The debate "Man made Climate Change is not proven" was started by
July 10, 2019, 2:37 pm.
13 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 20 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 9 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 3 arguments, historybuff posted 4 arguments to the disagreers part.
Light, romeroa251, MADHURA, Starlight and 9 visitors agree.
Nemiroff, historybuff, boispendaddy, fry, BakitGalit, sk25 and 14 visitors disagree.
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.