The debate "Shall we all agree that global warming is a problem that needs to be addressed" was started by
March 2, 2017, 7:49 pm.
23 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 7 people are on the disagree side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Nemiroff posted 8 arguments, blue_rayy posted 4 arguments, TheExistentialist posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
mmjd14 posted 3 arguments, Ematio posted 6 arguments to the disagreers part.
Your_dad, blue_rayy, JohnWright, historybuff, TheExistentialist, redstar, InksEvermore, juneha, neveralone, kjo, Suco_169, Pugsly, Niel and 10 visitors agree.
mmjd14, Ematio, Yanksxx21, moserman and 3 visitors disagree.
are you denying that co2 is a greenhouse gas?
CO2 rise almost always comes after temperature rise
I asked a question
Here is an article by Harvard professors on the issue if you actually wanna know what's going on.
If you look at graphs over thousands of years, co2 increase almsot always comes after temperature increase. Shouldn't it be the other way around?
Of course the climate is changing, it's always done that. How about the growth of the polar ice caps?
Here is what we know.
CO2 is most certainly a greenhouse gas
In 1970 we launched IRIS satellite and in the 90's the japanese launched the IMG satellite. These satellites gathered data on the outbound radiation. The data shows a dramatic decrease in the outbound radiation at the wavelength that CO2 and methane absorb. We can confirm this build up of radiation when measuring heat. We have measured this heat increase to be about 190,260 gigawatts per year. This is consistent with the decrease in outbound radiation measured by satellites
Humans most certainly are overloading the CO2 cylce
We have done spectrum analysis of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continuously since the 70's and found an increase of CO2 over those years corresponding to the estimated output of human activity. We have also analyzed the natural carbon cycle and found that our activity is simply overloading the natural cycle. About 60% of our emissions cannot be absorbed by the natural cycle. This means approx 15-18 gigatons of CO2 are "left over" after the completion of each cycle.
Temperatures are definitely increasing
Globally, the oceans have continued to accumulate heat to the end of 2008 at a rate of 0.77 ± 0.11 Wm. This is consistent with predictions made for temp increases as it correlates to CO2 increases.
We keep getting more evidence to support man made climate change through new lines of inquiry
Conservation of Energy modeling is an alternative attribution method that relies on the principle of conservation of energy, without assumptions about spatial warming patterns which are the primary evidence that has been used up until now. This new method is based on a massive ensemble of simulations with an intermediate-complexity climate model which demonstrates that known changes in the global energy balance and in radiative forcing tightly constrain the magnitude of human caused (anthropogenic) warming. This new method suggests man made climate change.
It's good science.
The cornerstone of good science is to make good predictions based on a theory in question. So you'd expect the models which assume anthropogenic climate change to be more accurate at predicting climate than those that don't. If we look at the data, we see exactly that.
sunspots run on 11 year cycles, our warming has been going on for much longer. back in the 80s and 90s it was a bipartisan issue with Republicans all acknowledging it's reality, it's source, and that it needs to be fixed. what happened?
so is there any issues with my premises from earlier. not sure if anyone responded to them:
"do you agree co2 is a greenhouse gas?
do you agree we release co2 in our industry and travel?
do you agree co2 levels are rising?"
there is also the fact that the CO2 we produce is a different isotope and has a different weight. meaning that we can actually measure how much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is natural, and how much of it is our fault.
I'm not a tree or a plant and even then they have limits.
there's not much we can do about natural causes?! defying nature has been the only thing we have been doing since day one. walls, agriculture... the entire field of medicine! every time you visit the hospital or get some pills from a drug store, you are defying nature.
but now, you just want to give up?
I'm going to tell you something, that I hope you take well and not retreat into an echo chamber. but if you REALLY want to make America great, that defeatist attittude isn't going to make it happen. this country prizes entrepreneurs, risk takers, innovators. not losers. not people who say "meh, can't be helped"
how are we on a cooling trend even every year is a record high?
we had 2 weeks of summer in the middle of February!
are you really going to destroy God's creation for corporate profits and a few jobs that may kill you?
1. deforestation is not helping that.
2. that still leaves 75% aka most of it
Where did you learn about global warming?
25% of the co2 we produce is absorbed by plants we already have
plant more trees then
Also we're on a cooling trend
Alright, do you understand that if it's natural causes, there's not much we can do, plus co2 helps trees and plants if you didn't know...
instead of blaming natural things for global warming, shouldnt you think we should find out a solution instead?
Termites produce ten times the co2 we produce each year, and when added to the amount of co2 volcanoes have produced now and in the past, it seems very small. Also, according to the correlation of temperature and co2 in the atmosphere, co2 always rises AFTER the temperature increases, and not vice versa like they'd like you to believe
CO2 is responsible for global warming. Its released from burning of fossil fuels. Since nothing is too late to address, we can tackle global warming by using public transport instead of our own vehicles or maybe just carpooling. It would save money too. But that wouldnt bring a major impact on co2 levels. Maybe we could switch to nuclear energy instead of coal. A handful of uranium can supply enough energy for an entire city for a day. About the industries that release co2 , we need to filter them. But that wouldnt neccessarily bring down co2 levels. Switching to natural gas like CNG can solve the issue but again its stock are depleting. Maybe hydro-electricity generated from the dams can help us. Windmills, geothermal, Solar, etc. But again these are too limited in their yields. But biogas is a wonderful gift of nature that can be produced from manure, but that again generates co2. So we must sacrifice some of our needs to tackle global warming.
Global warming is better explained by sunspots, and we're just following a cycle of warming and cooling of the earth
"The amounts put into the atmosphere from a large eruption doesn't change the global amounts of these gases very much. However, there have been times during Earth history when intense volcanism has significantly increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and caused global warming."
When it was just natural sources, they had a big impact. Now, compared to man made sources, they don't amount to much. Your own source disagrees with you.
i think it may be an open question and not a settle question yet
Nope. Not even close.
but isnt it true that volcanos when tjey erupted did the most damage that its not even a comparison now do you think it might be a government scare
do you agree co2 is a greenhouse gas?
do you agree we release co2 in our industry and travel?
do you agree co2 levels are rising?
even if it's a natural rise... we aren't helping by adding to it. shouldn't we at least try to slow it down until we find away to remove carbon?
theres no doubt the temperature is changing but im concerned wheres the evidence that its human activity
wherever the reason. whatever the cause. we know the effect of warming will not be good. we are already feeling it.
how can we continue to ignore it?