frame

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?

    15 votes
    1. Yes. And it's mainly human caused
      26.67%
    2. yes. It's a natural part of the earth's patterns.
      26.67%
    3. no. It's a fabrication
      46.67%

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 First, it was labeled as Global Warming, which has been replaced by the term Climate Change.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.
    WakeDrCereal

  • loading...


  • litesonglitesong 5 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.   
    ErfisflatOakchairbc
  • WakeWake 121 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.
    DrCereal
  • WakeWake 121 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.
    DrCereal
  • 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. 
    NightwingDrCerealOakchairbc
  • @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.  
    Oakchairbc
  • No. It is true and occurring to the Earth.
    DrCereal
    DebateIslander and a DebateIsland.com lover. 
  • NopeNope 158 Pts
    If I think it is naturaly occurring but Humans are also causing a kind of climate change unseen before than is it not kind of both. what do I [put in the polls..
  • NightwingNightwing 49 Pts
    edited November 2
    I have some questions to pose:

    I'm going to ignore satellites for the moment because they've only been around since the 60's. That is a another series of questions anyway. A lot of the argument about climate change is about increasing temperatures of the Earth since 1920 (or any other convenient year to pick). In other words, before satellites.

    A statistical analysis makes use of raw data only as a source population to select from. No 'corrections' are possible because the analysis hasn't been run yet.

    For something like temperatures, things like how many thermometers exist in an area or where a thermometer is located would affect the average. That would mean we would have to use equidistantly placed thermometers. Storms move, the Earth rotates, temperatures are constantly changing. That would mean we would have to read all thermometers simultaneously. We have to eliminate the effects of location, location grouping, and time from the analysis.

    Question: How many 'official' thermometers exist in the world?
    Question: If X thermometers are in the world, and the surface of Earth is 197 million sq miles, how many thermometers does that translate to per mile?
    Question: What is the possible gradient in temperature per mile? That number will be needed to calculate the margin of error in statistics. That tells us how good our average is compared to the population. That's the +- number you see.

    Now the big question: Just how good is any number of thermometer readings in describing the temperature of the whole Earth? If we have trouble determining the Earth's temperature, how can we say it's warming, cooling, or anything else? Is it even possible to generate an average that has a margin of error less than the gradient to begin with?

    Does any graph or collection of historical temperatures actually mean anything, or is it just a bunch of numbers someone made up and they get tossed around like it was some kind of foreordained truth? Lots of people throw numbers around a lot. Even governments do this. How does one determine whether they are anything valid?

  • NopeNope 158 Pts
    Nightwing In order to determine if the numbers are valid you are going to have to do the really hard thing of tracking it to its origin. I will not be easy but ti is possible. If you find the origin valid then you can say it is reliable. It is better if you track similar date about the subjects to their origins. Then if they are all reliable and their are a lot of them you should no the trend is real. But that is a battle to do on it;s own. Hope what I said was helpful. I may have done some bad spelling. : )
  • NopeNope 158 Pts
    Nightwing Sorry a could not answer your complete question before. A better question then how many thermometer are around the world is how many were their to begin with? How have they grown to however many their are now? You need to look at the accuracy of are records from the beginning of the data in which we take to now. The accuracy increases but in the 1950 was it accurate enough to trust. Scientist do the best they can to use there complex network of thermometers to figure out the global temperature. They are looking for a trend. A couple of years does not show the trend clearly. It is like walking a dog. The dog moves around the human backward forwards from side to side. But the human pulls the dog toward a direction. rather then watching where the do is they look at the area in which the dog has been bouncing around and see where that aria is moving. Sorry for my bad comparison but I am rushing. They look at what each thermometer records science they record continuously and compare them. Most of them slowly show a heating. some don't but they look at the big picture to tell if the earth is heating. They can't get an exact estimated of global temperatures but they can get close enough to see the trend. My spelling has not improved. : )
  • NightwingNightwing 49 Pts
    edited November 3
    Fair enough point about less thermometers yesterday. I would say the number of thermometers have increased, just as a blind guess. They are more automated too. So let's just figure on today's figures and work the math from there.

    To get a trend,  you need at least two absolute measurements. Then you come up with additional questions:

    "Why are these two measurements significant? Why are any other measurements not significant?"

    Simply saying you can trust it because 'scientists say so' is equivalent to trusting in a religion because 'God said so".

    You seem to be ignoring the questions I posed, and simply reverting to the 'scientists said so' argument.

  • Nope said:
    If I think it is naturaly occurring but Humans are also causing a kind of climate change unseen before than is it not kind of both. what do I [put in the polls..

    Humans are responsible for all of climate change. None of it is natural its all human caused. 

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/apr/19/study-humans-have-caused-all-the-global-warming-since-1950

    CYDdharta
  • NopeNope 158 Pts
    Oakchairbc I meant that climate change is natural occurring. It happens through out the history of earth. But the climate change that is occurring now is because of human and it is more dangerous and savoir then climate changes that happened before. I think where the confusion is is that I use climate change as a term to talk about earth and changing climates where as you use it juts to describe the recent changing. : )
  • NopeNope 158 Pts
    Nightwing How is trusting god the same? I never hear god say anything to me. And scientist are the one we put forth money and resources for them to study thies kind of things. It is many of their jobs. If i were to trust any one it would be the experts. And most of them seem to agree. : )
  • Nope said:
    If I think it is naturaly occurring but Humans are also causing a kind of climate change unseen before than is it not kind of both. what do I [put in the polls..

    Humans are responsible for all of climate change. None of it is natural its all human caused. 

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/apr/19/study-humans-have-caused-all-the-global-warming-since-1950

    The consensus argument???  That was destroyed a long time ago;

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/97-percent-solution-ian-tuttle

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/11/20/the-latest-meteorologist-survey-destroys-the-global-warming-climate-consensus/#5c6d76cf18c3

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Website!

| 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