frame
Howdy Debater!
Sign In Register


Wal-Mart.com USA, LLC

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Climate Change

Opening Argument

One of the most debated topics in modern times, Climate Change regards the gradual shift from a cooling period to a warming period in temperature. Some believe this is because of Human Greenhouse Gas emissions, Some say it's a natural process, while others deny it entirely. What do you think?
natbaronsjoecavalry
  1. Is Climate change real?

    12 votes
    1. Yes. And it's mainly human caused
        8.33%
    2. yes. It's a natural part of the earth's patterns.
      33.33%
    3. no. It's a fabrication
      58.33%

Status: Open Debate

Arguments

  • Climate Change is fabricated by the Democratic and Liberal party. First, it was labeled as Global Warming, which has been replaced by the term Climate Change. I believe that this does exists, but may not be caused by humans, but rather a natural thing that may happen to the whole environment.
    Wake
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 314 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
  • litesonglitesong 3 Pts
    edited September 28
    The Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) has been languid for many decades. The TSI has been below normal for 10+ years (including a 3+ year period, setting a 100 year record low). However, Earth temperatures continue to rise, topped by the last 3 years of consecutive global bio-sphere heat records. Present Arctic sea ice VOLUME is ~ 10,000 cubic kilometers LESS than the average of the 1980's. The energy needed to melt such a quantity of Ice is ~ 35 times the total annual energy consumption of the U.S. For the last 390(+?) straight months, ALL global monthly temperatures have been greater than the 20th Century average. Both Greenland & the Antarctic have been losing land ices. Greenland, at times, has lost 400+ plus cubic kilometers of land ice per year. The Antarctic loses less land ice per year, but at times, over 100 cubic kilometers, mainly in west Antarctica.   
    Erfisflat
  • WakeWake 119 Pts
    In order for CO2 to absorb "heat" there has to be IR radiation in the wavelength for which CO2 is capable of absorbing. And three of the four bands are saturated by water vapor and the fourth has so little energy that levels of CO2 of 220 ppm or so totally absorbed the available energy. Levels of CO2 above this have no effect. One reference claimed that all of the energy in this band was absorbed in 10 meters though I would have estimated one meter. The troposphere is 12,000 meters thick.

    What this all means is that the principle means of heat transfer in the troposphere is conduction - one molecule bouncing about with heat energy and slamming into another and transferring part of that energy. All of the atmospheric gases are very close in their specific heat levels meaning that there is extremely little difference in any of the gases.

    Slowly the heated gases rise into the stratosphere where the density of gases is low enough that heat is rid via radiation. As the heat radiates away from the Earth the gases cool and sink due to convection.

    Indeed, man-made global warming is a hoax and most scientists know this. There have been some that have gone along with it because this is the way they gain research grants - even scientists have to eat.

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html

    You couldn't get 97% of scientists to agree that sugar is sweet and that should have been a glaring, screaming hint that it was all a lie meant only to give the government more power and more money and more departments to employ brothers-in-law. Was all a problem of energy use? If that was the case why did the government light all of the bridges in the San Francisco bay? Wouldn't they turn off as much power as possible? Instead from space all you can see of cities is almost solid lighting. Even the government knows they are lying.

    Pacific Gas and Electricity has enough solar and wind power that if all conditions were perfect they could meet 19% of the maximum power needs. How much have they? In a normal year 2% and in a drought and windy year 3%. It costs far more to maintain these "green energy sources" than they make.

    https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/25472-congress-investigates-fraudulent-science-used-by-noaa-to-push-un-global-warming-treaty

    Do not be taken in.
  • WakeWake 119 Pts
    In order for CO2 to absorb "heat" there has to be IR radiation in the wavelength for which CO2 is capable of absorbing. And three of the four bands are saturated by water vapor and the fourth has so little energy that levels of CO2 of 220 ppm or so totally absorbed the available energy. Levels of CO2 above this have no effect. One reference claimed that all of the energy in this band was absorbed in 10 meters though I would have estimated one meter. The troposphere is 12,000 meters thick.

    What this all means is that the principle means of heat transfer in the troposphere is conduction - one molecule bouncing about with heat energy and slamming into another and transferring part of that energy. All of the atmospheric gases are very close in their specific heat levels meaning that there is extremely little difference in any of the gases.

    Slowly the heated gases rise into the stratosphere where the density of gases is low enough that heat is rid via radiation. As the heat radiates away from the Earth the gases cool and sink due to convection.

    Indeed, man-made global warming is a hoax and most scientists know this. There have been some that have gone along with it because this is the way they gain research grants - even scientists have to eat.

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html

    You couldn't get 97% of scientists to agree that sugar is sweet and that should have been a glaring, screaming hint that it was all a lie meant only to give the government more power and more money and more departments to employ brothers-in-law. Was all a problem of energy use? If that was the case why did the government light all of the bridges in the San Francisco bay? Wouldn't they turn off as much power as possible? Instead from space all you can see of cities is almost solid lighting. Even the government knows they are lying.

    Pacific Gas and Electricity has enough solar and wind power that if all conditions were perfect they could meet 19% of the maximum power needs. How much have they? In a normal year 2% and in a drought and windy year 3%. It costs far more to maintain these "green energy sources" than they make.

    https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/25472-congress-investigates-fraudulent-science-used-by-noaa-to-push-un-global-warming-treaty

    Do not be taken in.
  • Yes, climate change is a natural occurrence, but it was also dramatically sped up by humans. Related image
    ^ Graph showing the dramatic increase of average temperature over the years.Image result for climate change graphs
    Graph showing a dramatic increase in water levels
    Image result for climate change graphs hurricanes
    Also the dramatic increase in amount of hurricanes. 
    Nightwing
  • @Wake@Wake
    Wake likes to restrict AGW discussions to CO2, states CO2 can't absorb any more infra-red energy(saturated) & that water vapor absorbs much more infra-red energy than CO2. In essence, he states that GHG theory isn't correct, altho on other websites, he has made many mathematical errors, even muffing exponents.
     First, any increases in water vapor (& increasing ability to absorb more infra-red energy) IS a positive feedback due to increasing man-made GHGs. Second, there are unsaturated infra-red energy absorption bands available to CO2.  Third, numerous other man-made GHGs, plus all positive feedbacks to AGW warming are in play.  
  • No. It is true and occurring to the Earth.
    DebateIslander and a DebateIsland.com lover. 
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

Debate Anything on DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch