• Man-made global warming
    32 replies, posted
Even though it's been pretty much scientifically proven, this is a must-have debate, and the question is: [B]Is man-made global warming fact or fiction?[/B] It's said that the earth's co2 emissions, caused by humans burning fossil fuels and what not is causing the climate to heat up by destroying the ozone layer. Do you think this is the case, or is it completely natural?
Well if it's been scientifically proven, then I guess that would be reason enough to believe that it exists, no?
Before we get too far into this, you're making looking at this argument as black and white, with no middle ground. At its most basic level, the facts that I've seen have firmly cemented global warming as a man-ASSISTED natural process, rather than purely a man-made one. Remember, we're coming out of an ice age and the earth has been heating itself on its own quite naturally. An increase in temperature and CO2 was inevitable, as is the melting of the polar ice caps. That is 100% natural and has been happening in a cycle for millions, if not billions of years. The argument here is about how FAST this is happening. This is the quickest "warm-up" in recent history (that we can determine, anyway), so logically we can conclude that our fossil fuel emissions are at least partially responsible for the acceleration. What I don't like about the global warming debate is that everyone is so damn focused on "How do we stop it?!" It's arrogance at the highest level. What we should be focusing on is "How are we going to adapt to this?"
[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;33771521] What I don't like about the global warming debate is that everyone is so damn focused on "How do we stop it?!" It's arrogance at the highest level. What we should be focusing on is "How are we going to adapt to this?"[/QUOTE] Stopping it is going to be easier and cheaper than adapting.
[QUOTE=sp00ks;33771594]Stopping it is going to be easier and cheaper than adapting.[/QUOTE] Well then, how do you propose we stop it just like that?
[QUOTE=sp00ks;33771594]Stopping it is going to be easier and cheaper than adapting.[/QUOTE] You see, that's the thing. We CAN'T stop it, we can only slow it down. Like JeanLuc said, the planet is warming itself up naturally, we're just speeding the process up.
[QUOTE=sp00ks;33771594]Stopping it is going to be easier and cheaper than adapting.[/QUOTE] I'm all but certain that stopping it is impossible on every conceivable level. I'm willing to grant the possibility that we could slow it down some, but stopping it? Not a chance. This is a cycle that has been happening long before we started burning fossil fuels, and will continue long after we stop. The ice caps are [B]supposed[/B] to melt; the temperature is [B]supposed[/B] to rise, and CO2 levels are [B]supposed[/B] to rise as well. We were going to have to deal with this one way or another. The only question is, now that it's happening, how are we going to adapt our "habitat" to suit a changing world?
Of course it's fact, my farts are proof.
It's a natural process. The earth warms, then cools. The temperature is based on how much carbon is in the air. The more carbon, the more heat because of the greenhouse gas effect which stops solar rays from escaping through the ozone after bouncing off the surface of the earth. Our carbon emissions increase the carbon, which increases heat. Therefore, we are assisting the warming of our earth. Or making the cooling not happen but if you ever look at the charts, we are in a warming stage which has lasted for a long time now and won't get into the cooling any time soon.
[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;33771644]I'm all but certain that stopping it is impossible on every conceivable level. I'm willing to grant the possibility that we could slow it down some, but stopping it? Not a chance. This is a cycle that has been happening long before we started burning fossil fuels, and will continue long after we stop. The ice caps are [B]supposed[/B] to melt; the temperature is [B]supposed[/B] to rise, and CO2 levels are [B]supposed[/B] to rise as well. We were going to have to deal with this one way or another. The only question is, now that it's happening, how are we going to adapt our "habitat" to suit a changing world?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=garychencool;33771778]It's a natural process. The earth warms, then cools. The temperature is based on how much carbon is in the air. The more carbon, the more heat because of the greenhouse gas effect which stops solar rays from escaping through the ozone after bouncing off the surface of the earth. Our carbon emissions increase the carbon, which increases heat. Therefore, we are assisting the warming of our earth. Or making the cooling not happen but if you ever look at the charts, we are in a warming stage which has lasted for a long time now and won't get into the cooling any time soon.[/QUOTE] it's not a natural cycle. there is a natural cycle, but the current warming trends are not in sync with it [url]http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle[/url] [quote]The difference is that in the natural cycle CO2 lags behind the warming because it is mainly due to the Milankovitch cycles. Now CO2 is leading the warming. Current warming is clearly not natural cycle. The earths natural cycles, if human industrial output had not been involved, would have us near or slightly below thermal equilibrium, possibly slightly cooling. In other words, if we were in the natural cycle without human influence, the forcing levels would likely be around 0W/m2 to -0.1W/m2. We are currently experiencing a positive forcing of around 3.6 to 3.8W/m2 and a human induced negative forcing of around 2W/m2. The resultant forcing, depending on current levels and the Schwabe cycle is around +1.6W/m2 above natural cycle as estimated.[/quote] [url]http://www.grist.org/article/current-global-warming-is-just-part-of-a-natural-cycle[/url] [url]http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2006/06/22/5931/warming-not-equal/[/url] [quote][quote] In particular, the numerous indications that recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia, in combination with estimates of external climate forcing variations over the same period, supports the conclusion that human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming.[/quote] In other words, the Academy factored in the natural variations in temperature — volcanic activity, solar radiation etc. — and concluded that these can’t explain the warming trend. What does explain it is increased carbon dioxide emissions from human activity. [/quote] the "it's a natural cycle" claim gets posted in every single global warming thread and someone always proves it wrong and people just keep posting it over and over and over and no one ever accomplishes anything
I believe the global warming is due to the fact that the earth cycles through ice ages and warms up constantly.
[QUOTE='[GRiM];33772041']I believe the global warming is due to the fact that the earth cycles through ice ages and warms up constantly.[/QUOTE] AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA [editline]17th December 2011[/editline] i literally posted a bunch of links which basically disprove that claim right above you jesus christ
[QUOTE='[GRiM];33772041']I believe the global warming is due to the fact that the earth cycles through ice ages and warms up constantly.[/QUOTE] your belief is objectively wrong
Is "believe" a word that people apply to stupid claims that make no sense so they don't have to be attached to aforementioned stupid claims? Anyway, yes, man makes a lot of fucking global warming. We have three options: 1) Go to another planet (yeah right), 2) Go nuclear/solar/hydro/wind (in that order), 3) Die forever.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;33772069]AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA [editline]17th December 2011[/editline] i literally posted a bunch of links which basically disprove that claim right above you jesus christ[/QUOTE] I think the point I'm trying to make is that all of you guys act like we made the earth so polluted to the point where it's uninhabitable. Yeah we accelerated the cycle but it's not as bad as you think it is.
Green lobbyists have sensationalized this to a larger degree than it really exists at. That isn't to say that I am opposed to alternative energies. The main question is economic feasibility. I would love to see more support for nuclear power, but to build and maintain such facilities requires a lot of money.
[QUOTE='[GRiM];33772492']I think the point I'm trying to make is that all of you guys act like we made the earth so polluted to the point where it's uninhabitable.[/QUOTE] that's not the point you posted. the point you posted is that global warming is part of a natural cycle, and I posted evidence that it is not. [QUOTE='[GRiM];33772492']Yeah we accelerated the cycle[/QUOTE] no, we didn't "accelerate the cycle". We're going in the exact opposite direction of the cycle. The cycle says we should be cooling right now. We're not. [editline]17th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=semite;33772916]Green lobbyists[/QUOTE] what the hell is the "green lobby"? are there these giant, multinational organic apple companies who have enough money to contend with the oil and automotive lobbies?
[QUOTE=semite;33772916]Green lobbyists have sensationalized this to a larger degree than it really exists at. That isn't to say that I am opposed to alternative energies. The main question is economic feasibility. I would love to see more support for nuclear power, but to build and maintain such facilities requires a lot of money.[/QUOTE] This message is brought to you in part by the Oil Lobby of America. [editline]17th December 2011[/editline] One should read this thread before commenting to avoid the inevitable reiteration of wrong theories and beliefs: [url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1126408[/url]
Alright, believe what you guys want. Me and others will still have an opinion on the matter.
[QUOTE='[GRiM];33772492']I think the point I'm trying to make is that all of you guys act like we made the earth so polluted to the point where it's uninhabitable. Yeah we accelerated the cycle but it's not as bad as you think it is.[/QUOTE] no-one is acting like that at all.
[QUOTE=thisispain;33773792]no-one is acting like that at all.[/QUOTE] It seems like most of everyone's attitude is like that. If not, I apologize for exaggerating.
[QUOTE='[GRiM];33773905']It seems like most of everyone's attitude is like that. If not, I apologize for exaggerating.[/QUOTE] "our" attitude is that the continued man-made pollution is and will continue to be catastrophic for much of the life on the planet including humans and it appears the science (IE fact) agrees with "us".
[QUOTE='[GRiM];33773754']Alright, believe what you guys want. Me and others will still have an opinion on the matter.[/QUOTE] you can have an opinion that isn't based on fact but it'll be either wrong or unfalsifiable
[QUOTE=OvB;33773433]This message is brought to you in part by the Oil Lobby of America. [editline]17th December 2011[/editline] One should read this thread before commenting to avoid the inevitable reiteration of wrong theories and beliefs: [url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1126408[/url][/QUOTE] Don't be a twit, "oil lobby", really? Economic feasibility is a real concern since as it is a lot of alternative energy is significantly less efficient cost benefit wise. We live in a time where the bleeding heart types all want world equality and green energy but fail to realise that our current standard of living is pretty much impossible to keep at the same time. We rely on cheap energy and cheap labor and terrible working conditions in other countries to make our lifestyles affordable. You take that all away and your precious computer, internet and other luxuries will become prohibitively costly.
[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;33771521]What we should be focusing on is "How are we going to adapt to this?"[/QUOTE] I think focusing on how not to make it worse would be best.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;33787668]I think focusing on how not to make it worse would be best.[/QUOTE] That doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. Cutting down on our emissions is a fantastic idea, even if global warming wasn't taking place. Nuclear power and renewable energy is the next step, and the sooner we get on board the better. Regardless, we have to get it in our heads that our world is likely going to change relatively quickly. If we continue delaying our adaptation by focusing on stopping what cannot be stopped, we're going to be in a lot of trouble. Slowing our emissions is only one aspect of what needs to be done.
I was sceptical at first, but it's pretty obvious that we're doing something to the climate. Is there really a debate to be had? Also, just to point out something from the OP, the ozone layer has nothing to with this as far as I know. The last I heard, it had mostly stabilised and will eventually repair itself (although it will take a long time). I'm pretty sure that fossil fuel burning doesn't do anything to the ozone layer.
My personal belief is that Global Warming is real and that we as humans are contributing to the destruction of the ozone layer that has so cradled us. With my position clearly established I would like to explain why I take this position. I'm only 17 years old but have a keen eye for politics and social issues and so when I first learned of Global Warming and the greenhouse effect quite typically from watching Al-Gores The Inconvenient truth in year 9 science class I couldn't fathom such a thing to be true. I didn't take much more notice or read any further, I was cemented in my beliefs. It's only fair I mention now that I adopt a fairly conservative political position. It wasn't until 2007 when the Australian federal elections rolled around and I was old enough to understand the issues the election covered. One of the biggest policies that the Labor party (Like the Democrats except slightly more left wing) were focusing on was the issue of global warming and climate change. At first I stood firmly in my ways of criticizing science and credibility of the sources, typical right wing lobbyist I know but as the election continued the logic of the Labor party's argument on climate change convinced my the error of my ways. The premise of my stance on climate change is now this. It doesn't matter proving if climate change is real or not it's weather on not you can take the chance that it is or isn't. Can you take the chance that you're wrong in saying climate change isn't real. We have no idea what the consequences could be, we could not be able to swim any more, or be denied habitability of parts of the planet or even as bullshit and not plausible as it is the complete destruction of the human race. That is the price if your wrong. If your right then all we have lost is money, time and effort into renewable energy sources and changing of our habits etc. I would love for someone to convince me that global warming is all a lie, but I just can't sell that to myself. I can't take the chance that I could be wrong. To me the risk is just far to high to do nothing. So if you have read this whole thing I congratulate you, I had never intended it to be so long :/ Feel free to comment on my argument or argue your own case as the best thing about this world and the one thing worth saving is our freedom of speech and expression. We don't get anywhere just saying that those who belief in climate change are stupid and wrong, but we also don't get anywhere talking down to those who are sceptics, keep it classy gentlemen. TL:DR = Get the fuck out of the debating forum ;D
Stop talking about personal belief. This has nothing to do with what you chose to believe. It's science, not religion.
Sp00ks hit the jackpot.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.