earth Ever Experienced to much Oxygen. Outside of 2.4 billion years ago. Yes too much oxygen is bad, but we only in hail 20% of it. So in condition we won't experience to much Oxygen. There can be maybe, but we have never experienced it. I doubt we will in our life time. Until we die.

"what do you mean they photosynthesize once a day? photosynthesis is a constant process that continues throughout the day."

Umm no, they do it once a day, They start when daylight and end at night time.


"if you think plants are a solution, then why do co2 levels continue to rise. even if plants do remove some of it from the air, its clearly nowhere near enough as the problem continues to grow. the claim that plants will benefit ignores that we will suffer. i dont see what the relevance of this is."

First of all, Did i say plants are the answers and two sense you said CO2 keeps increasing, lets see if that's true, sense CO2 causes heat, will use that. and use a model called "Hind cast"

3 days, 14 hours ago
marky
replied to...

"CO2 is the weakest greenhouse gas, but its by far the most abundant. this makes it a greaf candidate for a main climate control gas as it can make very small, subtle changes. if a powerful greenhouse gas like methane was the main driver of climate, a small change can lead to much wilder swings even without a century of world wide mass gas dumping."

No, it's one of the most, but not the most abundant. That would be water vapor. Methane is actually great for warming the Earth. Yes it would be bad if Two much methane was released into the air. So it's not like people aren't careless about it. hear is another thing. Water vapor is another Green house gas that absorbs heat. Which helps cool the earth. Which is the most abundant of them all. Also when plants prepare carbon dioxide, they are also helping cooling the Earth.

3 days, 14 hours ago

and sixth, 2005 August 23rd. it's name. "Katrina."

so If we were to use a hind caster, the results would say hurricanes died down over the course of the years.

3 days, 14 hours ago

The Fifth. 1992, August 16th. it's name. "Hurricane Andrew."

3 days, 14 hours ago

the fourth worlds worst Hurricane hit on 1928 Sep 6th. This one was called. "Oklaheema.(I think)"

3 days, 14 hours ago

third deadliest hit on the U.S in 1893. August 27th I don't know the name

3 days, 14 hours ago

the second worlds worst Hurricane happened in 1926 in Sep. this Hurricane was called. "Great Miami" hurricane"

3 days, 14 hours ago

The worst Hurricanes
first one was in the 1900 Sep 8th
this was called. "Great Galveston Storm"

3 days, 14 hours ago

I didn't say it is a blind prediction. I said your prediction can be anything. If you thought if you drop a dime a Gorilla will attack you then, by all means, make that prediction. You don't run a test to get a prediction, you run a test to get a conclusion. That's what i am trying to say.

"As we get more data points and refine the models, the predictions become more and more accurate. There are actual studies for every model type that will give you accuracy ratings of that particular model." Again I don't know what those models are called. Do you know what model they are using? (One would be Hindcast) So we can start with that. So lets make this bitch shall we?

3 days, 14 hours ago

I don't know how climate science operates you say? What is one of the rules of science in general? The experiment would have to be repeated. To gather countless observations from the conclusion of the test that keeps repeating. So how does Climate science not count? First comes the Hypothesis. That is what starts. Then you make a prediction on what you think will happen. If i take all the CO2 out of that room, all the plants in there will die! And you wait for a few days, you go back and look at the plants. They look like they are dying, but they still getting water. Your conclusion would be. "They aren't dead yet but we are getting there." see I just used Climate science as an example. It doesn't matter what model you think you can use, i don't know what model they are using to say anything of sorts. If the predictions are being made by Hurricane chasers or Oceanographers, still testing your Hypothesis matters. I'm not holding on to a prediction, I want the result of the test after the prediction.

3 days, 15 hours ago

If I told you 97.4% of all published papers on smoking found a causal relationship between smoking and cancer would you accept it as fact? 97.4% of all papers published on climate science come to the same conclusion; "climate change is happening and humans are causing it."


I don't know, I would not know anything about it being that I have no information about it. I would just take your word for it.

3 days, 16 hours ago
marky
replied to...

Except the fact that the deadliest Hurricane was back in 1900 if sea levels rising means a more deadly Hurricane that means that Sea levels must of fallen if one we received in 1900 back then was bad. Also yes those are just "Possibilities" that climate change is causing. Even if these are things that are happening. They have not proven that climate change is causing it. You can predict the events how ever you want. To say they are all coming true is a little broad. You said unless we alter away from energy fossil fuels. So we should just stop using Coal and gas? I guess no cars for us then. No more oil, no more coal. Which is the worlds Primary energy source.

so yeah let's get rid of the things that has fueled the U.S and global economic growth.


Billions of models have been run, yeah they have and what have they found exactly? Ice caps melting? yeah that's been happening for years now. It will take 5,000 plus years for it to happen. Civil War? Saudi Arabia in a conflict of power and corruption is somehow caused by Climate change? Mass migration? Even though history people has been migration to places they can live peacefully. Its either from corruption or freedom to practice culture shit.(I can only type so much in one thread of comment so lets leave it there, I can expand on that later.)

3 days, 16 hours ago
marky
replied to...

https://www.lawfareblog.com/

Listen, they aren't fighting cause of climate change. Even if the are experiencing drought, don't you think it's a little off that they were fighting over drought? Climate change isn't even why they are fighting hardly water drought. That's a very preposterous idea to even think of a war starting cause of. "Climate change." You know I would go on but let's just say one side thinks the leader is corrupt so the rebel and Saudi kills there people. Schools, hospitals, exc. How does that mean climate change is the cause?


now I can see how CO2 can cause acidification. That is possible, that could also indicate life in water are in danger. So yes I can see that. Now with that being said, hasn't mass migration been happening for years? Hasn't people through out history migrated some place else specifically America. People looking for free practice moved. China experienced mass Migration for decades. From Urban areas. The unites states has the highest immigrant population. International migrants World wide.


Yes, except sense they are experiencing mass migration, they are buying more land to secure foot and supplies. So he's trying to buy more land for the migrants. Also, sea levels are rising yes. Again though, It say they move cause of rising sea levels. Was their land swallowed up by the sea? Maybe? IDK.

3 days, 16 hours ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

Also, to say what plants have to do with this is kinda ignoring the good that CO2 can be
This is a non-sequitur. No one is disputing the fact that plants need CO2; the argument is that too much CO2 is bad. You're just going of on a non-sequitur tangent.

4 days, 12 hours ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

what do you mean their data is what they want it to be? are you saying they are making it all up and not even trying to predict weather patterns? why do we show forecasts on the news if they are all made up?

1 week ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

co2 is important to plant life, but like all life, within limits. too much oxygen is a relative term. oxygen doesnt regulate any environmental factors, however it does greatly affect life, mostly as a horrible poison (which is why we rely on antioxidants, with the root "oxi" referring to oxygen. mass release of oxygen by the first photosynthetic lifeforms during the paleoproterozoic era caused, amongst many nick names, the oxygen holocaust (more conventionally the Great Oxygenation Event or GOE). most life died, until life developed antioxidents, but the trade off for the mass of energy that oxygen allows us to utilize is the oxidation effect of it that is one of the things we blame for our inevitable aging and death. so there can be too much oxygen.

what do you mean they photosynthesize once a day? photosynthesis is a constant process that continues throughout the day.

if you think plants are a solution, then why do co2 levels continue to rise. even if plants do remove some of it from the air, its clearly nowhere near enough as the problem continues to grow. the claim that plants will benefit ignores that we will suffer. i dont see what the relevance of this is.

ever greens (like christmas trees) survive in cold weather.

1 week ago

No, I don't think it's a misconception in data I believe that their data pretty much is what they want it to be. Also, to say what plants have to do with this is kinda ignoring the good that CO2 can be. I also state why they are useful. And why plants need them, And no, we are not going to experience much Oxygen. Plants photosynthesis Once a day, they aren't going to get to much CO2 cause they Photosynthesis once a day. Yes, too much Oxygen is bad. How many times has the Earth really experienced *TOO* *MUCH* *OXYGEN* I also understand that some plants cant really survive in Tropical temperatures. Like Freezing Weather. I don't know if there are any plants that could survive Cold weather. Maybe Weeds IDK. I am sure there are more. Yet it doesn't contradict that CO2 is important to plant life.




this was apart of my argument from last time.

1 week ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

1 thing eventually missed was co2 being the weakest greenhouse gas and its indispensable value both for planetary temperature regulation and our own bodies.

i think our bodies can make for an excellent analogy for the planet. the correct question is not whether co2 is bad or good in either scenario but HOW MUCH CO2 is bad or good. if you had no co2 in your blood you would definitely die, but if you have too much co2 in your blood... you would definitely die. your blood is very efficient at storing oxygen, when you suffocate, your actually overdosing on co2 which is what you exhale with every breathe.

just like if the earth got too cold we would die, too hot is also deadly to us. its all about balance.

co2 is the weakest greenhouse gas, but its by far the most abundant. this makes it a greaf candidate for a main climate control gas as it can make very small, subtle changes. if a powerful greenhouse gas like methane was the main driver of climate, a small change can lead to much wilder swings even without a century of world wide mass gas dumping.

1 week, 2 days ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

"Also, Scientists don't have to worry about there prediction. It's what they think will happen after the test there damn Hypothesis."

You seem to have a misunderstanding of how climate science operates and the type of predictions we can make using models. The predictions climate scientists make aren't like hypothesis; they're more like predictions made by avalanche forecasters, meteorologists, hurricane centers, oceanographers, etc... The predictions are based on known data points and complex global interactions. We know and understand these interactions based on shorter term forecasts that have been verified and validated. We then simply use the same model that has been proven to be true, run millions of model runs using the most recent data of CO2 levels, ocean temps, etc... over a given period of time and then average the runs out to give us the most likely scenario. So it's not a blind "prediction" or guess.

As we get more data points and refine the models, the predictions become more and more accurate. There are actual studies for every model type that will give you accuracy ratings of that particular model.

Again there is a debate to be had about the absolute accuracy of model (will the oceans rise by 28cm or 98 cm by 2100?), but there is no debating that the ocean will rise by 2100.

As we understand more and more about things like ice flow from the poles, from Greenland, etc.. the models simply become more accurate as to the timelines and severity. However, the question of "If" the oceans will rise is no longer up for debate. Just like the question of "if" smoking causes cancer is no longer up for debate. It's more of how quick will smoking cause cancer, what's the increased risk of cancer after someone quits smoking, etc... are the questions up for debate now.

" Now i Don't know if they the cause of hurricanes or Natural disast"
CO2 doesn't cause them. The effects of a warming ocean makes them worse. Hurricanes strengthen as they move over warmer water. Warmer oceans means stronger hurricanes. ENSO oscillations cause shifts in the jet stream. More and stronger ENSO oscillations means more frequent and intense droughts, flooding etc...

1 week, 2 days ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

"They consider it a threat because they are being told that it can kill us.....Because this is somehow Co2 fault? Bruh, I'm sorry if Some Agency taking action doesn't convince me.."
It's human's fault for releasing more CO2, CO2 is not conscious, it has no culpability. Humans do. They're taking action because we can already see mass migration due to droughts. Let's look at syria for example. Peter H. Gleick of the Pacific Institute, Oakland, California writes "The devastating civil war that began in Syria in March 2011 is the result of complex interrelated factors. The focus of the conflict is regime change, but the triggers include a broad set of religious and sociopolitical factors, the erosion of the economic health of the country....As described here, water and climatic conditions are also relevant because of the role they have played in the deterioration of Syria’s economic conditions." His paper "Water, Drought, Climate Change, and Conflict in Syria" details the effects of climate change on the economics in Syria and how it ultimately was a major contributing factor to the conflict which eventually led to the mass migration of syrian refugees.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/WCAS-D-13-00059.1

"You also said mass Extinction. Then said Mass Migration..."
Mass extinction of plants and animals, mass migration of people. As I said, things like coral reefs will go extinct due to oceanic acidification as will the fish that depend on that habitat about 4000 species of fish directly rely on coral reefs. These fish are of course a source of food for other fish and land animals etc... so you can see the causal chain. Polar bears will likely go extinct as well as their hunting grounds thaw out (we already know this is happening). The UN reports that about 1 million species of animals are at risk of extinction due to climate change.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news

Mass migration is already happening as in the case of syria. Island nations like the Marshall Islands will have to relocate as well since they will become uninhabitable.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/11/rising-seas-force-marshall-islands-relocate-elevate-artificial-islands/

The president of Kiribati is already purchasing land in preparation for a mass migration of his people if sea levels continue to rise and their islands become uninhabitable.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/as-seas-rise-pacific-island-president-favors-buying-land-abroad/

1 week, 2 days ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

""So it's not so much that the world will end in 12 years, it's more of a tipping point where we'll have done enough damage to the CO2 cycle that cascading effects will overwhelm the natural self correcting mechanisms and that the effects listed above become certainty rather than a possibility."

But they are just possibilities, it's not set in stone as if it's actually literal fact when it hasn't even happened yet. These are just really only just possibilities. What they can see the future now? that's only way i would come to that conclusion."

No; these are factual breakdowns of systems that are already happening and will happen unless we drastically change the amount of CO2 we put into the air. Timelines might be more "hypothetical", but the effects are known. We know this because the acidification of the oceans is already happening (we can measure it), ice caps are melting, ocean levels are rising (measurably), ocean temps are rising (which increases the strength of hurricanes, change weather patterns, alther ENSO oscillations, etc...), droughts are increasing in severity and frequency (measurably), permafrost is already melting, CO2 from previously frozen plant material decaying is being released, deforestation is having a measurable impact on CO2 cycles, etc... These aren't hypothetical effects of global warming, they are definitive results of unchecked carbon emission.

What they can see the future now?
These effects are "Set in stone" unless we actively alter our energy production away from fossil fuels. We can use models to predict these events (just like we use models to predict weather, ocean currents, hurricanes, etc..). Again, the timelines and severity within a given timespan might be up for debate, but the total effects themselves and the eventual consequences are known. The results aren't 1 off studies, they are usually meta data analysis from hundreds of thousands of model runs, thousands of scientific studies from all over the world, billions of data points, etc... Making accurate predictions is the hallmark of good science.

If I told you 97.4% of all published papers on smoking found a causal relationship between smoking and cancer would you accept it as fact? 97.4% of all papers published on climate science come to the same conclusion; "climate change is happening and humans are causing it."

1 week, 2 days ago

Ok, that's all i got, this will have to do.

1 week, 2 days ago

.


Also, Scientists don't have to worry about there prediction. It's what they think will happen after the test there damn Hypothesis. And to come to the conclusion after they test it. Prediction Is what they think will happen. Why would they be careful about how they word there predictions? I don't care how you word it. I want the result, not your thinking on what might happen. That's how it works, the prediction cannot just be true if they haven't even come to a conclusion.

You got your Hypothesis, you got your Prediction... Where's the testing your Hypothesis? Unless you cant actually test it, I guess we won't know until Twelve years won't we?

Now, yes I will believe that Humans have been releasing CO2 In the air. Factories, cars sure. I believe that. Now i Don't know if they the cause of hurricanes or Natural disast

1 week, 2 days ago

2nd

...or Natural disasters. I don't know which is worse than the other so i cant make that argument. Nor do I feel like it cause it requires more research I have to do. Sure, Co2 could have caused those problems. I don't think i can deny it. Also... Did you know that Co2 is the weakest greenhouse gas? which are important in warming the plants? Although i used that argument already, you should get the picture. Also, Greenhouse Gasses, which hold heat. Imagine, if they didn't hold Co2 or methane. Owe Yes, the world would be colder, much colder, and it's winter. Not really a good thing to get rid of too many Co2. Also, Co2 Is the second most important Molecule to the grass. Granted it's one of the worst. Remember though, Carbon Dioxide is important to plant life and Human Life.

Ok, if you are saying we should release less Co2 into the air, ok. I don't think you are wrong. Needless to say, some of the humans have released Co2 in the air. causing natural disasters. I do believe that to be an issue. I don't know if it's just Co2 though. Now listen, "This, of course, will cause mass extinction events for certain animals, migratory disruptions, food shortages for humans, water shortages, wars, mass migration, etc... why do you think the Pentagon and nearly every defense agency in the US and around the world has acknowledged climate change as a major security threat?"
They consider it a threat because they are being told that it can kill us. Of course, they are gonna take action, they don't want people to panic. Just like everyone else. There Job is to keep us safe, and just because some agency or military takes action, doesn't mean it's true. What they wanna do is protect us. All they can do is make sure the people stay calm. And if these things are true? This is what they got as there conclusion, of a Test of "Climate change" that will apparently lead to Wars lack of water supply, mass Migration. My God that was one hell of a conclusion! from overheating or I guess Hurricanes? Because this is somehow Co2 fault? Bruh, I'm sorry if Some Agency taking action doesn't convince me. Good for them, they're job is to investigate it. You also said mass Extinction. Then said Mass Migration... i think you need to explain that a little, who is migrating and who is getting extinct.

1 week, 2 days ago

read the first at the very top



3rd page

"other countries do talk about it. us and a few 3rd world dictatorships are the only countries not in the paris climate accord. we are the only ones debating a fact while the rest of the world looks for solutions."

well good then, if other countries are trying to solve it, and if the third world Dictatorship and the U.S just debating it. Not really gonna go anywhere. It's most likely just a bunch of what-ifs.

"the only source for climate change denial is the American republicans. every other institution, from political, to scientific, to everything acknowledges reality except the american right."

Your sources you looked you saw Republican. People I know for sure aren't Republican will tell me. "I don't think it's real." or "Possibly but they mostly can be wrong." Has nothing to do with being Republican. Granted some conservatives are represented by Republicans. I'm not a conservative though. I'm not a republican. I'm a independent with a mind of his own. Yes, you are right, I bet you all the Republicans do believe it's a hoax.

And No I don't always agree with Republicans. I agree with them on this. Not entirely. I think they try denying a little to much of it.


"So it's not so much that the world will end in 12 years, it's more of a tipping point where we'll have done enough damage to the CO2 cycle that cascading effects will overwhelm the natural self correcting mechanisms and that the effects listed above become certainty rather than a possibility."

But they are just possibilities, it's not set in stone as if it's actually literal fact when it hasn't even happened yet. These are just really only just possibilities. What they can see the future now? that's only way i would come to that conclusion.

"this is a science topic so its bound to get complex. if your just here to have fun, dont worry about it. but if you deny a fact, i have to reply."

Ok, if the reply was only to say... "no, scientists do believe, or some do." Then explain further than I would not have a problem, it would have been my bad should have known. Wait no! you said put on your tin foil hat cause you thought i listen to every Republican and I just straight up agreed with them. No, I don't mean to deny a fact. Just correct me on something, then i will happily say i was wrong.

and you know what fine, i was wrong about the scientist not believing part.

1 week, 2 days ago

this is a science topic so its bound to get complex. if your just here to have fun, dont worry about it. but if you deny a fact, i have to reply.

2 months ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

your original claim was no scientists support climate change. only democrats.

yet the developed world supports the fact of climate change. thats why i asked if you think american democrats control the entire world. perfectly relevant. im not trying to ridicule you, im trying to ridicule this 1 ridiculous belief you have.

you agreed co2 is a greenhouse gas. do you agree we release co2 from our cars and factories? if yes, then you agree we release a greenhouse gas in extra to what nature would normally release... therefore you should already accept man made, unnatural, climate change. yes climate always changes, it doesnt change this much in a single century. ice ages too many thousands of years to come and go. not a single human lifetime! life cannot.keep up.

plants need co2 just like we need oxygen. yet too much oxygen will kill us. life requires balance. too much co2 will not be good for plants. also, not all plants can handle tropical temperatures.

other countries do talk about it. us and a few 3rd world dictatorships are the only countries not in the paris climate accord. we are the only ones debating a fact while the rest of the world looks for solutions.

the only source for climate change denial is the American republicans. every other institution, from political, to scientific, to everything acknowledges reality except the american right.

2 months ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

"the world will end in 12 years."
Of course the world won't end in 12 years. This is largely a misreading of the scientific data. This is why it's important to sometimes read the actual study instead of just the news article reviewing a study. Alarmist headlines sell, however, scientific papers are generally very careful in how they word their predictions. The world will be here when humans are long extinct that's simply a fact. However, the argument is that human caused CO2 emissions will overwhelm the natural CO2 cycle to a degree significant enough to cause permanent changes to the climate that will negatively disrupt life as we know it.

From stronger hurricanes (as oceans warm) to longer droughts, Oceanic acidification which will lead to mass extinctions (bleaching of reefs) etc.. Oceans are already 40% more acidic than they used to be. Rising sea levels from melting ice will consume island nations, coastal cities, etc.... This of course will cause mass extinction events for certain animals, migratory disruptions, food shortages for humans, water shortages, wars, mass migration, etc... why do you think the Pentagon and nearly every defense agency in the US and around the world has acknowledged climate change as a major Security threat?

So it's not so much that the world will end in 12 years, it's more of a tipping point where we'll have done enough damage to the CO2 cycle that cascading effects will overwhelm the natural self correcting mechanisms and that the effects listed above become certainty rather than possibility.

2 months ago
marky
replied to...

I guess i was wrong to only blame Democrats(left) but dude i rarely listen to the left or the right (Republicans) I only which gist of what they said.


umm so just because our country is talking about and has Vaxx and also other mainstream intelligent(politicians) means we are smart enough to worry about Climate change. ok, let's set this on a scale where we can agree on. Climate change means it's getting hotter. You agree to that? And another one. Plants need CO2 (Which creates global warming) but plants Need CO2 To live. You agree to that? And, when plants breathe CO2 (which photosynthesis is occurring.CO2 which plants need sunlight and water as well) Breath out Oxygen. You agree to this? Now, Humans need Oxygen. You agree to that? Its also a proses that plants produce there own food. Do you agree with that? Now i can go on. owe and believe or not, even though climate change, is happening. ( It already is here in AZ) It is believed we are in an Ice age.(don't ask) Other countries dont talk about cause they dont want to and they believe it's not an issue. They have smart people too guaranty it.


"Of course, Democrats rule over(you mean) WORLDWIDE Scientific Institution. It's all a conspiracy!!!" Ok, what the f*** does this have to do with anything. I don't even remember anyone claiming this? This is supposed to be a fun chat and you're turning it into well IDK, your statement was even debating or whatever.


I will go were my tin foil hat if it makes you feel any better?

2 months ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

the world will not end in 12 years. the world as we know it will end on 12 years. humans will survive, but they will not number billions, many poor will die.

oxygen is good for people. we need it to survive. too much oxygen will kill you. life requires balance. to much co2 will kill plants.

there are no democrats in the rest of the world, yet the rest of the world agrees climate change is real and is a major problem. if there are no democrats in the rest of the world, why do they all believe in this hoax? because the only hoax is the science denial of.the right wing.

please google the difference between climate and weather. climate is the average GLOBAL temperature. it gets cold, it gets hot. but the hot will be hotter, the cold will be less cold. have YOU done any *legitamete* research on this topic? i mean scientific sources, not political propaganda.

2 months ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

Peer reviewed means that a given study was reviewed for by other scientists for errors in methodology, errors in control groups, etc... Furthermore, it means that a study must be repeatable by other labs. So if a lab in the US conducts an experiment to prove "X" then a lab in Sweden, China, Australia, etc... must be able to produce the same results under the same conditions.

"Who are the international scientific community?"
That would scientific peers (climatologists in this case) across the world.

"Plants need CO2 too survive"
This is a non-sequitur. It has nothing to do with whether or not CO2 is also a greenhouse gas or whether or not our excessive emission of it contributes to global warming. Plants can only absorb so much CO2 so more CO2 doesn't mean better for plants. Plants also need O2 during their "dark cycle" so too much CO2 is also a bad thing for them.

Currently all of humanity produces about 29 gigatons of CO2 from fossil fuel use.
Terrestrial vegetation, animals, etc... produce about 439 gigatons while oceanic life and stored CO2 emit about 332 gigatons.
Terrestrial CO2 recycling has the capacity to cycle approx. 450 gigatons, and the ocean can recycle about 338 gigatons. So we have a natural emission of about 771 gigatons and recycling capacity of 788 gigatons.
That means earth has the capacity to recycle an additional 17 gigatons of CO2 each year. That means human activity overloads the system by 12 gigatons each year. So year 1 we'd have an additional 12 gigatons in the air, year 2, 24 gigatons, year 3 36, etc....
There are also cascading effects, permafrost melting as atmospheric temps increase releasing more CO2, ocean acidification decreasing the amount of CO2 that can be cycled through the ocean etc... All of this compounds together

The major takeaway here is that Humans are a driving factor for increasing CO2 levels and we're responsible for destroying large swaths of biomass that can recycle CO2. Think of the farmers in Brazil burning the Amazon in order to clear land and raise cattle (decreasing CO2 recycling and increasing methane production). We actually know for a fact that a large portion of the the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is strictly from human activity due to radio-carbon ratio analysis (both through spectrometry, tree ring analysis, and ice core samples.

2 months ago
marky
replied to...

Why, do other countries believe in Climate change? i never even said other countries have democrats. I am referring to ours not others. I dont know who is a democrat outside of the U.S. Are they internationally reviewed? Do you review them? Did you know CO2 is a good thing? helps plants grow. Who are the international scientific community? That the world will end in twelve years. Plants need CO2 too survive. And you know, it does get hotter and it also gets colder.


i don't think it doesn't get warmer it definitely. And yes CO2 is part of a greenhouse gas. This not saying it is not. Also, it's also made of water vapor. which plants also need water. Yes CO2 does have Climate change raise. i agree to that.

manly i was trying to target "the world will end in 12 years."

2 months ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

dude, the ONLY place climate change is controversial is in the retarded segments of americas right wing, and maybe some 3rd world oil countries.

no other 1st world country is debating this fact. just like this is the only 1st world country with anti vaxxers and a mainstream intelligent design movement. this country has some of the dumbest, most gullible people in the world.

of course democrats rule ever WORLD WIDE scientific institution. its all a conspiracy!!!! don't forget your tin hat.

2 months ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

"Most Scientist talking about this are not actually Scientist. They are Democrats"
This makes no sense. Climate science is studied internationally and peer reviewed. Other countries don't have "Democrats". Furthermore how do you explain all the data that shows climate change to be the result of CO2? Can you point to any actual evidence that discredits the claims made by the international scientific community?

Do you agree that the chemical properties of CO2 and methane classify them as "greenhouse gases"?

2 months ago

Now i agree to this. Most Scientist talking about this are not actually Scientist. They are Democrats. This isn't to say they are wrong. Its clear they never studied this.

2 months ago

Let's add some more evidence for the modern times then shall we?

Sequences of annual tree rings going back thousands of years have now been analyzed for their 13C/12C ratios. Because the age of each ring is precisely known** we can make a graph of the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio vs. time. What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase — around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning. Furthermore, we can trace the absorption of CO2 into the ocean by measuring the 13C/12C ratio of surface ocean waters.

In addition to the data from tree rings, there are also of measurements of the 13C/12C ratio in the CO2 trapped in ice cores. The tree ring and ice core data both show that the total change in the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere since 1850 is about 0.15%. This sounds very small but is actually very large relative to natural variability. The results show that the full glacial-to-interglacial change in 13C/12C of the atmosphere — which took many thousand years — was about 0.03%, or about 5 times less than that observed in the last 150 years.

2 months, 4 weeks ago

I'm going to assume that no one will argue that CO2, Methane, etc... aren't greenhouse gases and that we all agree that these gases trap solar radiation thereby increasing the temperature of the planet as a whole. If you do somehow disagree with that, I can certainly prove you wrong on this point.

Now, we can move on to the crux of the problem. Do humans contribute enough CO2 and disrupt the CO2 cycle enough to actually influence the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

In order to talk about that, we have to talk about the natural CO2 cycle. I.e. how much CO2 is emitted naturally, how much is emitted through human activity, how much can be recycled and how much does human activity affect the recycling capability of the planet. Here are the facts:

Currently all of humanity produces about 29 gigatons of CO2 from fossil fuel use.

Terrestrial vegetation, animals, etc... produce about 439 gigatons while oceanic life and stored CO2 emit about 332 gigatons.

Terrestrial CO2 recycling has the capacity to cycle approx. 450 gigatons, and the ocean can recycle about 338 gigatons. So we have a natural emission of about 771 gigatons and recycling capacity of 788 gigatons.

That means earth has the capacity to recycle an additional 17 gigatons of CO2 each year. That means human activity overloads the system by 12 gigatons each year. So year 1 we'd have an additional 12gigatons in the air, year 2, 24 gigatons, year 3 36, etc....

Disturbances to the land – through deforestation and agriculture, for instance – also contribute roughly 5.9 Gt per year (by decreasing the amount of CO2 that can be taken up through the natural CO2 cycle).

How can we be sure that human emissions are responsible for the rising CO2 in the atmosphere? There are several lines of evidence. Fossil fuels were formed millions of years ago. They therefore contain virtually no carbon-14, because this unstable carbon isotope, formed when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, has a half-life of around 6000 years. So a dropping concentration of carbon-14 can be explained by the burning of fossil fuels. Studies of tree rings have shown that the proportion of carbon-14 in the atmosphere dropped by about 2% between 1850 and 1954. After this time, atmospheric nuclear bomb tests wrecked this method by releasing large amounts of carbon-14.

2 months, 4 weeks ago

I am not informed enough to talk about synthetic climate change, but climate change in general definitely does exist. The Earth naturally goes through tropical and chilled periods.

2 months, 4 weeks ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

thats weather not climate...

3 months ago

The climate is always changing. I lived in the Chicago area for a few year. And boy does the climate change! Hahahaha.

3 months ago

I would have agreed if the question would have been "Is man made climate change a hoax?"

3 months ago
Discuss "Climate Change a Hoax" education health politics
Add an argument!
Use the arrow keys to navigate between statements. Press "A" to agree and press "D" to disagree.