Climate change
It is human caused.
Side Score: 12
|
 |
It is natural oscillation.
Side Score: 19
|
|
|
|
|
"How could one say that this could not be natural oscillation when the roman warming period was on average, hotter than it is today?" The roman warming period was only regional, and not global. Global temperatures were cooler back then on average, some places were obviously warmer though. "Another topic is that mars's atmosphere is 98% co2 although it is on average MUCH colder than the earth." Mars' atmosphere may be 98% CO2, but it's less than one percent of the thickness of Earth's atmosphere. I could be wrong, but I think its about total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, along with many other factors that make Earth warmer than Mars, like it's mean distance from the sun. Have a look at Venus though, with a much thicker atmosphere, and high CO2 percentage. I know there are other factors contributing to the temperature than that, but its mean temperature is around 475 degrees Celsius. "If you chart CO2 emissions with the average world temperature, it appears that there is no correlation." There does seem to be a correlation (not necessarily causation, although most of the science around GHGs backs that up pretty well), that as atmospheric CO2 increases, so does temperature. Other things are also effected. These stats pretty much show all that needs to be seen. (Make sure to scroll along all the different subheadings under 'vital signs') One must remember that the scales shown on the axes of the graphs can be manipulated to make relationships look stronger or weaker than they are, but the fact remains that temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels both show a simultaneous increase. Side: It is human caused.
First off, I am happy to finally debate Someone that presents facts and backs them up. My first point is about mars though. Mars’s atmosphere is smaller than the earths, although the planet is also smaller (which is the reason it’s gravity can’t sustain a bigger atmosphere). The greenhouse gas idea still remains even with a smaller atmosphere. The atmosphere, of almost entirely co2, should still withhold heat, due to the greenhouse principle. Also, Venus is the much hotter than the earth, but this is due to many factors such as the fact that it is 26 million miles closer to the sun and that the atmosphere has a much higher pressure. In fact, that atmospheric pressure is 90 times that of earth’s!( http://nova.stanford.edu/projects/mod-x/ Side: It is natural oscillation.
More about Mars vs Earth vs Venus: Mars' atmospheric pressure (mean at surface) = 600 pascals Earth's = 101,325 pascals Venus = 9,119,250 (All according to wiki, and what you said about Venus) Mars is also furthest of three from the Sun, while Venus is the closest. These two things seem to be the main factors, so it makes sense that the temperatures are as they are. The greenhouse effect does take place on Mars (http://sciencing.com/ Also, as an interesting fact rather than an argument really, Mar's almost certainly used to be warm and with water, when it's atmosphere was thicker. The reason the atmosphere thinned out was (along with its low gravity) that the core stopped working and the magnetic field blocking radiation therefore disappeared. The radiation just 'blew' most of the atmosphere away. "it all balances out." Not quite clear on what exactly balances out, and what 'balancing out' actually means here... "And your NASA evidence that there is a correlation in co2 and temperature had nothing to with he comparison, it merely stated that we are at record high uses of co2 which no one has questioned." I think maybe you didn't click on the subheading titled global temperature? Otherwise, all you'd see would be CO2 stats, and I understand that that alone would show nothing. Also, just google image searching for "CO2 plotted with temperature" shows a lot of data that shows the correlation. "Read my article, published by a man with high credentials in the climate and meteorology field." I'm sorry to say that this article is very long, and I don't have time to try to argue with every point that is made here. From my short glance at it there do seem to be good points that make me think a lot. Hopefully this won't land me with accusations of avoiding the evidence against my point. I might have time if you picked one or two examples of good points that he makes for me to debate. I'd like to add that I could just as easily link a thousand articles from equally qualified people who disagree with Dr Frank. I want to add one question... Do people like you who are against man-made climate change tend to think that the greenhouse effect isn't a real thing, or do you just think it's over exaggerated? I could definitely be persuaded to think it's somewhat over exaggerated, and maybe that people aren't the main cause of climate change. I'm also very happy to be able to debate these sorts of things without resorting to shouting matches. :) Side: It is human caused.
2
points
It doesn't matter if it's anthropological or not. Your entire debate is a red herring. Climate change is happening and it's going to be destructive if we don't do something about it. Nature doesn't give a fuck about your politically motivated denialism. Side: It is human caused.
+Quantumhead: First off, the first man presented facts with no backing. Secondly, my debate is not a red herring of any kind, I have not misrepresented any numbers to “cover up” the main problem. And Nature is the one doing this. You are correct hat climate change is happeneing but it has happened since the earth came to be. It was hotter than it is today during the Roman and medieval warming periods. Today, natural oscillation is being used as a political device to raise taxes. Were all those who denied global cooling also “deniers”. Present evidence you moron. Side: It is natural oscillation.
Nearly 200 countries do not consider it fake news. Only about 30% of the conservative party in the United States and a few OTHER radicals around the world are afraid to admit they have a brainwashed condition. China has realized they can lead the fight ... and make $Bn's! While the stupidity of our right wing let's them corner the market that would produce tens of thousands MORE jobs than a coal mine! Smart?? Side: It is human caused.
|
I hate how modern day liberals see climate change as a closed argument and refuse to see the other side. In some states such as California, kids are indoctrinated that global warming is solely human caused. Now, for this debate, I am in no way saying that pollution and fossil fuels are good or should be continually used. I am merely bringing up the point that climate change is not nearly as understood as modern day liberal politicians claim. For example, how could one say that this could not be natural oscillation when the roman warming period was on average, hotter than it is today. The medieval warming period was on average as hot as it is today. So how can one say that our fossil fuels are making the earth hotter. I gaurentee you that the romans and knights were not burning fossil fuels like we are today. Another topic is that mars's atmosphere is 98% co2 although it is on average MUCH colder than the earth. The last topic I would like to bring up for round one is that if you chart co2 emissions with the average world temperature, it appears that there is no correlation. Side: It is natural oscillation.
1
point
-1
points
You are obviously correct. The Left uses global cooling, I mean global warming, I mean climate change to garner money and votes from environmentalists. The Democrat party does the same thing with No Restriction abortion support to garner money and votes from feminists and pro abortion lobbies. iT'S ALL POLITICS! Yesterday it was cold and rainy. Today it is warm and sunny. Climate change in action. Side: It is natural oscillation.
|
