CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
It is absolutely and issue and to say that it is not is to deny basic facts about science.
-Sea level rise is being measured; that's a fact that has been observed all over the world.
-Glaciers are retreating, and ice caps are melting at an alarming rate; that has been observed all over the world over the last century.
-CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps solar radiation; that is a fact that exists all over the universe including here. The Planet Venus has active geology, which has given the planet what Astronomers call a "runaway greenhouse effect." The Average Global Temperature on Venus is around 900 degrees fahrenheit. It is hotter on Venus than it is on Mercury, which is MUCH closer to the sun. So, we know CO2 traps heat; that is not up for debate.
-Earth naturally has CO2 in its atmosphere because Earth has active geology (not nearly as active as it is on Venus); that is why the planet is inhabitable at all, and isn't -200 degrees at night and +300 during the day. So, we know what CO2 does, factually.
-CO2 comes out of your car's tailpipe; that is a fact that everyone should know by now. CO2 also comes out of smokestacks and industry. We know that; it is not up for debate.
-CO2 levels have risen exponentially since the industrial revolution (when we started using fossil fuels for energy on a wide scale). This is not a conjecture. It has been observed. Today we have levels of CO2 that the planet has not seen in over 800,000 years, when we had a much more active geology and no broadleaf vegetation.
-The AGT of Earth has risen at the SAME exponential rate as the CO2 levels starting at the same time, almost like magic, except it's science; this has also been observed.
-We are seeing a mass extinction beginning as a result of climate change. It will likely be every bit as bad as what happened to the Earth when the dinosaurs were killed. My friend who is a scientist at a University in Florida is doing research on this very topic, and he is seeing it for himself in the everglades.
Most of the arguments against all this evidence are from people that either do not understand the science and evidence behind it, or it does not fit their political views, so they reject it. The problem is, whether you are a Republican or Democrat, you still live on the same planet and scientific laws and theories still apply to you. This is one of those times when "conservatives" should stop denying science or they risk becoming irrelevant and going the way of the whig party.
98% of scientists with PhDs from all around the world are not denying these truths because it would be stupid for them to. Since 2012, there have been around 2500 peer-reviewed scientific journals that were written by over 9000 respected scientists. ONE of them denied climate change.
Everything I said about climate change can be found on NASA's website: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ It can also be found on ANY reputable science website. None of this is made-up conjecture. I don't care what party you belong to, facts are facts, and we are seeing it happen. It isn't a hypothesis. The theory regarding CO2 trapping heat has been around since the 1890s, so this theory is nothing new; now we just have a century of evidence, and evidence from other planets, to corroborate it.
Denying that global warming is a problem is absurd at this point. We see it happening, and it has been happening.
To deny it, you would have to:
-Deny that CO2 traps heat, which it does on earth and on other planets, which is observable.
-Deny that sea levels are rising, which is an observable fact.
-Deny that glaciers are retreating, which is an observable fact.
-Deny that heat melts ice, which it does on your counter when you set an ice cube on it; you can watch that happen in your home.
-Deny that there is a mass extinction happening, which is observable.
-Deny that CO2 levels are rising, which is observable.
-Deny that the Average Global Temperature of Earth is generally rising, which is observable.
Again, any reputable scientific website will explain everything I just said. If you don't believe me, hopefully you'll defer to the brilliant minds that put a man on the moon: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
If you do not have a PhD in science and think you know more about science than NASA, you're pretty much beyond my help.
There has been no scientific evidence that global warming is happening. In fact studies have showed that the earth is getting colder. In the 70s scientist predicted that there was going to be another ice age. Climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over. Predictions about the impact of global warming have already been proven wrong. If anything almost all the evidence points away from global warming.
In the 70s scientist predicted that there was going to be another ice age.
What is your point? That does not refute all the overwhelming observable evidence that supports that the Average Global Temperature is in a general upwards trend, and it does not dispute the fact that CO2 is a green house gas, and that is not only observed on earth, but also on other planets.
Climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over.
Some in the past that were hypothesizing were eventually disproven because that's how science works. That means science is right, that does not disprove scientific facts. It shows that science is capable of amending its consensus when facts are presented. Presently, there are no facts that are refuting all the undeniable observable evidence that support the theory of Global Warming.
Predictions about the impact of global warming have already been proven wrong.
This is patently false. We are seeing sea level rise (part of the prediction), we are seeing mass extinction underway (part of the prediction), we are seeing air that is unhealthy to breathe (part of the prediction), and we are seeing a general warming trend in the AGT (part of the prediction).
If anything almost all the evidence points away from global warming.
You shouldn't be telling me this. If you really think you're right, call NASA RIGHT NOW, and tell them you've proven all the scientists in the world with credibility wrong! Go now! You will change the world!
Well well well, where do I start? Before you go talking about the basic facts of science, you should learn some for yourself.
-Ice caps are, in fact, not melting. At all. They are increasing. Arctic ice has gone up 50% since 2012. That's 1.7 million square kilometers.
-Instead of talking about other planets, why don't you talk about Earth, THE PLANET WE LIVE ON and also know the most about.
-To say that the fact that CO2 contains heat is not up for debate is just ignorant. Earth's atmosphere is 0.03% CO2 and approximately 1% water vapor. Water vapor has a higher specific heat. A high specific heat means that it takes more energy to heat something up, thus maintaining that heat for longer. A low specific heat is the opposite. So if water vapor maintains heat for longer and there is exponentially more water vapor than CO2, why isn't water vapor something to worry about?
-Yes, CO2 comes out of cars and factories. This is simply a fact with no further explanation.
-Even with those so-called increases in CO2, it is still only 0.03% of the atmosphere. THAT, by the way, is a fact.
-The temperature of the Earth has not changed in 17 years (since 1997).
-Those that say the polar ice caps are melting, polar bears are dying, and the sea level is rising are completely wrong. I mentioned above about the polar ice and how it has increased 50% in only two years. As for the polar bear population, it has more than doubled in the past thirty years. As for the sea level rising due to the ice caps melting, it is impossible. Even though it is a proven fact that the ice caps have expanded rapidly, let's just say for argument's sake that they were melting. Imagine that you have a half of a cup of water. Now add some ice to that water. You will notice that the water level will rise. Well when that ice melts, the water level goes back down. It would be just silly to say that the cup will overflow from the melting ice.
-Scientists predicted about 15-20 years ago that in the near future, we would have to wear special suits to protect us from the heat. We are obviously not walking around with crazy suits to protect us from heat.
-Those who claim that Earth is a giant greenhouse are also wrong. Earth is by no means a greenhouse. A greenhouse is surrounded by glass and traps heat inside. Earth is obviously not surrounded by glass. When clouds form, they reflect heat back into space. This is Earth's way of cooling itself down. So we could not heat up the Earth if we tried. This is why when you are outside on a hot summer day and a cloud rolls over your head and blocking the sunlight, it instantly feels cooler. The heat is being reflected back into space by the clouds.
-If you're wondering why the THEORY of global warming has become such a widely accepted theory, go ahead and look into Climategate. It is a scandal literally showing that scientists have lied about global warming.
-Don't believe everything you've ever heard or what has been brainwashed into peoples' brains.
Well well well, where do I start? Before you go talking about the basic facts of science, you should learn some for yourself.
I know plenty about science, and I have friends who do research for Universities in the field. I've also taken a bunch of classes in Astonomy and Earth Sciences. Moreover, all of the basic facts I've mentioned are also the basic facts accepted by NASA, who, I'm assuming probably know more about science than both of us.
-Ice caps are, in fact, not melting. At all. They are increasing. Arctic ice has gone up 50% since 2012. That's 1.7 million square kilometers.
Not true, at least, according to NASA and every other credible scientific source in the world, and pictures of the ice caps from space. If you think you know more about science than NASA, I don't know what to say to you. http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
-Instead of talking about other planets, why don't you talk about Earth, THE PLANET WE LIVE ON and also know the most about.
The reason I brough up Venus is to show that the greenhouse effect is not some strange anomaly that only happens on Earth. So, I WAS talking about Earth, but I mentioned Venus to illustrate that the greenhouse effect happens other places too, and it universal.
-To say that the fact that CO2 contains heat is not up for debate is just ignorant. Earth's atmosphere is 0.03% CO2 and approximately 1% water vapor. Water vapor has a higher specific heat. A high specific heat means that it takes more energy to heat something up, thus maintaining that heat for longer. A low specific heat is the opposite. So if water vapor maintains heat for longer and there is exponentially more water vapor than CO2, why isn't water vapor something to worry about?
CO2, does not contain heat. CO2 TRAPS heat, and it does it on every planet that has CO2 present in its atmosphere, like Venus and Earth. It is actually ignorant to deny that. Here's what those "idiots at NASA" that you seem to think you know more about science than say about it. I am assuming that you just do not understand the science behind it. Please read what NASA has to say and how they know what they know: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
-Yes, CO2 comes out of cars and factories. This is simply a fact with no further explanation.
Okay. So you DO see the problem then.
Even with those so-called increases in CO2, it is still only 0.03% of the atmosphere. THAT, by the way, is a fact.
-The temperature of the Earth has not changed in 17 years (since 1997).
Actually, the general upward trend in the Average Global Temperature (AGT) continues, just as it has since the Industrial Revolution and the advent of burning fossil fuels on a large scale. Here's what NASA scientists have to say: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
-Those that say the polar ice caps are melting, polar bears are dying, and the sea level is rising are completely wrong. I mentioned above about the polar ice and how it has increased 50% in only two years. As for the polar bear population, it has more than doubled in the past thirty years. As for the sea level rising due to the ice caps melting, it is impossible. Even though it is a proven fact that the ice caps have expanded rapidly, let's just say for argument's sake that they were melting. Imagine that you have a half of a cup of water. Now add some ice to that water. You will notice that the water level will rise. Well when that ice melts, the water level goes back down. It would be just silly to say that the cup will overflow from the melting ice.
You're wrong that the polar ice caps are not melting. They ARE in fact melting, and we know that because we can see it happening. The ice in a cup of water analogy is an over-simplification intended to make the rising sea levels (something we've measured) from seeming like it could be happening, but it is, and the ice caps ARE melting, and so are the glaciers and permafrost, which is what is actually adding to the sea level rise. Here's what NASA scientists say about it. Please read what they have to say. They are brilliant scientists who have a higher level of knowledge about science than you:
-Scientists predicted about 15-20 years ago that in the near future, we would have to wear special suits to protect us from the heat. We are obviously not walking around with crazy suits to protect us from heat.
I do not recall that. Do you have a source? Any reputable scientists knows that it is happening, but not as quickly as that. Here's what NASA scientists have to say, please read it so that you understand the science about this. They know more about science than both of us: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
-Those who claim that Earth is a giant greenhouse are also wrong. Earth is by no means a greenhouse. A greenhouse is surrounded by glass and traps heat inside. Earth is obviously not surrounded by glass. When clouds form, they reflect heat back into space. This is Earth's way of cooling itself down. So we could not heat up the Earth if we tried. This is why when you are outside on a hot summer day and a cloud rolls over your head and blocking the sunlight, it instantly feels cooler. The heat is being reflected back into space by the clouds.
That's not how it works entirely. You've oversimplified how the environment works. No one is saying that the Earth is a greenhouse. The Greenhouse Effect is something that happens, but the earth is not a greenhouse. The greenhouse effect is something scientists have named the effect that CO2 has on trapping heat on a planet and keeping it warm. If we did not have a natural greenhouse effect, it would be uninhabitable and cold at night, and too hot during the day to live. So, the trapping of heat that happens naturally with the Earth's geology is why the planet has maintained a habitable temperature.
-If you're wondering why the THEORY of global warming has become such a widely accepted theory, go ahead and look into Climategate. It is a scandal literally showing that scientists have lied about global warming.
Why did you type "theory" in large letters? Anyone who knows anything about science (something you've tacitly claimed to know more about than me), knows that a theory is actually one of the highest standards something in science can attain. So, calling something a theory is saying, "it's true." You're thinking of a HYPOTHESIS, and Global Warming is NOT a hypothesis. It was a hypothesis back in the 1890s before they had data to back it up with, and now it's a theory. Scientists are not lying about global warming. It's happening. Some right wing political interests are lying about global warming to ignorant people who do not understand science. Here's what NASA scientists have to say about it:
-Don't believe everything you've ever heard or what has been brainwashed into peoples' brains.
Science is not a lie. Science is not made-up. Science is not a "liberal" conspiracy. Science is man's epistemological study of the universe which uses a method that relies on empirical evidence. The opposite of science is superstition. Scientists are not there to lie to you. Scientists are there to learn and research using factual, empirical evidence. It is not politically-driven.
In reality, credible scientists are not even debating if this is happening, or if CO2 traps heat in an atmosphere. To actual scientists all around the world, that's not a debate. Only people like you are debating it. So, before you go telling other people to "learn some basic facts of science," you should probably take a few community college science classes so that you can learn how science works, or at least read what experts in science have to say so that you understand the whole idea before you attack it: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Sadly, I am afraid you're more politically driven, than interested in how science works. Please, look at the NASA link. Any other reputable science website that is about science will agree with their findings. This is not a secret conspiracy to take your gas-guzzling truck. It's science. If you think science is an international conspiracy, or if you think that you know more about science than the brilliant scientists at NASA, or anywhere else in the world, I'm not sure I'll be able to lead you out of the cave though (that's a Plato reference).
NASA seems to be your only source. Although NASA has done some pretty incredible things, they're not always right.
-Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer is quoted saying that the climate models used by government agencies "have failed miserably."
-James Hansen of NASA predicted that the West Side Highway in New York would be under water by now due to global warming.
Now let's move on to other predictions gone wrong, shall we?
-In the documentary called An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore predicted that all of the Arctic ice would be gone by 2013.
Need more?
-The co-founder of The Weather Channel, John Coleman, was in an interview about a week ago admitting that global warming is a huge myth. He said that it was "bad-bad science."
-31,000 scientists signed a petition saying that global warming is not caused by humans.
-As I said before, ClimateGate is a huge scientific scandal basically exposing that "credible" scientists have lied about global warming. Emails that were leaked showing conversations between scientists at the Hadley Climatic Research Unit at Britain's University of East Anglia show that they were talking about doubt or SCIENTIFIC WEAKNESS in the global warming theory. They were even planning to evade legal requests for their data, which violated the Freedom of Information Act stated in the United States Constitution.
The ice caps are increasing and I do have the sources to prove it:
The greenhouse effect would work if the Earth was somehow surrounded by glass or something similar to trap the heat. Heat can get into the atmosphere just as well as it can escape.
CO2 DOES NOT TRAP HEAT. Look at the facts. Look at the percentages in the atmosphere and then look at the specific heat. Any logical person would realize that CO2 does not trap any significant amount of heat.
The fact that CO2 comes out of cars and factories doesn't mean anything to me. I just proved to you that CO2 is not harmful to the environment and it is food for the trees to make more oxygen for us to breathe.
The temperature of the Earth has NOT changed in 17 years. I don't know how else to explain this to you.
As for the greenhouse effect, there are recently some scientists that say CO2 isn't even a greenhouse gas. Besides that, it contains so little heat that even with "increasing CO2 levels," it would not have any effect on Earth ant its atmosphere, especially the temperature.
Sadly, you've decided to look past the basic fundamental facts of science. Put together the pieces yourself. You'd much rather have the "scientists over at NASA" tell you what to think. Do the research. Break it down and you'll realize that even the "brilliant scientists at NASA" are not always right. If you still don't see that humans are not the cause of global warming, I don't think there is anyone who can get past your wall of ignorance. Not even if the scientists at NASA told you that you were wrong. And to say that I'm more politically driven than interested in how science works is extremely ignorant. I'm looking at the facts and putting it together instead of someone telling me what is true with no actual facts behind it.
NASA seems to be your only source. Although NASA has done some pretty incredible things, they're not always right.
NASA is NOT my only source. As I said a few times, ANY credible scientific source agrees with NASA. Like the NOAA: http://www.climate.gov and here's what Stanford University has to say: http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html. If you get your information from scientists, they will support that global warming is anthropogenic because it's true. So, with that being said, science is not a secret global liberal conspiracy. You do not know more about science than the world's top scientists.
-Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer is quoted saying that the climate models used by government agencies "have failed miserably."
-James Hansen of NASA predicted that the West Side Highway in New York would be under water by now due to global warming.
Now let's move on to other predictions gone wrong, shall we?
-In the documentary called An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore predicted that all of the Arctic ice would be gone by 2013.
Need more?
-The co-founder of The Weather Channel, John Coleman, was in an interview about a week ago admitting that global warming is a huge myth. He said that it was "bad-bad science."
-31,000 scientists signed a petition saying that global warming is not caused by humans.
-As I said before, ClimateGate is a huge scientific scandal basically exposing that "credible" scientists have lied about global warming. Emails that were leaked showing conversations between scientists at the Hadley Climatic Research Unit at Britain's University of East Anglia show that they were talking about doubt or SCIENTIFIC WEAKNESS in the global warming theory. They were even planning to evade legal requests for their data, which violated the Freedom of Information Act stated in the United States Constitution.
I'd like to see your sources for these. I'll bet they aren't credible and unbiased scientific scholarly sources.
The ice caps are increasing and I do have the sources to prove it:
Your sources are dubious. Newsmax and the "heartland foundation" are both political propaganda sources, not scholarly scientific source.
Even your mostly reasonable source supports that arctic sea ice is declining (and all the other facts that support anthropogenic global warming), which means your argument hinges on local anecdotal weather patters in the antarctic, which does not disprove any of the data that supports anthropogenic climate change. You are not a scientist, you're a science denier.
The greenhouse effect would work if the Earth was somehow surrounded by glass or something similar to trap the heat. Heat can get into the atmosphere just as well as it can escape.
This proves that you do not understand basic fundamentals about science. The fact that you stated this as if it were a fact, proves that you believe it.
Okay, so, planets have atmospheres because of the gravity generated by the mass of the object. The gases stay close to the planet because of the gravity. That's why the OXYGEN that is in our atmosphere, or the NITROGEN in our atmosphere doesn't just go out into space. THATS HOW WE CAN BREATHE! The oxygen doesn't stick to the planet because there's a glass bubble around the earth containing the gases from our atmosphere. So, CO2, a gas, ALSO functions like every other gas in our atmosphere. Do you really not understand how the atmosphere works?
Back to Venus: Vensus doesn't have a glass bubble around it either, yet, the CO2 stays in its atmosphere. Weird! It's because glass bubbles aren't what hold atmosphere to planets, gravity does! If you're going to make claims about science, at least understand the fundamentals of it.
CO2 DOES NOT TRAP HEAT. Look at the facts. Look at the percentages in the atmosphere and then look at the specific heat. Any logical person would realize that CO2 does not trap any significant amount of heat.
Yes it does. Every single scientist in the world knows that. You'r the only one denying it. Venus is HOTTER THAN MERCURY (which is much closer to the sun) because CO2 traps heat! If that wasn't true, I wouldn't believe it, and every scientist in the world wouldn't believe it. The only people denying that scientific fact are people like you who don't like it because it doesn't fit the political narrative that you cling to.
Are we talking about science or politics? The two are mutually exclusive.
The fact that CO2 comes out of cars and factories doesn't mean anything to me. I just proved to you that CO2 is not harmful to the environment and it is food for the trees to make more oxygen for us to breathe.
You haven't proven anything. You've made a claim that runs counter to science.
The temperature of the Earth has NOT changed in 17 years. I don't know how else to explain this to you.
Well, you could start by explaining why the world's brightest scientists disagree with you, and continue by explaining why the global temperature is generally rising. During the 1960s, the heating slowed too, but it continued to rise, as it is continuing to do. I don't know how else to explain to you. Maybe you should just accept that you don't understand science. You should go take some science classes at a community college so that you understand it. I'm not trying to be a jerk, I just think you could benefit from learning about science.
Neither of these are scholarly unbiased scientific sources. I'm using NASA, NOAA, Stanford University, and IPCC, and you're using newsman, the heritage foundation, and "climatedepot.com." Have you noticed that my sources are scholarly scientific sources and yours are politically charged and aimed at denying science?
As for the greenhouse effect, there are recently some scientists that say CO2 isn't even a greenhouse gas. Besides that, it contains so little heat that even with "increasing CO2 levels," it would not have any effect on Earth ant its atmosphere, especially the temperature.
What scientists? NASA? NOAA? IPCC? Or Newsmax?
Sadly, you've decided to look past the basic fundamental facts of science.
I'm not the one who thinks glass bubbles are how atmospheres are held to planets.
Put together the pieces yourself.
I have. I used to be an uneducated "conservative" that denied science like you. After seeing the facts, and who was telling me the facts (scientists), I realized I was wrong.
You'd much rather have the "scientists over at NASA" tell you what to think.
At least I'm getting my science from actual scientists and not Newsmax.
Do the research
I already have. The facts support that science is right on this one. I did a complete 180 because of the facts. You should get an education and stop letting politicians tell you about science.
Break it down and you'll realize that even the "brilliant scientists at NASA" are not always right
Correct, and as reputable scientists, they change their views with facts. Science denial is using a lot of ignorance and anecdotes to attempt to "debunk" science.
If you still don't see that humans are not the cause of global warming, I don't think there is anyone who can get past your wall of ignorance.
You're awfully arrogant to think you know more about science than the world's top scientists, then call people who accept science and have more education than you, "ignorant."
Not even if the scientists at NASA told you that you were wrong
If NASA, or the other 99% of the world's scientists said, "we're wrong," I would believe them. I am wise enough to know that I do not know more about science than the world's top scientists. I also don't pretend to know more about electricity than electricians. You might try deferring to people who know more about things than you do, or at least getting an education so you can at least understand the basics.
And to say that I'm more politically driven than interested in how science works is extremely ignorant.
Not really. You're not using scientific sources, and you do not understand basics about science. You're using political propaganda sites like Newsmax to get your "science." You should try actually understanding the science and getting your science from scientists.
I'm looking at the facts and putting it together instead of someone telling me what is true with no actual facts behind it.
Then you should actually do the research into science, and learn something basic about how atmospheres work. Hint: atmospheres aren't held to planets by glass balls that go around the planet.
Here's the thing: The theory behind anthropogenic global warming is accepted by almost every single educated, formally trained, brilliant scientist on the planet. Almost magically, the only people who are denying science are "conservatives," and oil companies. If it was pseudoscience, then almost every scientist on the planet wouldn't so vehemently support it. So, if you think nearly every scientist in the world is part of a global conspiracy to...do whatever you think they're trying to do, then I can't help you. It's literally you (who does not understand science) and a few politically driven science denial websites (like Newsmax) versus the scientific community of the world. You are on the wrong side of science.
Your argument for those facts are that you think my sources aren't credible? People like you make me laugh.
-Go ahead and look up ClimateGate. There will be multiple sources so you can go ahead and pick the most credible, in your opinion. My source for that is The Wall Street Journal.
-I can't make up the failed predictions and quotes from NASA scientists. Look them up for yourself. I gave you the facts, now you can go verify them since you're too ignorant to look beyond what scientists told you without any actual proof.
-There are plenty of credible people who know that global warming is not caused my human actions. The definition of global warming is the increase in the earth's temperature that, according to most scientists, is occurring as a result of the carbon dioxide that is produced when fossil fuels are burned collecting in the atmosphere and trapping energy from the sun. That's a definition straight from a textbook. Notice how is says MOST SCIENTISTS, not all. Not all scientists agree with you and to say that all scientists think that we cause global warming is ignorant. There are plenty of scientists who say that we ARE NOT the cause.
-The fact that over 31,000 scientists have signed a petition saying that humans are not the cause of global warming can't be denied. Go ahead and google it for yourself if you still don't believe me.
-You're telling me that I don't understand the basic fundamentals of science, but you're ignoring the facts that I'm stating about specific heat. If YOU understood the basic fundamentals of science, you would realize that what I'm saying about the specific heats is true. But you choose to believe something without any actual scientific evidence. You're preaching it as a fact simply because scientists have said it. In case you didn't know, not all science is true. In fact, one of the biggest things about science is to keep trying to disprove already believed theories to strengthen what is known to be "true."
-I never even mentioned anything about gravity because that's not the main focus here. All you're doing is taking what I said, twisting it, and then saying something irrelevant. While doing all of this, you fail to actually prove me wrong of anything. I also notice how you don't have a rebuttal to many things that I am saying. So I'm just going to assume that you don't have an answer for it (I'm not surprised). Back to what I was saying, the little amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere cannot do a thing. There's just too little of it to do anything. Even IF it was harmful, there's not enough to make any difference, especially in the temperature of earth.
-If you're going to say that carbon dioxide is harmful, then explain to me how water vapor hasn't killed us by now. If everything you're saying is true, WATER VAPOR is the thing to worry about, NOT carbon dioxide.
-I have not mentioned anything even remotely relevant to politics. All I'm doing is simply giving you the scientific facts, which you can't seem to comprehend.
-The fact that you're denying me on how the temperature of earth has not changed and the polar ice caps are increasing just means that you are living proof of someone who fell into the propaganda. Do. The. Research. Look up further what I am telling you if you do not believe me.
-You're treating scientists like they are gods. Whatever they have to say, you aimlessly follow them and what they say.
-Call me a conservative, call me a liberal, call me a republican, call me a democrat, call me whatever you want. I don't believe something just because the politicians said it was true. I don't label myself with a group just because they said it was true. I'm not like you. I'm an individual who did the research myself. You should try it sometime.
Your argument for those facts are that you think my sources aren't credible? People like you make me laugh.
Just out of curiosity, what is your education level? Newsmax is not an unbiased scholarly scientific source. Newsmax is a very politically biased "conservative" propaganda source. I know. I used to be a "conservative" when I was young and uneducated, and I trusted Newsmax. Now I know that the words of scientists are more credible than the words of propagandists and spinmasters who have no education in science.
-Go ahead and look up ClimateGate. There will be multiple sources so you can go ahead and pick the most credible, in your opinion. My source for that is The Wall Street Journal.
There are plenty of places on the internet that say the Holocaust didn't happen too, but that doesn't mean they are credible and written by historians.
Climategate. Okay, so we're back to you claiming that science is a global conspiracy. I am well-versed in this nonsense. The Wallstreet Journal is not a scientific source. It is a great place to go for information on stocks, and capitalistic activities, but not science.
-There are plenty of credible people who know that global warming is not caused my human actions. The definition of global warming is the increase in the earth's temperature that, according to most scientists, is occurring as a result of the carbon dioxide that is produced when fossil fuels are burned collecting in the atmosphere and trapping energy from the sun. That's a definition straight from a textbook. Notice how is says MOST SCIENTISTS, not all. Not all scientists agree with you and to say that all scientists think that we cause global warming is ignorant. There are plenty of scientists who say that we ARE NOT the cause.
You're right. There are people, like YOU (people without an education, who don't understand science) that deny science, but actual scientists (98% and growing) don't deny science. You would have to deny fundamental basics of science to deny that global warming is caused by people, which you are doing. This is not a debate to people who understand how science works. It's only a debate for people like you.
There are hardly any recently written peer-reveiwed journals that deny science. Sure, you can find Newsmax, Wallstreet Journal, and Fox News Entertainment, but NASA, NOAA, IPCC, ANY .edu, ANY research University around the world, supports that science is real.
Here's an example of what I'm talking about: between November 2012, and December 2013, there were 2259 peer-reviewed articles written by 9136 scientists (people who understand science), and only 1 denied science. This isn't a 50/50 debate that could go either way. It's actually 99.0009/0.0001. So, by "plenty of scientists," you mean 1 in 9136.
Only people who don't understand science or people who want to fool you into denying science to give more liberty to oil companies that are causing this, want you to think this is even debatable.
-The fact that over 31,000 scientists have signed a petition saying that humans are not the cause of global warming can't be denied. Go ahead and google it for yourself if you still don't believe me.
Do you know how many scientists exist in the world? That's nothing. According to CIA Factbook and AAAS, there are 5.8 MILLION scientists in the world. I'm going to assume you're telling me the truth (even though not everything on the internet is true, as I've shown), so let's get the percentage of "scientists" that deny science (being paid by big oil), versus the scientist who understand science let's see: 31,000/5,800,000=.00534483 OR .5%
So, good for you! You have .5% of the world's scientists on your side, and I have everyone else.
-You're telling me that I don't understand the basic fundamentals of science, but you're ignoring the facts that I'm stating about specific heat.
That's because you don't understand basic fundamentals about science. You said that the only way our atmosphere can trap heat, is if we had a glass bubble around it, and, since I've taken science classes and astronomy classes at the University Level, I can tell you how it actually works, and you're wrong on a very fundamental level. If the greenhouse effect didn't exist, our planet wouldn't be habitable because of the natural amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere by our active geology!
-I never even mentioned anything about gravity because that's not the main focus here.
Gravity is important to understanding why we have an atmosphere.
All you're doing is taking what I said, twisting it, and then saying something irrelevant.
No. I'm bringing up very relevant scientific facts that are necessary to explaining how this all works. You're just ignoring it because it's more important to you that you believe what the "conservative" party line is, than the truth.
While doing all of this, you fail to actually prove me wrong of anything.
I've proven your wrong repeatedly using scientific facts. You've used politically biased websites, and non-scientific sources to refute me.
Back to what I was saying, the little amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere cannot do a thing.
You say this as if it were a fact, but you do not have a PhD in science, and don't even understand how the atmosphere works! What you should have said is, "I don't think the little amount of CO2 in our atmosphere can do a thing, but I'm not a scientist, and I'm still learning basics about science."
-If you're going to say that carbon dioxide is harmful, then explain to me how water vapor hasn't killed us by now.
Well, for one, they are chemically different. One is CO2, and the other is H2O. Go have a gander at a periodic table.
WATER VAPOR is the thing to worry about, NOT carbon dioxide.
This makes no sense, scientifically.
-I have not mentioned anything even remotely relevant to politics. All I'm doing is simply giving you the scientific facts, which you can't seem to comprehend.
I find it strange that you say that, and use sources like NEWSMAX, ClimateGate, a tiny amount of scientists who were paid by big oil, and other non-scientific sources to refute scientific facts. For someone who hasn't brought up politics, you're keeping awfully close to the GOP's party line.
-The fact that you're denying me on how the temperature of earth has not changed and the polar ice caps are increasing just means that you are living proof of someone who fell into the propaganda.
The Average Global Temperature of the earth HAS changed (increased) since the 1890s. Any credible scientific source will show you this. I WILL NOT deny facts. You can, if you want. If by "propaganda" you mean, "educated to facts and science," then you're right.
Do. The. Research.
You mean like, hang out with people with PhDs in Science and take lots of University Level classes in science, and read peer-reviewed articles written by scientific experts? Yeah. I already do that.
-You're treating scientists like they are gods. Whatever they have to say, you aimlessly follow them and what they say.
No, not really. I just know that they have more education about science and more expertise in science because that's what they do for a living. I am not arrogant enough to think that I know more about science than someone who has a PhD, and decades of research under their belts.
It's not that scientists are gods, they just know more about science than I do, and I know more about science than most uneducated people do. The logic, evidence, and facts behind anthropogenic global warming is really solid, and if you bothered learning about it, you'd see what I'm talking about. You aren't more open-minded than me, you are just denying facts. If you want to talk about who's more open-minded, I used to deny science too, but now that I've seen the evidence, and truth behind the scientific explanation, I've changed my mind because I realized it would be stupid not to.
It's like this: if you took your car to a shop, and every single mechanic in the shop said that your wheel bearings are going bad, and you have no understanding of how cars work, would you defer to the trained car mechanics who have decades of experience? Or would you, someone who doesn't know how cars work at all, and have never gotten under one, going to argue and tell them that they don't know what they're talking about?
-Call me a conservative, call me a liberal, call me a republican, call me a democrat, call me whatever you want. I don't believe something just because the politicians said it was true.
Good, then we're on the same page: trust scientists about science over politicians and political spin-doctors.
I'm not like you. I'm an individual who did the research myself. You should try it sometime.
I not only did the research (which is why I changed my mind), I also have the education to be able to evaluate sources; you should try it sometime.
Now that you've gotten into ad hominem attacks, can you get back to trying to make claims about science, so we can stick to facts?
Just because there's a website on the internet that tells you something doesn't mean it's true. There are websites devoted to the Holocaust being a global Jewish Conspiracy, but any reputable historian would tell you the Holocaust actually happened. Likewise, as there are a few websites and .5% of "scientists (on the payroll of big oil)" in the world that deny global warming, doesn't mean it's the truth. Science is not a "liberal" conspiracy.
Science, as a discipline, is actually open to being proven wrong, but so far, the attempts at proving science wrong have been refuted. Scientists need evidence for a theory to be scrapped, and so far, nothing any of these "scientists" have brought to the table, has disproven anything, and if you think you, someone who just has google, knows as much about science as an actual scientists with a PhD and decades of research, you're wrong. Truth is not subjective, especially in science.
I'm not going to tell you what my education level is because it doesn't matter whether I'm a high school drop-out or if I have 4 doctorate degrees. Now I'm not either of those but I'm assuming you get the point that you don't have to be an expert and go to 8 years of college to understand the fundamentals of something at the very least.
For my sources, it seems to me that your only argument against me is questioning my sources. No matter what source you choose, it will ALWAYS have some sort of bias so you questioning my sources without any actual rebuttal is not proving me wrong of anything; it's just showing me that you've run out of things to say so instead of taking me for what I'm saying, your only argument is to question my sources.
As for the "98% of scientists" that agree that humans are a cause of global warming, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and we'll assume that that study is 100% accurate with no flaws (which it isn't; no study is). Of the scientists surveyed, 98% of them said that we are causing global warming. Okay, so what about the rest of the scientists on the entire planet? It's like asking 100 atheists in a group of 100,000 people if they believe in God. There's just too much gray area to make a conclusion and use it as one of your points.
You mentioned that I would have to deny fundamental scientific facts to say that global warming is not caused by humans. Okay, well I was saying before about how you need to break the facts down by yourself and then take a look. It doesn't matter who you hang out with and talk to about this stuff. You still have yet to mention anything about the specific heat of carbon dioxide and water vapor if I'm not mistaking which I mentioned at least 3 or 4 times already. THOSE are fundamental scientific facts, not generalized opinions from my friends who are scientists and that nonsense.
It's interesting that you mention NASA because not only is NASA government funded, but also think of it as a puzzle. When the puzzle is all put together, NASA says that global warming is caused by man. But when the puzzle is not put together, the facts they give tell otherwise. I'll give you an example. According to NASA satellites, arctic ice grew 60% in one year (2013). But when they put together their little puzzle, they claim that the ice caps are melting. So which is it? Maybe it's just me, but I can't rely on a source that contradicts itself like that.
If you are going to blame global warming on the help of oil companies, then I just have one request of you. Stop using oil. You first. Stop driving your car and heating your home and stop just about everything and go back to the way humans were living 200 years ago. I find it extremely hypocritical for you to blame oil companies for this "global warming" and to preach to everyone to stop using so much oil and whatnot when you're still doing all the same things everyone else is doing.
Carbon dioxide is something that we need to live. I could put a space heater by my window and heat up the earth faster than carbon dioxide can. If carbon dioxide is this terrible pollutant, does that mean every time we breathe, we're polluting the earth and contributing to global warming? Oh wait, carbon dioxide is what trees use as food. And to add to that, there are more trees on the earth now than ever in recorded human history.
I am well aware that I do not have PhD in science. With that logic, a normal person wouldn't be able to put on a band-aid without being a doctor and someone wouldn't know how to spend a dollar if they weren't a financial adviser. It doesn't take a genius to understand the basics.
Would you care to explain to me your reasoning for why if you're looking at specific heats and heat capacities, that you say scientifically doesn't make sense?
The only attempts at trying to prove science wrong that have been refuted are most often by people who are closed-minded.
Okay let's just make matters a whole lot simpler where I can still get my point across. I'm assuming that we can at least agree that there are more trees now than 100 years ago. Well the most industrialization in history has happened within the past 100 years. Carbon dioxide from the factories, cars, what we breathe out, etc. is what trees use as their food. So it only makes sense that the more carbon dioxide there is, the more trees there will be. Plus, carbon dioxide isn't as bad as it's set out to be. It's a vital part of life and we would all be dead without it.
So it only makes sense that the more carbon dioxide there is, the more trees there will be. Plus, carbon dioxide isn't as bad as it's set out to be. It's a vital part of life and we would all be dead without it.
No, that does not make any sense. It might make sense if humans did not rely on the logging industry all around the world, but they do.
And fill a bag of carbon dioxide, stick your head in it and try to breath. Then recognize that too much of it can indeed be harmful. An oversimplified demonstration, but evidence enough for this instance.
Yes, it absolutely does make sense. Let me put it to you this way. There are very very small trace amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (0.04%). Carbon dioxide is used in our respiratory system to breathe and breathing is obviously an important part of life. However, to touch on what you are saying, if I breathed in only carbon dioxide, that would be bad. But that's not what happens. The same goes for oxygen. If you were to breathe in just oxygen, that also has the potential to be fatal. But again, that't not what happens. At all. The fact of the matter is that we NEED certain amounts of these gases in order to sustain life as we know it. And personally, I think to say that with the huge size of the earth, to say that 0.04% of something is enough to heat is up and demolish it is foolish.
Let's ignore the fact that your entire argument has been addressed ad nauseum: Why are you responding only to me, and not to JustIgnoreMe, who has taken the time to provide a LOT of evidence?
"I'm assuming that we can at least agree that there are more trees now than 100 years ago."
No. There are more trees in the U.S. than there were 100 years ago, not globally. refref
"So it only makes sense that the more carbon dioxide there is, the more trees there will be."
No, the more carbon dioxide there is the more trees we need - carbon dioxide does not create trees
"Plus, carbon dioxide isn't as bad as it's set out to be. It's a vital part of life and we would all be dead without it."
Try breathing into a bag, and you will find it to be a vital part of death...
"let's just make matters a whole lot simpler"
Ah, the prerequisite for people talking about things beyond their knowledge. Why do you, who obviously knows nothing about the topic, trust your (uniformed) opinion, over the opinion of those who do know what they are talking about?? (see also)
Of the scientists surveyed, 98% of them said that we are causing global warming. Okay, so what about the rest of the scientists on the entire planet? It's like asking 100 atheists in a group of 100,000 people if they believe in God.
No - this was an attempt to survey ALL peer-review studies - not a subset.
I know what people claim the greenhouse effect to be and what greenhouse gases are claimed to be. I understand it. It scientifically doesn't make sense though. If you saw what I said about specific heat, you would realize that carbon dioxide isn't a greenhouse gas and its upsurd to claim that it is. It has little to no ability to trap and maintain heat. And besides, carbon dioxide is a vital part of life for many species (if not all).
Whether a gas is a greenhouse gas or not does not tie to specific heat. It has to do with whether the way the molecule is vibrating allows it to absorb energy (through a shift in its dipole moment), preventing that radiant energy from going into space.
carbon dioxide is a vital part of life
saying that some is necessary does not show that there is no such thing as too much.
"Whether a gas is a greenhouse gas or not does not tie to specific heat. It has to do with whether the way the molecule is vibrating allows it to absorb energy (through a shift in its dipole moment), preventing that radiant energy from going into space."
Just want to clear up the science.
The dipole moment of a molecule refers to the net charge distribution. For example, most salts have strong dipole moments by definition due to the fact that salts are formed by ions. CH4 has a dipole moment of 0 because of it is a tetrahedral with the same atom for all 4 corners. CO2 happens to have a dipole moment of 0 as well because it is linear. It looks like O=C=O. Oxygen is actually a very electronegative atom and usually skews distribution towards dipole moments. However, the linear double bond means the oxygens cancel each other out.
The dipole moment has nothing to do with the absorption spectra. Greenhouse gases tend to have large absorption bands in the IR range as that is the wavelength the Earth radiates.
Absorption spectra relate to the atomic composition and the gaps between quantum states. Basically, when the energy of the photon (which depends on its frequency) is close to the difference between two states, an electron is more likely to absorb that photon and change quantum states. This is the act of absorption.
CO2 happens to have a dipole moment of 0 as well because it is linear.
CO2 has a permanent dipole moment of 0, but does have a dipole moment during bending and asymmetrical stretching. (There are four vibration modes for linear molecules, only one is symmetrical.) This is what I was saying in my post with: "It has to do with whether the way the molecule is vibrating allows it to absorb energy"
The dipole moment has nothing to do with the absorption spectra.
The dipole moment determines whether the molecule will absorb any energy. If it can, then the spectra at which it does determines whether it is a greenhouse gas.
It has to do with whether the way the molecule is vibrating allows it to absorb energy
No. All molecules have an absorption spectra. Having a dipole moment does not allow molecules to absorb energy. It will absorb energy regardless of dipole moment. The absorption spectra is like a fingerprint for each atom. We use spectroscopy to identify atomic composition.
CO2 has a permanent dipole moment of 0, but does have a dipole moment during bending and asymmetrical stretching.
How do instantaneous dipole moments allow for energy absorption? You do realize that all molecules, regardless of permanent dipole moments, vibrate and have instantaneous dipole moments. That is the basis for LDF. Without LDF, nothing would be alive.
The dipole moment determines whether the molecule will absorb any energy. If it can, then the spectra at which it does determines whether it is a greenhouse gas.
All molecules absorb energy. It does not matter if there is a dipole moment or not. The absorption spectra only depends on the composition and structure as that determines quantum state gaps.
You seem to have some weird understanding of dipole moments. They are a measurement of the polarity of bonds. I am not sure what you think they are, but it seems like you are completely mistaken.
How do instantaneous dipole moments allow for energy absorption?
Are you really not able to read references:
"A gas molecule absorbs radiation of a given wavelength only if the energy can be used to increase the internal energy level of the molecule. This internal energy level is quantized in a series of electronic, vibrational, and rotational states. An increase in the internal energy is achieved by transition to a higher state. Electronic transitions, that is, transitions to a higher electronic state, generally require UV radiation (20 mm). Little absorption takes place in the range of visible radiation (0.4-0.7 mm) which falls in the gap between electronic and vibrational transitions.
Gases that absorb in the wavelength range 5-50 mm, where most terrestrial radiation is emitted ( Figure 7-8 ), are called greenhouse gases. The absorption corresponds to vibrational and vibrational-rotational transitions (a vibrational-rotational transition is one that involves changes in both the vibrational and rotational states of the molecule). A selection rule from quantum mechanics is that vibrational transitions are allowed only if the change in vibrational state changes the dipole moment p of the molecule. Vibrational states represent different degrees of stretching or flexing of the molecule, and an electromagnetic wave incident on a molecule can modify this flexing or stretching only if the electric field has different effects on different ends of the molecule, that is if p 0. Examination of the geometry of the molecule can tell us whether a transition between two states changes p."
All molecules have an absorption spectra. Having a dipole moment does not allow molecules to absorb energy.
Only molecules that can change their dipole moment can absorb energy in the infrared spectrum "IR active" (greenhouse gasses are only concerned with thermal IR by definition, so absorbing in the Raman spectrum is not relevant to the discussion.)
Me: All molecules have an absorption spectra. Having a dipole moment does not allow molecules to absorb energy.
You: Only molecules that can change their dipole moment can absorb energy in the infrared spectrum "IR active" (greenhouse gasses are only concerned with thermal IR by definition, so absorbing in the Raman spectrum is not relevant to the discussion.)
You don't seem to understand what an absorption spretra is. It is just a range of EM frequencies that a particular atom can absorb.
IR spectroscopy is a technique that focuses on IR bands while Raman spectroscopy is a technique that focuses on visible bands. Using a specific technique on a molecule does not mean the atoms only contain those bands. These are all spectroscopy techniques used to identify specific atoms.
How do you define "change their dipole moment"?
You are misunderstanding some key concepts. I suggest you stop googling around for bits and pieces and just read a wikipedia article about bonding polarity or bond/molecule vibration. Also look for energy states or quanta.
You are misinterpreting your sources. You need to understand the concept of quantized energy states. They are distinct. Energy states are not continuous. That means to move from one to another, you need an exact amount of energy. This is what they mean by transition. A dipole moment change indicates an energy state transition, but it does not guarantee any EM band.
You're just spamming random sources without even understanding the actual science.
"The Earth absorbs solar energy and most of this energy is later released as heat, or IR radiation. Most of the gas molecules in the atmosphere are not able to absorb this energy and it passes through and out into space."
"Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and certain other gases absorb IR radiation from the Earth's surface and re-emit it in all directions. These gases act like the glass in a greenhouse to increase the temperature of the planet."
"An electromagnetic field interacts with a molecular bond by affecting the dipole moment of that bond."
"Stretching the bond increases the dipole moment of the bond while compressing the bond decreases the dipole moment of the bond."
"When this stretching and compressing occurs at the frequency of the molecule's natural rate of vibration, energy is absorbed."
"A bond must have a dipole moment in order to interact with the electromagnetic field of infrared spectroscopy and that dipole moment must be changed by the vibration of the bond in order for the bond to be IR-active."
"In order for molecular vibrations to absorb IR energy, the vibrational motions must change the dipole moment of the molecule."
"strong absorption by CO2 at the long wavelength end of this region narrows this window a bit and adds to the warming effect."
"Other gases that absorb in this window region or in other narrower window regions of the thermal IR (where water vapor and CO2 do not absorb appreciably) can make significant relative contributions to atmospheric warming by absorbing energy that would otherwise be lost to space."
"The earth can absorb light in the UV-visible range, but the heated earth emits light in the IR (infrared) range, the spectral region where molecular vibrational changes are observed. Some molecules in the atmosphere can increase their vibrational energy by absorbing some of this infrared light, and thus increasing the temperature of the atmosphere."
"A molecule can absorb a photon of IR light and increase the vibrational energy of one of its vibrational modes. However, not all vibrational modes can increase in energy by absorbing a photon in the IR region. For a molecular vibrational mode to be IR active, the dipole moment of the molecule must change during the vibrational mode."
"Oxygen and nitrogen are diatomic molecules with one vibrational mode, involving a stretching and compression of the bond length. However, the dipole moment remains zero during the vibration, so the molecules will not absorb in the infrared."
"Water has three normal modes of vibration, all of which are IR active. Carbon dioxide, a linear molecule, has 4 normal modes of vibration. Even though it does not have a permanent dipole moment, the dipole moment changes during 3 of the 4 modes, so carbon dioxide can absorb in the IR."
"Advanced theory shows that a molecule will absorb IR radiation if the vibration causes a change in its dipole moment. Oxygen, O=O, vibrates as a stretching and compression of the bond. Oxygen does not absorb IR radiation as the molecule is symmetrical and does not have a dipole moment – so there can be no change in dipole moment on vibration."
"Changes in the vibrational and rotational motions of polyatomic molecules are the main results of the absorption of heat by gases. The direct absorption of infrared radiation occurs only if there is a change in the dipole moment of the molecule."
"Changing dipole moments for any of these vibrational modes result in that mode absorbing infrared radiation."
"Consider the dipole moment as the molecule undergoes each of these motions. Does it change? If so, the vibration will result in an absorption in the infrared region."
"The symmetrical stretch of CO2 is inactive in the IR because this vibration produces no change in the dipole moment of the molecule. In order to be IR active, a vibration must cause a change in the dipole moment of the molecule."
"Only two IR bands (2350 and 666 cm–1) are seen for carbon dioxide, instead of four corresponding to the four fundamental vibrations. Carbon dioxide is an example of why one does not always see as many bands as implied by our simple calculation. In the case of CO2, two bands are degenerate, and one vibration does not cause a change in dipole moment."
-----------------------------------------------
Maybe you should provide a source that says what you are trying to say.
I thought I responded to this part a long time ago. You are just mashing together different parts without understanding the full picture.
You should google "dipole moment" and "transition dipole moment". Dipole moment refers to the classic interpretation which is just a net difference in charge distribution. A transition dipole moment is a state transition. I have been trying to pound this into you for a while. There is a difference.
Some of the stuff you pasted refer to the classic interpretation, while some refer to the QM interpretation.
Your mish-mash of information even includes unclear statements. One source does not even mention degenerative bonds.
"Water has three normal modes of vibration, all of which are IR active. Carbon dioxide, a linear molecule, has 4 normal modes of vibration. Even though it does not have a permanent dipole moment, the dipole moment changes during 3 of the 4 modes, so carbon dioxide can absorb in the IR."
"Only two IR bands (2350 and 666 cm–1) are seen for carbon dioxide, instead of four corresponding to the four fundamental vibrations. Carbon dioxide is an example of why one does not always see as many bands as implied by our simple calculation. In the case of CO2, two bands are degenerate, and one vibration does not cause a change in dipole moment."
This is why you should focus on learning the basics so that you understand the big picture.
I thought I responded to this part a long time ago.
You apparently think many things that are incorrect.
You are just mashing together
Nope.
You should google "dipole moment" and "transition dipole moment".
I already know the difference (and tried to explain it to you in my very first response to you).
The confusion was yours all along - if you knew what a greenhouse gas was from the beginning, you would not have interjected to clear things up by discussing the permanent dipole moment of CO2.
Dipole moment refers to ...
Dipole moment can refer to several things - again, not knowing which one was relevant shows your ignorance on the subject, not your knowledge...
Your mish-mash of information even includes unclear statements.
Unclear to the unlearned.
One source does not even mention degenerative bonds.
Not mentioning every possible piece of information does not make a source inaccurate or irrelevant.
"Water has three normal modes of vibration,..." and "Only two IR bands..."
Both of these are correct statements - what are you taking issue with? Note the "Water..." one does mention that the bending mode is degenerate in the original source if you could read it.
This is why you should focus on learning the basics so that you understand the big picture.
This is why you should look again and see that my statement was correct all along if you knew what you were talking about...
I already know the difference (and tried to explain it to you in my very first response to you).
The confusion was yours all along - if you knew what a greenhouse gas was from the beginning, you would not have interjected to clear things up by discussing the permanent dipole moment of CO2.
Dipole moment can refer to several things - again, not knowing which one was relevant shows your ignorance on the subject, not your knowledge...
Yes. Dipole moment can refer to several things. Through your comments, it was obvious you were referring to electric dipole moments. You brought up the difference between temporary and permanent dipole moments. Those are properties of electric dipole moments. This indicates that you were talking about electric dipole moments and not transition dipole moments.
Are you actually claiming that IR band absorption depends on electric dipole moments rather than state gaps (transition dipole moments)?
Not mentioning every possible piece of information does not make a source inaccurate or irrelevant.
It does not make the source unreliable, it just implies that you do not understand the overall picture.
If you had a clear understanding, then you would have noticed your citation as inadequate and corrected it. Instead, you just paste whatever you can find with google and hope for the best.
Now that I have pointed out your error, you claim that you knew it all along. This claim would be substantiated if you had actually mentioned the degenerative modes before or within the original comment.
This is why you should look again and see that my statement was correct all along if you knew what you were talking about...
Thanks for clearing things up though...
If you were right all along and actually understood this topic, then explain how permanent/temporary electric dipole moments relates to the transition dipole moments. There is a relationship and the hint would be how light interacts with the net distribution of charges.
I already know the difference (and tried to explain it to you in my very first response to you).
The confusion was yours all along - if you knew what a greenhouse gas was from the beginning, you would not have interjected to clear things up by discussing the permanent dipole moment of CO2.
Dipole moment can refer to several things - again, not knowing which one was relevant shows your ignorance on the subject, not your knowledge...
Yes. Dipole moment can refer to several things. Through your comments, it was obvious you were referring to electric/molecular dipole moments. You brought up the difference between temporary and permanent dipole moments. Those are properties of electric dipole moments. This indicates that you were talking about electric dipole moments and not transition dipole moments (which are state properties).
Are you actually claiming that IR band absorption depends on electric dipole moments rather than state gaps (transition dipole moments)?
Not mentioning every possible piece of information does not make a source inaccurate or irrelevant.
It does not make the source unreliable, it just implies that you do not understand the overall picture.
If you had a clear understanding, then you would have noticed your citation as inadequate and corrected it. Instead, you just paste whatever you can find with google and hope for the best.
Now that I have pointed out your error, you claim that you knew it all along. This claim would be substantiated if you had actually mentioned the degenerative modes before or within the original comment.
This is why you should look again and see that my statement was correct all along if you knew what you were talking about...
Thanks for clearing things up though...
If you were right all along and actually understood this topic, then explain how permanent/temporary electric dipole moments relates to the transition dipole moments. There is a relationship and the hint would be how light interacts with the net distribution of charges.
Through your comments, it was obvious you were referring to electric/molecular dipole moments.
Apparently you still don't know what your talking about.
My comment that you responded to: "It has to do with whether the way the molecule is vibrating allows it to absorb energy (through a shift in its dipole moment), preventing that radiant energy from going into space."
You brought up the difference between temporary and permanent dipole moments.
YOU brought up the permanent dipole moment, dummy; I said your reference to the permanent dipole moment of CO2 was irrelevant - IT IS!!
It does not make the source unreliable, it just implies that you do not understand the overall picture.
Having one source out of many (which one and what it excludes you haven't actually established) not specify every possible thing (an impossibility) does not reflect a lack of understanding whatsoever.
Instead, you just paste whatever you can find with google and hope for the best.
I pasted references after your ineptitude demanded it - they all concurred with my description. Maybe you should try to find a source for how they are all wrong...
Now that I have pointed out your error
You have yet to point out any error - only your own ignorance.
This claim would be substantiated if you had actually mentioned the degenerative modes before or within the original comment.
Explaining to you that the bending modes of CO2 are degenerate was not necessary to substantiate my statement - and was mentioned in the references I posted in my second response to you.
If you were right all along and actually understood this topic
Again, here is my original comment: "It has to do with whether the way the molecule is vibrating allows it to absorb energy (through a shift in its dipole moment), preventing that radiant energy from going into space."
It was, and still is, correct - regardless of your ignorance. Claiming to "clear up the science" on greenhouse gases, you tangented into Raman spectrum and permanent dipole moments, etc. - while providing nothing that was actually relevant.
My comment that you responded to: "It has to do with whether the way the molecule is vibrating allows it to absorb energy (through a shift in its dipole moment), preventing that radiant energy from going into space."
YOU brought up the permanent dipole moment, dummy; I said your reference to the permanent dipole moment of CO2 was irrelevant - IT IS!!
First mention of permanent dipoles was by you. Not only that, a dipole moment in general refers to the net charge distribution which is the electric dipole moment.
You: CO2 has a permanent dipole moment of 0, but does have a dipole moment during bending and asymmetrical stretching. (There are four vibration modes for linear molecules, only one is symmetrical.) This is what I was saying in my post with: "It has to do with whether the way the molecule is vibrating allows it to absorb energy"
You first mention of the dipole moment was here: (through a shift in its dipole moment)
Transition dipole moments don't shift. It is a process, not a state. Electric dipole moments do shift as it is a state, not a process. It is obvious you weren't referring to transition dipole moments.
It was, and still is, correct
Explain how a transition dipole moment shifts when it refers to the process of state transitions.
My comment that you responded to: "It has to do with whether the way the molecule is vibrating allows it to absorb energy (through a shift in its dipole moment), preventing that radiant energy from going into space."
YOU brought up the permanent dipole moment, dummy; I said your reference to the permanent dipole moment of CO2 was irrelevant - IT IS!!
First mention of permanent dipoles was by you. Not only that, a dipole moment in general refers to the net charge distribution which is the electric dipole moment.
You: CO2 has a permanent dipole moment of 0, but does have a dipole moment during bending and asymmetrical stretching. (There are four vibration modes for linear molecules, only one is symmetrical.) This is what I was saying in my post with: "It has to do with whether the way the molecule is vibrating allows it to absorb energy"
You first mention of the dipole moment was here: (through a shift in its dipole moment)
Transition dipole moments don't shift. It is a process, not a state. Electric dipole moments do shift as it is a state, not a process. It is obvious you weren't referring to transition dipole moments.
It was, and still is, correct
Explain how a transition dipole moment shifts when it refers to the process of state transitions.
If you seriously think that taking issue with the lay use of the word "shift" resolves your dilemma, you are mistaken as you would have just clarified that it was a transition. You would not have responded by saying "CO2 happens to have a dipole moment of 0" and "The dipole moment has nothing to do with the absorption spectra."
And, I'll note that many of these types of lists include people who graduate from Bob Jones, Liberty University, etc. though this site doesn't list the degree issuers.
The temperature of the Earth has not changed in 17 years
The trend involved is actually the Global Mean "Surface" Temperature - which specifically excludes the known increase in sub-surface ocean temperatures. Are you trying to be misleading, or, have you been misled by someone else?
Additionally, the GMST data was initially calculated using estimates for artic temperatures based on only 4 data sites, more complete satellite data shows those estimates were far below the actual artic warming over the relevant period. So, not only has GMST increased, it does not include other known warming.
If I'm fully understand what you're trying to get across, wouldn't it make more sense that the clouds with "high albedo" would reflect the heat and UV rays back into space and not even hit the surface of the earth?
wouldn't it make more sense that the clouds with "high albedo" would reflect the heat and UV rays back into space and not even hit the surface of the earth
Well, it would make sense, but it wouldn't make more sense, because that is exactly what I am saying. That is what a negative feedback effect is.
Also note, you took the first of my 3 facts - that water can sometimes have a cooling effect and just unwittingly reiterated it - while ignoring the rest of my post:
"CO2 can stay up in the atmosphere for centuries, but for water vapor it is typically a few days.
Water vapor also doesn't cause forcing the same way.
B) so what, saying that something is small is not to say that it isn't dangerous - e.g. a little bit of nuclear material, would you like .04% of your body to be AIDS?
Okay... There's .04%. Either way, it doesn't make a difference. And you're comparing carbon dioxide to AIDS; not the best comparison. Carbon dioxide doesn't maintain enough heat (close to none at all) and there is a fraction of a percent of it. It's harmless. And even if the carbon dioxide levels are increasing, there's a record amount of trees on the planet. So if anything, the carbon dioxide is a blessing.
you're comparing carbon dioxide to AIDS; not the best comparison
If not the best, still effective. Small doesn't mean innocuous. Think of the difference just a few degrees makes when you have a fever - add a few degrees more, death.
Carbon dioxide doesn't maintain enough heat
You keep referring to specific heat, but this is not a relevant argument regarding global warming. All gasses have a specific heat, some higher and some lower than CO2, that doesn't make them greenhouse gasses.
there's a record amount of trees on the planet
You must not have read up to the post where I disputed this yet.
The use of a percentage to make CO2 seem insignificant is an old trick, smoke and mirrors. It really matters what it does in the amount discussed. Take asprin for instance. Only a few parts per million can change a much larger systems interactions. Or how about alcohol and how little it takes to inebriate a person.
The use of a percentage also hides how much of something there is as it compares the number relative to other things. For example the percentage of oxygen at sea level is near the same as it is on Mount Everest but breathing on Everest is difficult because of how little O2 is there.
I know there are a few videos running around that shows what the increase in CO2 looks like via ppm in a fish tank too. If I can find that I will link it for the visual learners.
But this link will have to suffice for now, it explains how we measure CO2s trapping of heat.
This is not a sufficient rebuttal. You didn't prove to me anything other than you have an opinion that my statement wasn't good enough. Believe them or not, facts are facts.
If the earth is warming by X and that warming creates clouds, and those clouds prevent .2X, then the planet still warms by .8X - do you not understand that? To substantiate your statement that "we could not heat up the Earth if we tried", you would have to show that the cloud reflection (or even the sum of all negative feedbacks) would be equal to or greater than X. Would you like to try?
Note: Light clouds reflect back to space, but dark clouds do the opposite...
I understand how a greenhouse gas works. However, there are some people who think that the earth is a giant greenhouse. I can't make this stuff up. But there are also people who believe scientists that say carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas simply because of the fact that they're called a scientist. Try to make me look like an idiot all you want; it's not going to work.
B) to say that nature is not killing polar bears as fast as humans did before we imposed hunting regulations is not to say warming and habitat loss isn't happening
C) in some areas seals are going further north than before because of warmer water and are providing a food source for that area's bear population, and that areas numbers will likely rise. Though, that is evidence that warming IS happening, not that it isn't.
Oh yeah? No evidence? According to the Fish and Wildlife
Service, they've more than doubled. Need more? A 2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain noted that the polar bear populations "may now be near historic highs." If you want to go ahead and deny that, then this is a lost cause. As for the seals, I'm curious to know if you have any evidence pertaining to that.
Their claim is that it more than doubled in the last 50 years not 30, and use the same unsupported starting point 5,000 to 6,000 - can you provide a source for that initial number? (because they don't/can't either)
The truth is, we don't even have really good worldwide polar bear population numbers now, much less decades ago.
I'm curious to know if you have any evidence pertaining to that.
Imagine that you have a half of a cup of water. Now add some ice to that water. You will notice that the water level will rise. Well when that ice melts, the water level goes back down. It would be just silly to say that the cup will overflow from the melting ice.
You are describing melting sea ice, not ice that is on land.
Try this experiment:
Get a bowl (not the one you've been smoking, a normal bowl),
Fill about half of the bowl up to the brim (or higher even, doesn't matter) with dirt - this simulates land, preferably it should be roughly flat or slightly inclined downwardly toward the water,
Fill the rest of the bowl up to the brim with water - (the sea)
Okay so let's take what you're saying to be true (which it isn't) for argument's sake. If the sea level is rising, where's the evidence? It seems like the whole world is waiting for a flood that's never gonna happen. There were many predictions that multiple major cities would be completely under water by now, so what happened to that? This whole global warming thing is based on computer models that are wrong, no actual science (well actually, just bad science).
Also, if you get HBO, you can use HBO Go to see Season 3 Episode 1 of VICE - not only does it show some of how the measurements are taken, some of the people behind selling the doubt (former tobacco company marketers - imagine), but it also shows places where the rise in sea level is very evident already. In Bangladesh, the land close to the water is fairly flat, so rises in sea level have a marked difference, and people who live next to the water have to repeatedly move their village as the water moves inland.
The amount of evidence available is only limited by your willingness/ability to look.
If that whole scandal just shows them in a bad light and they have nothing to hide, then maybe you can explain to me why they violated the freedom-of-information act and were reluctant to give any information that was requested.
As for the scientist thing, it just proves that you can't trust every scientist's generalized opinion, especially with matters such as this one.
maybe you can explain to me why they violated the freedom-of-information act and were reluctant to give any information that was requested.
Because much of the data wasn't their own - they get their data from mostly government sources and some governments required that the data only be used for academic purposes and not given to third parties.
it just proves that you can't trust every scientist's generalized opinion
There are certainly less than perfect people on both sides - you should weigh the evidence and decide for yourself. (Or, for those unwilling to invest the necessary time, refrain from making an opinion.)
The cost and benefits of global warming will vary greatly from area to area. For moderate climate change, the balance can be difficult to assess. But the larger the change in climate, the more negative the consequences will become. Global warming will probably make life harder, not easier, for most people. This is mainly because we have already built enormous infrastructure based on the climate we now have.
People in some temperate zones may benefit from milder winters, more abundant rainfall, and expanding crop production zones. But people in other areas will suffer from increased heat waves, coastal erosion, rising sea level, more erratic rainfall, and droughts.
The crops, natural vegetation, and domesticated and wild animals (including seafood) that sustain people in a given area may be unable to adapt to local or regional changes in climate. The ranges of diseases and insect pests that are limited by temperature may expand, if other environmental conditions are also favorable.
The problems seem especially obvious in cases where current societal trends appear to be on a “collision course” with predictions of global warming’s impacts:
at the same time that sea levels are rising, human population continues to grow most rapidly in flood-vulnerable, low-lying coastal zones;
places where famine and food insecurity are greatest in today’s world are not places where milder winters will boost crop or vegetation productivity, but instead, are places where rainfall will probably become less reliable, and crop productivity is expected to fall;
the countries most vulnerable to global warming’s most serious side effects are among the poorest and least able to pay for the medical and social services and technological solutions that will be needed to adapt to climate change.
In its summary report on the impacts of climate change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated, “Taken as a whole, the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.”
Lol, I can never tell with you. While there is a notable debate as to the extent of the problem, I'm tired of hearing the old "but then why do we still have cold weather?" Argument
I am saying we should focus on the entire field like some climatologists are actually doing. The fear mongering puts all the focus on radiation forcing even though CO2 affects the climate and the ecosystem in so many other ways, most of which we understand little.
Not so much issues as topics for study. The better we understand climate systems, the better we understand how to interact with the world. We could probably come up with solutions for increased CO2 levels through these other areas of study.
I am saying the other aspects of climate change are not issues at the moment. No sensationalism or bandwagons for those topics yet.
The problem is the fear mongering puts all the focus on radiative forcing. People pick a side and hunker down.
Look at you. Your question makes it seem like you assume anyone not on your side must be on the other side as if a complicated issue has just two sides.
You said it was not an issue but that we might be able to find a solution ("Not so much issues" and "We could probably come up with solutions"). I'm just trying to resolve your opinion.
Not exactly confirmation bias - one is the topic of the debate the other is not. If you say that there aren't climate-related issues, then you are inherently saying that GW (the topic of the debate) is not an issue (in your opinion).
The wording remains unresolved - why would we come up with solutions if they aren't "issues"?
Not exactly confirmation bias - one is the topic of the debate the other is not.
I have already noted my focus of the debate was the entire climate change field, not just GHG forcing. Are you saying you misinterpreted three consecutive comments without some confirmation bias?
why would we come up with solutions if they aren't "issues"?
You can come up with solutions for GW through studies in other aspects of climate change. Again. Climate is a system. No point limiting the focus to one aspect and simplifying it to a black body.
If you believe it is an issue, how does "No" fit your position better?
I did not believe it to be as important as the people in the yes column were claiming. I was obviously in disagreement with the consensus. This is why "no" fit better.
Um: "Not so much issues as topics for study." (and posting under no.)
As I already pointed out, you asked a two part question. "So, basically that warming is an issue, but that there are other climate-related issues as well, right?"
I responded with "Not so much issues as topics for study." I used the plural "issues" to respond to the second part of your question which also used the plural form. If I had responded to the first part, I would have used the singular form as you did.
I have already explained this in an earlier comment. Why are you still confused?
I was obviously in disagreement with the consensus. This is why "no" fit better.
People can agree that it is an issue and disagree on its importance. You could have posted under yes and explained your concerns, or posted a clarify under someone else - both would have been more congruent with the position you now seem to be taking.
Why are you still confused?
A) "issues" can refer to the combination of global warming issue and climate-related issues ("issue" + "issues" = "issues")
B) "issues" can refer to climate-related issues which include global-warming
C) "issues" can be used to segregate other climate-related topics for further study, and leave unaddressed whether GW is an issue. (An insufficient response to the question.)
Also note: you seem to be saying that GW is less important than the other climate related topics - so, can the lesser be an issue while the greater is not?
People can agree that it is an issue and disagree on its importance. You could have posted under yes and explained your concerns, or posted a clarify under someone else - both would have been more congruent with the position you now seem to be taking.
So basically, you are telling me how I should interpret a debate and its choices because that is how you would interpret it?
A) B) C)
Considering I explained what I meant by issues, I don't see how you are still confused at this point. Even with the first comment, you chose to quote the first sentence "Not so much issues as topics for study." without considering the rest of the paragraph.
"The better we understand climate systems, the better we understand how to interact with the world. We could probably come up with solutions for increased CO2 levels through these other areas of study.
Radiative forcing is a small aspect."
Also note: you seem to be saying that GW is less important than the other climate related topics - so, can the lesser be an issue while the greater is not?
As my original comment points out, GW with focus to CO2 radiative forcing is a small aspect. It would be better to look at the whole picture rather than focus on some hyped up issue and lose sight of the system.
I have been repeating the same explanations for a while now. I would understand the confusion after the original comment. No clue how you are still confused.
you are telling me how I should interpret a debate and its choices because that is how you would interpret it?
The debate leaves little up for interpretation - what is global warming and what is an issue - neither of which you have provided an alternate interpretation for.
I explained what I meant by issues
No, you didn't.
Even with the first comment, you chose to quote the first sentence "Not so much issues as topics for study." without considering the rest of the paragraph.
The first place where I quote you saying "Not so much issues..." was in comment 10 of our repartee and I specifically did quote the second part "We could probably come up with solutions" - ref
It would be better to look at the whole picture rather than focus on some hyped up issue and lose sight of the system.
Not the current debate - feel free to create that one. (Though I'll also note that you have not named any climate-related topics that are more important than GW.)
I have been repeating the same explanations for a while now.
You mean you have been avoiding an answer to the debate at hand for quite a while now.
The debate leaves little up for interpretation - what is global warming and what is an issue - neither of which you have provided an alternate interpretation for.
Not the current debate - feel free to create that one. (Though I'll also note that you have not named any climate-related topics that are more important than GW.)
You mean you have been avoiding an answer to the debate at hand for quite a while now.
Considering you are the only one who has claimed my argument does not fit this debate, you are just forcing your interpretation onto someone else.
"I explained what I meant by issues"
"No, you didn't."
I have explained several times that I was referring to topics other than radiative forcing by "Not so much issues as topics of study". You keep claiming I meant GW.
The first place where I quote you saying "Not so much issues..." was in comment 10 of our repartee and I specifically did quote the second part "We could probably come up with solutions"
The first comment where you quoted it directly was "You said it was not an issue but that we might be able to find a solution ("Not so much issues" and "We could probably come up with solutions"). I'm just trying to resolve your opinion."
Notice how it is arguing the exact same we are arguing now. You keep claiming the same things without pointing out which part of my explanations to your claims you are confused about.
You have avoided discussing my actual argument by claiming it does not match your interpretation of the debate.
you are the only one who has claimed my argument does not fit this debate
Who else are you expecting to chime in? The debate creator hasn't logged in for over 2 weeks.
I have explained several times that I was referring to topics other than radiative forcing by "Not so much issues as topics of study".
So, you think that by saying that something is not so much an issue that you are describing what an issue is?
The first comment where you quoted it directly was
Indeed. Notice that it is exactly as I described and completely contrary to your claim that I did not consider the rest of the paragraph.
You have avoided discussing my actual argument
And you've avoided answering the debate question.
You posted under no and said that GW was not as important as other topics that you do not consider issues, and yet you also said: "Never claimed it was not an issue."
Do you have an answer to the debate question, or is this entire chain irrelevant?
P.S. This is not the drivel you are looking for. The post mentioned in the other debate that you haven't responded to yet is on the other side and from 4 days ago.
We're exaggerating the problem.Without Global Warming there would've been no mortal soul here on this planet;The Earth's average temperature due to global warming is 15.5 K which otherwise would've been unbearable.Now that we're modernizing and so to somewhat degree this effect is slowly turning a bit detrimental but there's no cause for worry
That is absolutely false. Do you have any idea how much a small change in temperature can do? According to nasa, "at the end of the last ice age, when the Northeast United States was covered by more than 3,000 feet of ice, average temperatures were only 5 to 9 degrees cooler than today." As the temperature continues to rise, more and more dramatic changes like this are going to occur. Making a claim like this without evidence is not making a legitimate point.
Well if you're modernizing,there would be some changes but without global warming there's no life and till now,we haven't seen any great rate of mass deaths due to skin cancer or sunburns;temperatures rise in some parts and if you visit North Asia ,you would see how lower the temperature remains in Mongolia or even southern Siberia;moreover,the rise or fall of temperature isn't that much of a concern because the blacks in America do want some sunshine,you know
Well if you're modernizing,there would be some changes but without global warming there's no life
That's simply not true. Global warming (in the context discussed here) refers to man-made climate change. This climate change has only had significance starting about 200 years ago, which is not the age of life on earth.
we haven't seen any great rate of mass deaths due to skin cancer or sunburns
…which is not the primary negative effect of global warming.
temperatures rise in some parts and if you visit North Asia ,you would see how lower the temperature remains in Mongolia or even southern Siberia
That's like pointing to a snowball and claiming that because it is cold enough to snow, global warming must be false.
Some areas are remaining cool does not negate the fact that the entire world's average temperatures have been steadily increasing; and that does not negate the negative repercussions of said increase worldwide.
moreover,the rise or fall of temperature isn't that much of a concern because the blacks in America do want some sunshine,you know
They do want sunshine. But if the ice caps melt and everyone drowns, or clean water runs out or too much plant life gets destroyed, or there are an increase of natural disasters to an unbearable point; they won't see sunshine, they'll all be dead.
without global warming there's no life and till now
This is obviously false.
we haven't seen any great rate of mass deaths due to skin cancer or sunburns
Haven't we seen a massive increase in skin cancer in the last 20 or so years? Humans don't have to be the only species that dies because of global warming. We still depend on other animals being able to live in order for us to survive.
the rise or fall of temperature isn't that much of a concern because the blacks in America do want some sunshine,you know
