The debate "Man made Climate Change is not proven" was started by
July 10, 2019, 2:37 pm.
22 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 37 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.
Light posted 11 arguments, RoyDierlijk posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 6 arguments, historybuff posted 4 arguments, mwest0097 posted 1 argument, TheExistentialist posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
Light, romeroa251, MADHURA, Starlight, RoyDierlijk, jrardin12, Jane, itzmeboi and 14 visitors agree.
historybuff, boispendaddy, fry, BakitGalit, sk25, mwest0097, mtbtheboss, TheExistentialist, YoungBenShapiro, YEET, kittrapper, Ambassador_Chess, codyray16 and 24 visitors disagree.
huh? please give me examples of published studies in reputable journals written by people "who have no idea what their talking about".
First off, its undeniable that CO2 and methane are greenhouse gases. It is undeniable that an excess of these gasses causes warming. We can get into the science of this if you really want to argue those points, however they're well established and I assume you won't actually argue the chemical properties of CO2 and methane. So we're left with human vs natural sources of CO2 causing the increase in atmospheric CO2.
for simplicity sake we'll just look at CO2 and leave methane from agriculture and mining out of the equation for now.
The carbon cycle is pretty well known and understood. We know how much co2 can be recycled each year through vegetation, the oceans, etc.... We know that human deforestation has decreased the capacity of the earth to recycle CO2, we know that pollution of the ocean has decreased the oceans ability to recycle CO2, etc.... So we have man decreasing the amount of CO2 that can be recycled each year through deforestation etc.... 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 we overload the system by 12 gigatons each year. Without any additional factors such as deforestation, pollution of our oceans, etc... we already know that human activity increases the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere beyond the natural carbon cycle. Add to this the compounding effects of global warming on CO2 trapped in permafrost, deforestation, etc.... and you can only come to one conclusion: Human activity overwhelms the natural CO2 cycle and is therefore the prime reason for an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
considering our previous discussions on science, I will have to say that you are the one who usually has no idea what you are talking about on many science subjects. sorry if I dont find your 1 sentence opinion post unconvincing.
I'm still waiting on your response to my argument against your infinite regression of transitional forms fallacy.
So you know better than 99% of climate scientists? Okay
Most of those so called "studies" are written by people who have no idea what their talking about
except its backed up by many studies.
do you agree CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
there is SOME evidence of climate change, but there is no evidence that it is man-made.
on ideas such as pollution, and we should stop pollution i agree, but thats becauae its backed up by a lot of studies, man-made cliamte change is not backed uo by any significant studies.
are you saying that evidence that isnt eternal should be ignored?
according to our latest analysis of dark energy, within a few billion years we will not be able to see any other galaxies and our observable universe will shrink to just the milky way. are you saying we should therefore pretend all the other galaxies dont exist now even while we can still see them? that's senseless.
and I disagree with your reliability claim. can you elaborate?
@Light, they are reliable enough that repeat experiments by different people show the same results within the acceptable margin of error. The same experimental methods I was trained to use in medical lab science, which people trust every time they go to the doctor for lab work. Why would you trust the same method to your health but not trust it if it disagrees with *your* personal interpretation of edited copies of edited copies of translations of ancient stories?
Those things only last a certain amount of time and aren't that reliable.
if you see a footprint, you do know someone made it. even if you never saw the person.
we've never been to the stars, but we can tell how bright they are, how far they are, what they are made off, and how old they are.
Here is a link to a quick article explaining how we are able to determine temperatures before humans started measuring it ourselves. But in short, they look at things the temperature leaves behind such as in tree rings or in ice.
How do you know it is changing faster than it ever has. Man hasn't been recording the temperature for the entirety of our existence or the Earths existence for that matter.
The temperature has never risen this fast. The issue is not that our climate changes over time, that is well established. The issue is how fast it is changing and when that trend began. It is changing faster than it ever has in the history of our planet. And that trend started just as we started industrializing.
My argument is that yes while the Earth is getting warmer it isn't directly caused by man. Also we've been warmer than this before.
So your argument is that the world is getting warmer at a rate that has never happened in the extremely long history of our planet and that we should not attempt to do anything about it? You think we should continue researching a topic that, after decades of research, virtually every scientist agrees on before we take any action at all?
That is insane. This is not a topic that lacks research. I'm not saying research shouldn't be done, it should obviously continue. But we need action now. Right now. Not after a few more decades of research while the situation continues to worsen.
Yes moisture traps heat but if less heat is reaching the surface because its being reflected then it can't trap as much heat. I'm not saying I understand this topic completely which is why I think we should spend more time researching this than CO2 which has a much smaller affect.
I will grant that clouds are complicated part of the system. They do reflect some heat, but since the clouds themselves are cold, they are actually trapping heat at the surface making things hotter as well.
So no, saying more moisture makes things colder is just false.
You can't have it both ways. You say the biggest greenhouse gas is water vapor and that is true. I show you how we are increasing the water vapor by increasing the temperature and now you are arguing that water vapor is cooling the planet, the exact opposite of what you just said. This is what happens when you approach a topic with an outcome already determined. You want to believe there is no evidence for man made climate change so you twist facts to fit your narrative.
Yes however if there is more moisture then more clouds are created. Clouds reflect the suns ray thus cooling the Earth and then it can hold less moisture. So maybe we should do more research into this subject area.
I had to look it up. You are correct that water vapor is the biggest contributor, but we are responsible for that too. As the earth heats up due to warming caused by humans, the air is able to hold more moisture. As the air holds more moisture, it increases the effect of the warming. It is a positive feedback loop that we are fueling.
I do not disagree with you that CO2 has risen my argument would be that it has has little affect. I did not know that about the periodic table or the interesting fact about the isotopes.
You are wrong about C02 though water vapor is by far the most abundant greenhouse gas and plays a much larger role in the greenhouse effect. ( We water our yards and that would increase the amount in the atmosphere so why dont we spend more time studying something that plays a much larger role). Also we didn't start seeing rising temperatures till after the world wars which were when we had a carbon boom.
off the top of my head, I believe it to be CO2.
yes that is the correct definition of isotopes. next point. do you know how on a real periodic table the elemental weights are usually decimals and not whole numbers based on the proportion of the different isotopes found naturally on this planet?
the natural proportion of the different isotopes is very stable. carbon included. however, the carbon in CO2 that is produced in cars and factories is not the dominant isotope found in nature. if we measure that the isotope proportion has shifted to more of the isotope made in factories, that is direct evidence of man made climate change. according to "cosmos with Neil degrass tyson" the added proportion of this other carbon isotope is practically equal to the estimates of how much carbon we have released since the start of heavy industry. that sounds like a smoking gun.
furthermore we can track past CO2 proportions by examining air bubbles on different layers of ice, or the size of tree rings of ancient trees (since co2 is the oxygen of plants). and we can tell that about 100 years ago, co2 levels started rising fast.
My question for you, what is the most abundant greenhouse gas by volume in the atmosphere.
An isotope are atoms with the same number of electrons and protons but contain differing numbers of neutrons.
whoops, lost this thread amongst the others. no, age of the earth is not an argument for man made climate change. It's an argument against the notion that there is anything natural about the current climate changes.
the argument for man made climate change is quite simple:
1. do you agree CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
2. do you agree we burn CO2 in our cars and factories?
3. the end.
furthermore, I mentioned isotopes, and a much more technical and definitive argument. do you know what isotopes are?
I'm not sure if you can have a debate based on science with someone who thinks the world is 10,000 years old. They are either willfully ignoring science, or do not have the mental capacity to understand science.
In Light's case it looks to me like willful ignorance. He wants to believe something so he find some fringe voice that tells him the thing he wants to believe over literally everyone else.
So the argument here would be the age of the Earth because if it is young then a change over a few hundred years wouldn't seem so drastic but if it is billions then it becomes drastic.
do you really think those endless factories worldwide pumping black waste into our air has zero effect? we are well past the point of being naked and ignorant in gods garden.
the earth's temperature usually changes on the scale of 10,000s to 100,000s of years. such a change in just 100 years is unnatural. its coincidental timing with the industrial revolution is even more suspicious.
there is also much more direct evidence but I dont think you will be open to the technical jargon involved in the explanation. such as the term "isotopes"
The earth changes on its own and no matter how much we as humans try to change and tamper with it for good or bad we really have almost no control over it.