Man-made Climate Change is real

CYDdharta

Pogue said:

@CYDdharta
Still warming and the quote proves that man-made climate change is real. Thank you for proving my point! The debate is officially over because you admitted that I am right. Your source, http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/articles/FyfeEtAlNatureClimate16.pdf "in spite of the continued increase in anthropogenic forcing."

Actually, it says just the opposite. If global warming could be blamed on human activity, warming could be accurately charted according to such activity. It can't. The models are wrong. Other factors are affecting the climate. What those other factors are and how and how much they are affecting it has yet to be determined. We don't understand the system well enough yet to make even an educated guess as to what the climate will be in the future.

Ampersand

CYDdharta said:

Ampersand said:

You again make baseless claims with nothing in your post actually supporting what you say. e.g. stating that we've established my hypocrisy and providing nothing to substantiate this. Your post is therefore worthless.

i once again use reasoning to point out the rationale basis for dismissing your post - that it does not meet the most basic requirements of an argument by having evidence, logic or reasoning to support its claims. My post is once again a valid contribution.

Do you actually think you are coming off well in these exchanges?

Do you think you're coming off well??? Anyone with any sense stopped reading this thread long ago, like about the time you started with the ad hominems.

You again make baseless claims with nothing in your post actually supporting what you say. e.g. stating I've made ad hominems and providing nothing to substantiate this. Your post is therefore worthless.

I once again use reasoning to point out the rationale basis for dismissing your post - that it does not meet the most basic requirements of an argument by having evidence, logic or reasoning to support its claims. My post is once again a valid contribution.

Why are you unable to form reasoned responses? Why can you not make relevant posts of quality?

Ampersand

CYDdharta said:

Pogue said:

@CYDdharta
Still warming and the quote proves that man-made climate change is real. Thank you for proving my point! The debate is officially over because you admitted that I am right. Your source, http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/articles/FyfeEtAlNatureClimate16.pdf "in spite of the continued increase in anthropogenic forcing."

Actually, it says just the opposite. If global warming could be blamed on human activity, warming could be accurately charted according to such activity. It can't. The models are wrong. Other factors are affecting the climate. What those other factors are and how and how much they are affecting it has yet to be determined. We don't understand the system well enough yet to make even an educated guess as to what the climate will be in the future.

Lie.

As Pogue has pointed out, your own source specifically says global warming can be blamed on human activity.

You also make an illogical claim. Global warming being caused by human activity is not mutually exclusive with other factors affecting the climate which can lessen or enhance the overall impact of global warming, hence yours claim of "Other factors are affecting the climate" is worthless and pretty much every model in existence will take into account non-human factors which affect the environment.

Finally as has been pointed out many times, you making uneducated and baseless claims like "We don't understand the system well enough yet to make even an educated guess as to what the climate will be in the future" is not valid as it is completely lacking evidence, but it is an especially poor argument when not only other people's sources but even your own sources dispute what you are saying.

CYDdharta

Ampersand said:

Lie.

As Pogue has pointed out, your own source specifically says global warming can be blamed on human activity.

You also make an illogical claim. Global warming being caused by human activity is not mutually exclusive with other factors affecting the climate which can lessen or enhance the overall impact of global warming, hence yours claim of "Other factors are affecting the climate" is worthless and pretty much every model in existence will take into account non-human factors which affect the environment.

Finally as has been pointed out many times, you making uneducated and baseless claims like "We don't understand the system well enough yet to make even an educated guess as to what the climate will be in the future" is not valid as it is completely lacking evidence, but it is an especially poor argument when not only other people's sources but even your own sources dispute what you are saying.

Is English a second language that you're struggling with??? What I said was "Other factors are affecting the climate. What those other factors are and how and how much they are affecting it has yet to be determined." This is the same thing the researchers found. Let's look at what they said, "In summary, climate models did not (on average) reproduce the observed temperature trend over the early twenty-first century, in spite of the continued increase in anthropogenic forcing. This mismatch focused attention on a compelling science problem — a problem deserving of scientific scrutiny." In other words; the climate models are rising a lot faster than actual readings despite increased human activity. This is the fact that my graph pointed out earlier that you whined and moaned about. THE MODELS ARE WRONG!!! THE HIATUS IS REAL!!! If we can make accurate predictions, why aren't we??? Why are the models so wrong???

Pogue

@CYDdharta
We are arguing if it is real, not if we can predict it. "... in spite of the continued increase in anthropogenic forcing." The globe is still warming! Your graph shows that! The Earth never warms this quickly! You just supported my claim!

Mike

My goodness! What a fuss over the current scientific debate over climate change? My recommendation is let the climate experts work this problem out. Such debates is the natural process in the scientific method. If the science is resolved and understood, there would be no debate among the experts. Those want-a-be experts in this debate have a knack to cherry pick from the experts to support one’s ideology. In the meantime, we should hear what Dr. Carlin’s view is on the subject.

CYDdharta

Pogue said:

@CYDdharta
We are arguing if it is real, not if we can predict it. "... in spite of the continued increase in anthropogenic forcing." The globe is still warming! Your graph shows that! The Earth never warms this quickly! You just supported my claim!

You COMPLETELY misunderstand the significance of the statement. Read the whole statement;

In summary, climate models did not (on average) reproduce the observed temperature trend over the early twenty-first century, in spite of the continued increase in anthropogenic forcing. This mismatch focused attention on a compelling science problem — a problem deserving of scientific scrutiny.

What it says is that observed temperatures are NOT RISING AT THE RATE ASSUMED BY HUMAN ACTIVITY. THE ASSUMPTIONS THAT MAKE UP GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISM ARE WRONG. And contrary to your statement, the Earth has warmed a tenth of a degree in a quarter century (1990-2015) before.

qipwbdeo

CYDdharta said:

Pogue said:

@CYDdharta
We are arguing if it is real, not if we can predict it. "... in spite of the continued increase in anthropogenic forcing." The globe is still warming! Your graph shows that! The Earth never warms this quickly! You just supported my claim!

You COMPLETELY misunderstand the significance of the statement. Read the whole statement;

In summary, climate models did not (on average) reproduce the observed temperature trend over the early twenty-first century, in spite of the continued increase in anthropogenic forcing. This mismatch focused attention on a compelling science problem — a problem deserving of scientific scrutiny.
What it says is that observed temperatures are NOT RISING AT THE RATE ASSUMED BY HUMAN ACTIVITY. THE ASSUMPTIONS THAT MAKE UP GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISM ARE WRONG. And contrary to your statement, the Earth has warmed a tenth of a degree in a quarter century (1990-2015) before.

0.10C in 25 years is still a lot. You aren’t proving his point. Give up rebel’s debate already.

CYDdharta

qipwbdeo said:

0.10C in 25 years is still a lot. You aren’t proving his point. Give up rebel’s debate already.

It is??

Image: http://www.debateisland.com/uploads/editor/uf/rkvyfpajdjph.gif

It looks pretty common

Ampersand

CYDdharta said:

qipwbdeo said:

0.10C in 25 years is still a lot. You aren’t proving his point. Give up rebel’s debate already.

It is??

It looks pretty common

Lol

You've provided an unsourced graph with no data to actually support it or show it's real or relevant..

The data is for only part of one country (the US) and only for January and so will not be representative of global changes in temperature.

The trend line which shows no significant increase over time is not showing the change in temperature but the difference between the two models.

Well done on a fantastically useless contribution that only shows your lack of understanding of how to present viable evidence.

Ampersand

CYDdharta said:

Ampersand said:

Lie.

As Pogue has pointed out, your own source specifically says global warming can be blamed on human activity.

You also make an illogical claim. Global warming being caused by human activity is not mutually exclusive with other factors affecting the climate which can lessen or enhance the overall impact of global warming, hence yours claim of "Other factors are affecting the climate" is worthless and pretty much every model in existence will take into account non-human factors which affect the environment.

Finally as has been pointed out many times, you making uneducated and baseless claims like "We don't understand the system well enough yet to make even an educated guess as to what the climate will be in the future" is not valid as it is completely lacking evidence, but it is an especially poor argument when not only other people's sources but even your own sources dispute what you are saying.

Is English a second language that you're struggling with??? What I said was "Other factors are affecting the climate. What those other factors are and how and how much they are affecting it has yet to be determined." This is the same thing the researchers found. Let's look at what they said, "In summary, climate models did not (on average) reproduce the observed temperature trend over the early twenty-first century, in spite of the continued increase in anthropogenic forcing. This mismatch focused attention on a compelling science problem — a problem deserving of scientific scrutiny." In other words; the climate models are rising a lot faster than actual readings despite increased human activity. This is the fact that my graph pointed out earlier that you whined and moaned about. THE MODELS ARE WRONG!!! THE HIATUS IS REAL!!! If we can make accurate predictions, why aren't we??? Why are the models so wrong???

Oh wow, you've once again provided a graph with absolutely no evidence to back it up or show it's relevant or based on real data! So once again it can be ignored as trash because it doesn't meet the most basic requirements for valid evidence!

Now let's look at the other reference you made, where you quoted a study, because as we have the actual details claims and information for that I can actually show how you aren't able to understand what is being said and are making ludicrous claims.

You claim: "Actually, it says just the opposite. If global warming could be blamed on human activity, warming could be accurately charted according to such activity. It can't. The models are wrong. "

LIE. The study makes no such claim and in fact talks about increasing accuracy of predictions now we have learned more, e.g.: "As a result, the scientific community is now better able to explain temperature variations such as those experienced during the early twenty-first century33, and perhaps even to make skilful predictions of such fluctuations in the future. For example, climate model predictions initialized with recent observations indicate a transition to a positive phase of the IPO with increased rates of global surface temperature warming (ref. 34, and G. A. Meehl, A. Hu and H. Teng, manuscript in preparation)."

You claim: "Other factors are affecting the climate. What those other factors are and how and how much they are affecting it has yet to be determined."

LIE. Your own study identifies the factors and references studies showing how climate experts are now taking these into account: " This reduction arises through the combined effects of internal decadal variability11–18, volcanic19,23 and solar activity, and decadal changes in anthropogenic aerosol forcing32"

You claim: "In other words; the climate models are rising a lot faster than actual readings despite increased human activity."

LIE. The study states that this is interdecadal variability, e.g. in the 2030s we may well see the models be lower than the actual temperature by the same amount.

You claim: "This is the fact that my graph pointed out earlier that you whined and moaned about. THE MODELS ARE WRONG!!! THE HIATUS IS REAL!!!"

LIE. The hiatus has ended and global warming has resumed. Your own study says that it is supporting the scientific consensus on on going global warming: "Given the intense political and public scrutiny that global climate change now receives, it has been imperative for scientists to provide a timely explanation of the warming slowdown, and to place it in the context of ongoing anthropogenic warming. Despite recently voiced concerns, we believe this has largely been accomplished."

cdog1950

For most of the last 2 millennia scientific "consensus" was confined to whatever Western religion would allow. To a large degree modern religions, primarily Christian and Muslim, are still at odds with science. Otherwise, the question of global climate change would be less a debate about "whether" it is occurring than how the hell to reverse it. Which at this time is the correct debate. In 4.5 billion years all kinds of things affect the climate.

MayCaesar

IPCC is not as much a scientific as it is a political organization. They are well known for not letting reputable scientists speak whenever those scientists presented evidence contrary to its claims, there have been countless leaks demonstrating falsification of scientific data, and they also have to correct their models every year, since they give inaccurate predictions - they explain it with, "Our models are not perfect yet, but they are improving". This is not how scientific method works, but this is how politics works.

Unfortunately, organizations such as this offer a very aggressive narrative and they influence politicians, who then enact premature policies, forcing real scientific organizations to often, at least, comply with their conclusions in order to obtain funding. This is how science works, unfortunately: we sometimes have to play dirty to be financed.

From my personal research on the existing papers, there is a lot of evidence that the increase of global temperatures correlates with the increase of human-produced greenhouse - but the causal connection has not been demonstrated, and the rate of the increase of temperatures is consistent with the previous handful of centuries, something that people do not like to talk about. In addition, there is data demonstrating that the natural cycles of solar activity correlate well with the observed temperature changes, which is much more likely to explain the observable facts than the measly greenhouse amounts we produce, compared to the natural greenhouse emissions and other contributing factors.

To summarize, at best, we do not know if humanity contributes significantly, and at most, it is very unlikely that it does. It, however, is worth noting that greenhouse emissions may have significant effects locally, and the work towards their reduction should not stop just because people exaggerate the consequences.

cheesycheese

here are the facts
the earth is warming at an alarming rate
carbon dioxide levels are causing this warming
humans are pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere we can tell which is human made it is slightly heavier
conclusion humans cause climate change

AmericanFurryBoy

Human made climate change is very real. All those deniers are gonna be eating their words when half of NYC is underwater. We need to fix the ozone and reverse the rest of our damage.

CYDdharta

The real point of global warming alarmism;

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.
...

"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy"

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/

cheesycheese

@CYDdharta that person was a politician not a meteorologist the majority of scientists still stand by the original prediction

TTKDB

It's been said that earth is 4.5 billion years old.

How long has man been on earth for, roughly 200,000 years?

Looking at that gap of time, some at best can only guess at what's causing the earth's climate to change.

Does anyone know exactly how many ice ages that a planet 4.5 billion years old has gone through?

Looks like in a sense that man is trying to catch up with a thin timeline roughly 200,000 years old, and poorly try to compare it to a timeline that is 4.5 billion years old?

My point of view is that the earth is going to do what it will, when it does.

Hurricanes, typhoons, droughts, heat waves, tsunamis, volcanoes, ice freezing or melting, nor easter's, El Nino's, and so on.

The above has been going on for billions of years, and the best that humanity can do is adapt to it.

Because this planet has gone through more changes than humanity itself, will ever be able to know about it.

CYDdharta

cheesycheese said:

@CYDdharta that person was a politician not a meteorologist the majority of scientists still stand by the original prediction

...so then we can dismiss out-of-hand anything put forward by the IPCC, right?

BTW, the majority of meteorologists don't believe the IPCC's predictions;

According to American Meteorological Society (AMS) data, 89% of AMS meteorologists believe global warming is happening, but only a minority (30%) is very worried about global warming.
...
Other questions solidified the meteorologists’ skepticism about humans creating a global warming crisis. For example, among those meteorologists who believe global warming is happening, only a modest majority (59%) believe humans are the primary cause. More importantly, only 38% of respondents who believe global warming is occurring say it will be very harmful during the next 100 years.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/03/14/shock-poll-meteorologists-are-global-warming-skeptics/#419c5bfc73be

cheesycheese

@CDYdharta
clickbait articles don’t count as evidence

CYDdharta

cheesycheese said:

@CDYdharta
clickbait articles don’t count as evidence

Lame excuses don't count as replies.

John_C_87

Thank God for climate change.

The earth was once a bubbling molten rock with pools of acid. Climate manipulation is all humanity, all the time.

cheesycheese

James Taylor is no researcher

John_C_87

The way you are describing the events of change in living condition is saying man is responsible for manipulation. The unconstitutional process that is taking place in a freedom of speech is that it sets in motion accusation of changes with a single cause for how mankind manipulates temperature. Only in a way? Mankind has already understood this way as unpractical. The use of gas like Co2 to create change is unrealistic for mankind as it has already set the process as too costly, and too dangerous. It is not a way that can be seen as intentional to create a fluctuation of our living environment.

The First Amendment grievance to freedom of speech is Climate Manipulation. Mankind holds a power to manipulate climate as a united state. This is not freedom of speech it is the use of news as a form of advertising for education. It uses idea as a method for public bid of attendance in the form of rating without a burden of cost to advertising with a traditional add of some kind.

PotterWatch

I say no. I can easily prove that man made global warming is not real using logical thinking. Now for a disclaimer before I get started: Global warming is real, but it's natural.

1. I'd first like to point out the fact that if man made global warming is real, then all of the cities in the world would be noticeably warming than the country side in their respected areas. If one were to simply look at any state's or country's weather reports that just isn't the case. Outside of the seasons the temperature doesn't really change all that much.

2. A popular argument for man made global warming theorists is the melting ice caps and/or Himalayas. Again, this isn't the case. Both are as cold as ever. In fact the pictures they use to "prove" that they're melting are actually just pictures of pieces of ice that broke off and floated down to warmer areas and melted.

3. This one is plain common sense. Man kind has been industrializing for 100+ years and been on earth for much longer. So if we really were the cause of global warming, then it would be much hotter than it actually is.

cheesycheese

PotterWatch said:

I say no. I can easily prove that man made global warming is not real using logical thinking. Now for a disclaimer before I get started: Global warming is real, but it's natural.

1. I'd first like to point out the fact that if man made global warming is real, then all of the cities in the world would be noticeably warming than the country side in their respected areas. If one were to simply look at any state's or country's weather reports that just isn't the case. Outside of the seasons the temperature doesn't really change all that much.

2. A popular argument for man made global warming theorists is the melting ice caps and/or Himalayas. Again, this isn't the case. Both are as cold as ever. In fact the pictures they use to "prove" that they're melting are actually just pictures of pieces of ice that broke off and floated down to warmer areas and melted.

3. This one is plain common sense. Man kind has been industrializing for 100+ years and been on earth for much longer. So if we really were the cause of global warming, then it would be much hotter than it actually is.

Weather is not climate

Ampersand

PotterWatch said:

I say no. I can easily prove that man made global warming is not real using logical thinking. Now for a disclaimer before I get started: Global warming is real, but it's natural.

1. I'd first like to point out the fact that if man made global warming is real, then all of the cities in the world would be noticeably warming than the country side in their respected areas. If one were to simply look at any state's or country's weather reports that just isn't the case. Outside of the seasons the temperature doesn't really change all that much.

2. A popular argument for man made global warming theorists is the melting ice caps and/or Himalayas. Again, this isn't the case. Both are as cold as ever. In fact the pictures they use to "prove" that they're melting are actually just pictures of pieces of ice that broke off and floated down to warmer areas and melted.

3. This one is plain common sense. Man kind has been industrializing for 100+ years and been on earth for much longer. So if we really were the cause of global warming, then it would be much hotter than it actually is.

More people who know nothing about climate change trying to weigh in and just talking nonsense.

1. Firstly, cities are warmer than countryside. It's a meteorological fact known as Urban Heat Islands. Secondly it has nothing to do with global warming anyway. The main cause of global warming is the release of greenhouse gasses. Greenhouse gasses don't just magically float and stay above the city where they are released, they disperse into the atmosphere.

2. Wrong. We've been measuring the arctic sea ice for a ong while and there's approximately a million square miles less ice overall. For example:

(Visualisation based on data from the EPA)

3). This is a meaningless and baseless claim. Why would it be warmer than it is now? Because you, a random person on the internet, says so?

CYDdharta

So how many of the models predicted reality?

Don't Tell Anyone, But We Just Had Two Years Of Record-Breaking Global Cooling

TTKDB

The planet is said to be 4.5 billion years old.

And humanity has been on the planet for how long, roughly 200,000 years?

Humanity has seen but a miniscule fraction, of what the planet has gone through weather wise.

Speculation, presumption, computer models, hypothesizing, and guesstimation, I'm sorry to say, still maybe aren't enough to give humanity a clearer view, on the weather cycles that this planet has endured during it's still ever developing life cycles?

Andrej

By the logic of @CYDdharta, apparently if it snows, climate change is clearly a lie. The effects of climate change are an average, and as such surely you cannot expect that all places will be ridiculously hot? Some places are warmer, some are colder, but it is absolutely ridiculous to discredit climate change because the climate varies and changes in some places. When Lake Erie had not frozen for the first time in 2006, we actually saw a more winter-like climate in the areas surrounding it because of global warming.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-global-warming-harsher-winter/

Since there was an increased amount of water available for evaporation, we saw an increased amount of snowfall. Even climate skeptics are supportive of the notion that sudden cold spouts are not direct indicators that climate change is actually false, which is quite odd considering the poor rationales I am seeing for proponents against the existence of man-made climate change within this debate.

They should know better. Climate change and the weather are not the same thing. The differences between the two are a simple case of basic mathematics and reason.

Andrej

The lack of sourcing as well is quite disappointing. Claiming it is god's will is not something which should allow a lack of legitimate sources.

CYDdharta

Andrej said:

By the logic of @CYDdharta, apparently if it snows, climate change is clearly a lie. The effects of climate change are an average, and as such surely you cannot expect that all places will be ridiculously hot? Some places are warmer, some are colder, but it is absolutely ridiculous to discredit climate change because the climate varies and changes in some places. When Lake Erie had not frozen for the first time in 2006, we actually saw a more winter-like climate in the areas surrounding it because of global warming.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-global-warming-harsher-winter/

Since there was an increased amount of water available for evaporation, we saw an increased amount of snowfall. Even climate skeptics are supportive of the notion that sudden cold spouts are not direct indicators that climate change is actually false, which is quite odd considering the poor rationales I am seeing for proponents against the existence of man-made climate change within this debate.

They should know better. Climate change and the weather are not the same thing. The differences between the two are a simple case of basic mathematics and reason.

Apparently @Andrej doesn't understand the meaning of the term GLOBAL cooling. Since we're talking about a lower GLOBAL AVERAGE, even you have to admit your whole argument is a fail.

Andrej

@CYDdharta

A fine example of pure consideration of an opposing argument! Global cooling is not occurring if there is an average of both areas in which the climate is warming and other areas where there is cooling.

Where is your sourcing? Give me a fact and I will see your point, but if you will just dismiss my arguments then I see no reason to find legitimacy in any word you say. Global cooling is not an argument to discredit climate change and if I am mistaken preferably use a source other than god.

I insist. If I am somehow mistaken, surely you can do better than your measly posts.

CYDdharta

Andrej said:

@CYDdharta

A fine example of pure consideration of an opposing argument! Global cooling is not occurring if there is an average of both areas in which the climate is warming and other areas where there is cooling.

Where is your sourcing? Give me a fact and I will see your point, but if you will just dismiss my arguments then I see no reason to find legitimacy in any word you say. Global cooling is not an argument to discredit climate change and if I am mistaken preferably use a source other than god.

I insist. If I am somehow mistaken, surely you can do better than your measly posts.

I have already posted the link, it's in very large blue letters that says "Don't Tell Anyone, But We Just Had Two Years Of Record-Breaking Global Cooling". Can not follow a link? Are you unable to click on the very large title? I guess I have to spoon feed you. This is from a link in the link;

Would it surprise you to learn the greatest global two-year cooling event of the last century just occurred? From February 2016 to February 2018 (the latest month available) global average temperatures dropped 0.56°C. You have to go back to 1982-84 for the next biggest two-year drop, 0.47°C—also during the global warming era. All the data in this essay come from GISTEMP Team, 2018: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP). NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (dataset accessed 2018-04-11 at https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/). This is the standard source used in most journalistic reporting of global average temperatures.

Did You Know the Greatest Two-Year Global Cooling Event Just Took Place?

Zombieguy1987

Andrej said:

The lack of sourcing as well is quite disappointing. Claiming it is god's will is not something which should allow a lack of legitimate sources.

Using God as source in general is a bad source

CYDdharta

Zombieguy1987 said:

Andrej said:

The lack of sourcing as well is quite disappointing. Claiming it is god's will is not something which should allow a lack of legitimate sources.

Using God as source in general is a bad source

True, but then no one has used God in this debate.

Zombieguy1987

CYDdharta said:

Zombieguy1987 said:

Andrej said:

The lack of sourcing as well is quite disappointing. Claiming it is god's will is not something which should allow a lack of legitimate sources.

Using God as source in general is a bad source

True, but then no one has used God in this debate.

Sure seems like @Andrej was directing his comment at someone...

CYDdharta

Zombieguy1987 said:

Sure seems like @Andrej was directing his comment at someone...

It doesn't seem like Andrej has any idea what he's talking about, as he was complaining about local cooling and global warming and lack of a source when the source I posted discussed the global cooling that has taken place during the last 2 years.

gabe

I would go pro as man has a part in global climate change as we have been increasing our emissions considerably as according to npr The CO2 increase in 2017 over the previous year was 1.6 percent, and in 2018 it's looking like emissions will have grown a further 2.7 percent. With the economy strong throughout most of the world, 2019 looks to be headed in the same direction, in terms of carbon emissions. this can be directly linked to greenhouse emissions as according to NASA Carbon dioxide (CO2). A minor but very important component of the atmosphere, carbon dioxide is released through natural processes such as respiration and volcano eruptions and through human activities such as deforestation, land use changes, and burning fossil fuels. Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by more than a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change. NASA says earlier in the article Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect"1 — warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space. since NASA points to this being a man made problem and emmisions can be linked to climate change I can only see man to be at fault. P.s. I apologize for the inccorect sourcing method.

CYDdharta

gabe said:

I would go pro as man has a part in global climate change as we have been increasing our emissions considerably as according to npr The CO2 increase in 2017 over the previous year was 1.6 percent, and in 2018 it's looking like emissions will have grown a further 2.7 percent. With the economy strong throughout most of the world, 2019 looks to be headed in the same direction, in terms of carbon emissions. this can be directly linked to greenhouse emissions as according to NASA Carbon dioxide (CO2). A minor but very important component of the atmosphere, carbon dioxide is released through natural processes such as respiration and volcano eruptions and through human activities such as deforestation, land use changes, and burning fossil fuels. Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by more than a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change. NASA says earlier in the article Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect"1 — warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space. since NASA points to this being a man made problem and emmisions can be linked to climate change I can only see man to be at fault. P.s. I apologize for the inccorect sourcing method.

If CO2 is such an important greenhouse gas and it is rising so rapidly, why have we just experienced the greatest global two-year cooling event of the last century?

Applesauce

@CYDdharta

If CO2 is such an important greenhouse gas and it is rising so rapidly, why have we just experienced the greatest global two-year cooling event of the last century?

something I recall reading is plants need and grow very well with CO2, which is why it's actually pumped into greenhouses. Plants cool the surrounding area hence the push for roof top gardens and more plants in the concrete jungles which with lack of plants makes cities hotter than the areas around them. There was a map which showed more plant life near deserts and other mostly uninhabitable places because of the CO2.

The sun is loosing mass, energy, dying, whatever you want to call it, and the earth's orbit is getting further away from the sun, if or how much effect that has I don't think anyone can say for certain.

one other thing to keep in mind is this started out as global warming and once that was debunked it got changed to climate change because, yeah the weather changes, hard to say it doesn't.

John_C_87

I would just like to point out a truth when climate change is not natural process it is Climate manipulation when caused by purpose. It is what is call a whole truth, as a little truth can be driven hard to go a long way.

CYDdharta

Applesauce said:

@CYDdharta

If CO2 is such an important greenhouse gas and it is rising so rapidly, why have we just experienced the greatest global two-year cooling event of the last century?
something I recall reading is plants need and grow very well with CO2, which is why it's actually pumped into greenhouses. Plants cool the surrounding area hence the push for roof top gardens and more plants in the concrete jungles which with lack of plants makes cities hotter than the areas around them. There was a map which showed more plant life near deserts and other mostly uninhabitable places because of the CO2.
The sun is loosing mass, energy, dying, whatever you want to call it, and the earth's orbit is getting further away from the sun, if or how much effect that has I don't think anyone can say for certain.
one other thing to keep in mind is this started out as global warming and once that was debunked it got changed to climate change because, yeah the weather changes, hard to say it doesn't.

Actually, it started out as global cooling. I remember the dire predictions of an imminent ice age;

Image: https://www.debateisland.com/uploads/editor/tc/0kxbkoajkzpo.jpg

cheesycheese

Yes but even that picture proves that science has been settled for forty years.

MayCaesar

Science is never "settled". The day science is settled is the day science is dead.

Every single person who has seriously said the phrase "science is settled", with regards to absolutely anything, does not deserve his/her scientific degree. Then again, this phrase rarely comes from actual scientists, and mostly comes from politicians and TV stars instead.

John_C_87

Man-made climate change is real. No man-made climate changes is called climate manipulation. It is climate manipulation which is real and is described in different ways. Man-made climate manipulation is what man-made climate changes is trying to say be doesn’t really say it. Human Manipulation is a constitutional separation for a wide area things including voter attitude to massive heat, cold, and power accumulators, along with windmills and water dams.

CYDdharta

cheesycheese said:

Yes but even that picture proves that science has been settled for forty years.

LOL, yeah, they've settled for lies.

John_C_87

@CYDdharta ;

No it doesn't prove that science has been settled for forty years, It proves it only went relative in 1905 then never looked back, that's over 100 human years. That just like time but in the wrong direction. Literally.

What did the mad-scientism say to the guidance counselor?

"What do you mean I can't take science I make the scientist mad."

Not enough credit?

Why do schools and science take money but use credit ?

Credit does not make the public commitment of Legal tender good for all debt foreign and domestic.

Applesauce

the world is going to end in 12 years, didn't the all knowledgeable Al Gore make a prediction? maybe we are already dead and don't know it!!!!

CYDdharta

Applesauce said:

the world is going to end in 12 years, didn't the all knowledgeable Al Gore make a prediction? maybe we are already dead and don't know it!!!!

You may be thinking of that other notable climatologist, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez;

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/01/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-the-world-is-gonna-end-in-12-years-if-we-dont-address-climate-change/

frame

Howdy, Stranger!

Communities

Iran downplays Israel's missile strike on Isfahan

In this Debate

Man-made Climate Change is real

Debra AI Prediction

Arguments

Don't Tell Anyone, But We Just Had Two Years Of Record-Breaking Global Cooling

Did You Know the Greatest Two-Year Global Cooling Event Just Took Place?

Back To Top

foot

DebateIsland.com

Contact us

Get In Touch