Climate change is getting worse

Author: Vegasgiants

Posts

Total: 126
#91
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Mps1213
Actually this is a better way of putting it. All of your evidence is what’s called negative evidence. Basically saying “I don’t accept this claim because this graph shows this.” What you need to present is positive evidence, which is direct proof of your claim.
You're confusing two different assertions.

1.) The assertion that carbon dioxide cools the planet.

2.) The rejection of the assertion that the correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature can be explained by carbon dioxide increasing temperature.

Both came from me, but only the first incurs a BoP; which I'm currently working on napkin math for you to ponder (even though verbal argument should have been enough and this demand for quantities is probably a delaying tactic.)
#92
Mps1213
Mps1213's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 169
0
3
7
Mps1213's avatar
Mps1213
0
3
7
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
“We? Show me how we have done that. Humans alone have done that? Maybe it's just a warming of the earth. We had a freeze of the earth. Was that caused by humans too? Why is the total temperature just simply caused by us?” 

Yes I’ve already provided plain mathematical evidence for this three times in this thread but I’ll do it again for you. 

“Now part two of the recipe: how hot will the extra CO2 make us? Most physics students, once they learn about radiative heat transfer (affectionately called sigma-T-to-the-fourth), are tasked with calculating the Earth’s temperature in radiative equilibrium with the Sun. If done “correctly,” the answer is disappointingly cold because the greenhouse effect is not incorporated in the simple calculation.
The way it works is, the sun imbues a radiative flux of 1370 Watts per square meter at the position of the Earth. Given its radius of R = 6378 km, the Earth intercepts 1370 W/m² × πR² of the incident sunlight, since the Earth appears as a projected disk to the Sun. Most of this incident flux is absorbed in the oceans, land, atmosphere, and clouds, while the remainder is immediately reflected back to space so the aliens can see our planet. The absorbed part (70%) heats the earth surface environment and eventually is re-radiated to space as thermal infrared radiation, at wavelengths centered at about 10 microns—far beyond human vision (0.4 to 0.7 microns).
The law for thermal radiation is that a surface emits a total radiative power of A·σT4, where A is the surface area, σ=5.67×10−8 W/m²/K4 is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, and Tis the surface temperature in Kelvin. For instance, a patch of Earth at the average surface temperature of 288 K (15°C, or 59°F) emits 390 W/m² of infrared radiation. To figure out the temperature of the Earth, we demand that power in equals power out, and radiative transfer is the only game in town for getting heat on and off the Earth. If we did not have a balance between power in and power out, the Earth’s temperature would change until equilibrium was re-established. Hey—that’s what global warming is doing.  But let’s not get ahead of ourselves…
While the Earth intercepts a column of light from the sun with area πR², the Earth has a surface area of 4πR² to radiate. Considering that 70% of the incoming sunlight is in play, we have an effective influx of 960 W/m² onto one quarter of the Earth’s surface area (why not half? much of the Sun-side of the Earth is tilted to the sun and does not receive direct, overhead sunlight). So the radiated part must work out to 240 W/m², which implies an effective temperature of 255 K, or a bone-chilling −18°C (about 0°F). Incidentally, if the Earth were black as coal, absorbing all incident solar radiation, the answer would have been a more satisfactory 279 K, or 6°C, but still colder than observed.
We know that 255 K is the wrong answer; off by 33°C. The discrepancy is the greenhouse effect, and to this we owe our comfort and our liquid oceans. The greenhouse gases absorb some of the outbound infrared radiation and re-radiate in all directions, sending some of the energy back toward Earth. Two-thirds of the effect (about 22°C) is from water vapor, about one-fifth (~7°C) is from carbon dioxide, and the remaining 15% is from a mix of other gases, including methane.

One can see from the absorption figure that water vapor is responsible for the lion’s share of the infrared absorption at relevant wavelengths (under the blue curve), but that the CO2 absorption feature from 13–17 microns also eats some of the spectrum. A crude assessment tells me that the spectrally-weighted water absorption across the outgoing wavelength range is approximately three times as significant as the CO2 absorption feature, reassuringly in line with the 22:7 ratio.

Crudely speaking, if CO2 is responsible for 7 of the 33 degrees of the greenhouse effect, we can easily predict the equilibrium consequences of an increase in CO2. We have so far increased the concentration of CO2 from 280 ppm to 390 ppm, or about 40%. Since I have some ambiguity about whether the 7 K contribution to the surface temperature is based on the current CO2 concentration or the pre-industrial figure, we’ll look at it both ways and see it doesn’t matter much at this level of analysis. If CO2 increased the pre-industrial surface temperature by 7 K, then adding 40% more CO2 would increase the temperature by 7×0.4 = 2.8 K. If we instead say that 7 K is the current CO2 contribution, the associated increase is 7−7/1.4 = 2 K. Either way, the increase is in line with estimates of warming—though the system has a lag due to the heat capacity of oceans, slowing down the rate of temperature increase.

Keep in mind that these figures are based on today’s CO2 concentrations, not the impact of continuing to burn vast amounts of fossil fuels. We have spent about half our total conventional petroleum, and less than half of our total fossil fuel deposits. Thus the ultimate temperature climb could be well over 5 K (9°F) if we continue our practices unabated.

Using a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature change does not constitute a correct treatment, and would fail miserably for large adjustments to CO2 (like a factor of 2 or 3). But for the 40% change under consideration, it captures the direction and approximate magnitude of the effect reasonably well, which is the strength of the estimation approach: get the essential behavior without the burden of unnecessary complexity. A real treatment would acknowledge the saturated nature of the 15 micron absorption feature and use ΔT = C·ln(390/280), where ln() is the natural logarithm function, and C≈2.9–6.5 K according to the IPCC. This leads to an expected increase of 1–2 K at today’s excess concentration. But the point is already made without the fancy pants.“”

#93
Mps1213
Mps1213's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 169
0
3
7
Mps1213's avatar
Mps1213
0
3
7
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Nope you are moving the goalposts. I am responding to this comment made by you. 

“Now matter how much warmer it gets it won't change the laws of physics. Carbon dioxide is not warming this planet.”

I have already provided plenty of backed evidence that laws of physics, math and chemistry explicitly show the opposite to this claim. 

You need to provide math, physics and chemistry that over rides the well established fact that CO2 warms the environment.

As ive already shown with out CO2 the planet would be cooler than it is now. I showed that in very simple and easy to read math. You need to provide math that disproves what I have said. 
#94
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Mps1213
Argument that CO₂ has a net cooling effect, now with ball park figures:


Previously I said:
If you could block the entire blackbody radiation of Earth via atmospheric gasses (210-310k, see second curve) that would cool our planet because convection would continue as it always has but that band of solar radiation would be blocked in the upper atmosphere and never reach the surface.


If you look at a temperature graph of the atmosphere you can see hot layers, that is precisely what is happening already and it would only happen more.

I will continue to make the argument about all "greenhouse" gasses, as that is the largest scope of applicability; it necessarily follows that if any "greenhouse" gas will cool the surface, so will CO₂.


I will now define "greenhouse gas" and stop putting it in quotes so that it can be understood that even though I'm using the word it isn't much like a greenhouse at all.


Greenhouse gas - A gas with significant spectral absorbance in the range of the blackbody radiation of a celestial body while having insignificant spectral absorbance near the peak of the local star(s) radiation.


Earth's blackbody radiation was shown in the graph I linked to many times 210k-310k (Average is 15C 285K). NOTE! This is the surface of the Earth as in the land and water, not the top of the atmosphere.


We'll use blackbody radiation of 285k for our presume surface radiation.

The sun will have a blackbody temperature of 5777K.

The tools for equations and spreadsheets do not easily translate to  hyper-anonymous web activity. Therefore I will make use of some calculators so the reader can follow along:


The surface area of Earth is 509,600,000 km² = 5.096×10^14 m²

The surface area of Sol is 6.09e12 km² = 6.09×10^18 m²

Earth (the ground) radiates 1.906403805179055e17 W. 91.21% of that energy would be between 6000 and 40,000 nm with the peak being at 10.16 microns.

Sol radiates 0.384620829026384e27 W with a peak being around 501.6 nm.

Let's sanity check by calculating the irradiance at Earth's orbit. To do this we consider the total power of the sun at the average orbital distance of Earth (r = 1AU = 1.495e11 m).

The ratio of the power divided by the surface area of the sphere of radius 1AU:



This is close enough to the wikipedia "1361 W/m^2" to assure us no order of magnitude mistakes are present so far.

Let's now use that calculator and these same calculations to determine how much of that irradiance is in the band of the blackbody radiation of Earth's surface.

The solar power radiated between 6000 and 40,000 nm is 1.2999051628954013e24 W. This is over a thousand times less than the total, so right away you can tell it's not going to be much of the irradiance.


That's only 0.34%. That is how much power would be blocked at the top of the atmosphere if the atmosphere was "perfectly greenhousey".

But what about the other side of this hypothetical wall?

Radiation from the radiating surface in question (earth-sea) would indeed be scattered by greenhouse gasses, and the effect of having less than saturation might well be noticeable cooling effect.

However, beyond saturation the effect would extremely rapidly reach: nothing.

Is Earth at saturation? Yes. How do I know? The graph. How far above saturation are we? A considerable amount from my memory of previous research, hundreds of times for water, more than twice for carbon dioxide.

That means when it says "100%" it's more than 100%, an average photon will not just hit a resonant electron shell once, but multiple times on a path outward (or inward).

Every time it does this is a chance to be converted into kinetic energy (when a collision between particles occurs while an electron is still excited).

In other words thermal photons don't make it from the surface to space (almost always). They serve only to bonce around and dissipate into kinetic energy (from whence they came).

They have never done anything different because this planet has had saturation carbon dioxide and water for every time period with life in it.

Mars is in saturation (despite its thin atmosphere), Venus is so far above saturation that you can bet a 6-40 micron camera sees only total darkness a few hundred meters below the clouds.

So if photons from the surface aren't cooling the surface and Earth must cool by radiation in this 6-40 micron band then how does it cool? I've said this already, but let me put it at the end of a post so as to make sure it isn't lost:

The energy is transported by convection (and conduction and radiation) to the upper atmosphere. There, where the radiation does not need to go through a fog of greenhouse gasses (water most of all) it radiates out into space.

Therefore the very slight effect of increasing greenhouse gasses is to slightly increase the temperature of the upper atmosphere (moving the interception layer higher) while slightly decreasing the temperature of the lower atmosphere (and surface).

Now, if you ask for the exact dynamics of convection, clouds, temperature, and water vapor I will tell you I do not have that and that nobody has that. That is the poster child for chaotic systems, it's also known as the weather and nobody anywhere can predict it. Suffice to say that the way it operates has no dependence on the radiation ping pong of trace gasses.

I do not claim to have all the factors or make predictions about the whole, I don't need to; my claim was about the specific effect of one variable changing.

Speaking of clouds, a slight decrease in clouds could very easily account for the increasing temperature and be nearly impossible to quantify. How much less useful (politically) is "the clouds might be doing something, we don't know why".


#95
Mps1213
Mps1213's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 169
0
3
7
Mps1213's avatar
Mps1213
0
3
7
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
This is the part you need to disprove. 

“Now part two of the recipe: how hot will the extra CO2 make us? Most physics students, once they learn about radiative heat transfer (affectionately called sigma-T-to-the-fourth), are tasked with calculating the Earth’s temperature in radiative equilibrium with the Sun. If done “correctly,” the answer is disappointingly cold because the greenhouse effect is not incorporated in the simple calculation.
The way it works is, the sun imbues a radiative flux of 1370 Watts per square meter at the position of the Earth. Given its radius of R = 6378 km, the Earth intercepts 1370 W/m² × πR² of the incident sunlight, since the Earth appears as a projected disk to the Sun. Most of this incident flux is absorbed in the oceans, land, atmosphere, and clouds, while the remainder is immediately reflected back to space so the aliens can see our planet. The absorbed part (70%) heats the earth surface environment and eventually is re-radiated to space as thermal infrared radiation, at wavelengths centered at about 10 microns—far beyond human vision (0.4 to 0.7 microns).
The law for thermal radiation is that a surface emits a total radiative power of A·σT4, where A is the surface area, σ=5.67×10−8 W/m²/K4 is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, and Tis the surface temperature in Kelvin. For instance, a patch of Earth at the average surface temperature of 288 K (15°C, or 59°F) emits 390 W/m² of infrared radiation. To figure out the temperature of the Earth, we demand that power in equals power out, and radiative transfer is the only game in town for getting heat on and off the Earth. If we did not have a balance between power in and power out, the Earth’s temperature would change until equilibrium was re-established. Hey—that’s what global warming is doing.  But let’s not get ahead of ourselves…
While the Earth intercepts a column of light from the sun with area πR², the Earth has a surface area of 4πR² to radiate. Considering that 70% of the incoming sunlight is in play, we have an effective influx of 960 W/m² onto one quarter of the Earth’s surface area (why not half? much of the Sun-side of the Earth is tilted to the sun and does not receive direct, overhead sunlight). So the radiated part must work out to 240 W/m², which implies an effective temperature of 255 K, or a bone-chilling −18°C (about 0°F). Incidentally, if the Earth were black as coal, absorbing all incident solar radiation, the answer would have been a more satisfactory 279 K, or 6°C, but still colder than observed.
We know that 255 K is the wrong answer; off by 33°C. The discrepancy is the greenhouse effect, and to this we owe our comfort and our liquid oceans. The greenhouse gases absorb some of the outbound infrared radiation and re-radiate in all directions, sending some of the energy back toward Earth. Two-thirds of the effect (about 22°C) is from water vapor, about one-fifth (~7°C) is from carbon dioxide, and the remaining 15% is from a mix of other gases, including methane.”



#96
Mps1213
Mps1213's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 169
0
3
7
Mps1213's avatar
Mps1213
0
3
7
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
And how about we handle it this way. You can invite me to a rated debate with the resolution “CO2 does not wake the atmosphere.” We can settle it there and see whose evidence is more convincing. I’m kind of over arguing about this in DARTs equivalent to the YouTube comment section. Let’s have a rated debate about this or drop it. I’ve presented math, physics and chemistry. You’re denying basic laws of physics and easily provable math, it’s a pointless conversation. I’ll debate with you officially but not on here any longer. 
#97
Mps1213
Mps1213's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 169
0
3
7
Mps1213's avatar
Mps1213
0
3
7
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Nothing you just did disproves the fact that CO2 warms the atmosphere. 

Also “Speaking of clouds, a slight decrease in clouds could very easily account for the increasing temperature and be nearly impossible to quantify. How much less useful (politically) is "the clouds might be doing something, we don't know why".

This is very easy to calculate and it’s called the libido of the planet and yes it does have an effect on temperature. So does CO2. 
#98
Mps1213
Mps1213's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 169
0
3
7
Mps1213's avatar
Mps1213
0
3
7
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
An easy to do this is to do the formula I posted (which all geoscience majors have to do) without the greenhouse effect implemented. Then do it without CO2 implemented. Then check each answer against the average temperature of the earth. You will see it is Lower than it should be unless you account for greenhouse gases and CO2. That alone is enough evidence to say with certainty that CO2 warms the environment and accounts for roughly 1/5 of the greenhouse effect. 
#99
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Mps1213
This is the part you need to disprove. 
Patience grasshopper.

Something hosted by ucsd (University of California San Diego I assume):

Now part two of the recipe: how hot will the extra CO2 make us? Most physics students, once they learn about radiative heat transfer (affectionately called sigma-T-to-the-fourth), are tasked with calculating the Earth’s temperature in radiative equilibrium with the Sun. If done “correctly,” the answer is disappointingly cold because the greenhouse effect is not incorporated in the simple calculation.
The way it works is, the sun imbues a radiative flux of 1370 Watts per square meter at the position of the Earth. Given its radius of R = 6378 km, the Earth intercepts 1370 W/m² × πR² of the incident sunlight, since the Earth appears as a projected disk to the Sun. Most of this incident flux is absorbed in the oceans, land, atmosphere, and clouds, while the remainder is immediately reflected back to space so the aliens can see our planet. The absorbed part (70%) heats the earth surface environment and eventually is re-radiated to space as thermal infrared radiation, at wavelengths centered at about 10 microns—far beyond human vision (0.4 to 0.7 microns).
This is correct, but here we can start to see the seeds of the misconception. "eventually is re-radiated".

The thermal energy is re-radiated, but the phrasing here could unfortunately lead students to the mistaken notion that this is a pure (or even approximately) a radiative equilibrium situation.

The Earth <-> Sol system is radiative equilibrium. The Earth Surface <-> Earth Upper Atmosphere OR Earth Radiative Surface system is not a radiative equilibrium problem.

The law for thermal radiation is that a surface emits a total radiative power of A·σT4, where A is the surface area, σ=5.67×10−8 W/m²/K4 is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, and Tis the surface temperature in Kelvin. For instance, a patch of Earth at the average surface temperature of 288 K (15°C, or 59°F) emits 390 W/m² of infrared radiation. To figure out the temperature of the Earth, we demand that power in equals power out, and radiative transfer is the only game in town for getting heat on and off the Earth.
Yes it's the only game, if "Earth" is the system encompassed by the whole mass of the Earth including the upper atmosphere. Any system smaller than that (including the system that includes the surface and the lower atmosphere) does not obey this simplification.


If we did not have a balance between power in and power out, the Earth’s temperature would change until equilibrium was re-established. Hey—that’s what global warming is doing.  But let’s not get ahead of ourselves…
While the Earth intercepts a column of light from the sun with area πR², the Earth has a surface area of 4πR² to radiate. Considering that 70% of the incoming sunlight is in play, we have an effective influx of 960 W/m² onto one quarter of the Earth’s surface area (why not half? much of the Sun-side of the Earth is tilted to the sun and does not receive direct, overhead sunlight). So the radiated part must work out to 240 W/m², which implies an effective temperature of 255 K, or a bone-chilling −18°C (about 0°F).
Accounting for errors due to imperfect blackbodies (none are ever perfect due to preference for characteristic energies) that is the temperature of Earth's radiative surface; and I'm not saying one particular range of the atmosphere, whatever range implies this average temperature must be the effective radiative surface.


Incidentally, if the Earth were black as coal, absorbing all incident solar radiation, the answer would have been a more satisfactory 279 K, or 6°C, but still colder than observed.

We know that 255 K is the wrong answer; off by 33°C. The discrepancy is the greenhouse effect, and to this we owe our comfort and our liquid oceans. The greenhouse gases absorb some of the outbound infrared radiation and re-radiate in all directions, sending some of the energy back toward Earth. Two-thirds of the effect (about 22°C) is from water vapor, about one-fifth (~7°C) is from carbon dioxide, and the remaining 15% is from a mix of other gases, including methane.
mps... there is no math here. The math all related to the radiation of the sun and Earth (complete system Earth).

My explanation of thermal mass insulation explains why our surface is warmer, it also explains the other planets, it survives the fact that the blackbody radiation of Earth's surface is already completely scattered, and it survives the fact that temperature precedes CO₂.

Crudely speaking, if CO2 is responsible for 7 of the 33 degrees of the greenhouse effect, we can easily predict the equilibrium consequences of an increase in CO2. We have so far increased the concentration of CO2 from 280 ppm to 390 ppm, or about 40%. Since I have some ambiguity about whether the 7 K contribution to the surface temperature is based on the current CO2 concentration or the pre-industrial figure, we’ll look at it both ways and see it doesn’t matter much at this level of analysis. If CO2 increased the pre-industrial surface temperature by 7 K, then adding 40% more CO2 would increase the temperature by 7×0.4 = 2.8 K. If we instead say that 7 K is the current CO2 contribution, the associated increase is 7−7/1.4 = 2 K. Either way, the increase is in line with estimates of warming—
Nothing about thermodynamics is linear, this isn't crude it's completely baseless; it's sad to see something like the absurdum I made about Mars being 6 times warmer being shown to students.

though the system has a lag due to the heat capacity of oceans, slowing down the rate of temperature increase.
This is true, an important insight in general if misapplied here. Note MPS that what he or she just said would imply the temperature should lag even farther behind carbon dioxide.

Using a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature change does not constitute a correct treatment
To say less than the least....


#100
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Mps1213
Also “Speaking of clouds, a slight decrease in clouds could very easily account for the increasing temperature and be nearly impossible to quantify. How much less useful (politically) is "the clouds might be doing something, we don't know why".
This is very easy to calculate and it’s called the libido of the planet and yes it does have an effect on temperature. So does CO2. 
Albedo, if libido could warm a planet that would explain it. No it's not easy to calculate at all. In fact it isn't calculated, it's measured; and to get measurements precise enough to be useful would require multiple very fine instruments very far away (which they may have, but I haven't heard about it and I follow space news).


An easy to do this is to do the formula I posted (which all geoscience majors have to do) without the greenhouse effect implemented. Then do it without CO2 implemented. Then check each answer against the average temperature of the earth. You will see it is Lower than it should be unless you account for greenhouse gases and CO2. That alone is enough evidence to say with certainty that CO2 warms the environment and accounts for roughly 1/5 of the greenhouse effect. 
Mps.... this is why philosophy is so important. Yes I know I sound like a broken record but it comes up so often because its the foundation of everything and almost everyone is never educated in this.

The above example is to me tragic, you're obviously being trained in high science; you're standing on the shoulders of millennia of thinkers  and being handed knowledge and doesn't it make you proud but you just committed the same fallacy that retarded human knowledge for hundreds of thousands of years.

You've been given knowledge, but not the most important knowledge which is: How do I get more knowledge? How do I discern knowledge from superstition?


Let's say for the sake of argument that I didn't have an alternative hypothesis, or that my hypothesis is even now wrong (it could be from first principles).

What you just argued was that if there is something you don't have an explanation for (the Earth is warmer than the radiative equilibrium math predicts), that whatever purports to be an explanation must be true and that anyone who doubts that explanation must have an alternative hypothesis.

Why do you think people believed that a thunder god caused thunder? Because when the priests and shamans gave them that explanation, they didn't have a better one.

Ignorance is not a sufficient reason to accept a purported explanation. If the explanation fails logical tests, it must be rejected even if admitting ignorance is the result.


#101
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Mps1213
Would you like to have a rated debate on this topic? Resolution is simply “CO2 has been proven to warm the atmosphere.”

...

And how about we handle it this way. You can invite me to a rated debate with the resolution “CO2 does not wake the atmosphere.” We can settle it there and see whose evidence is more convincing.
No, if you're interested in the truth you don't need points or applause. The only thing in a rated debate will add is an excuse to fall into a fallacy. If you think science is settled by vote you're too far removed from scientific thought to reason with.


I’ll debate with you officially but not on here any longer. 
I can't force you to debate, but I may link back to this thread in the future if you again take issue with my beliefs about anthropomorphic catastrophic global climate change.


I thought to say:
After I asked you for evidence of the quality and caliber I provided in my most recent post, you went silent.  Is it because you haven’t found any math or physics to compete with that last post? Or are you just tired of the conversation?
It's most likely that my drug (caffeine) cannot compete with yours (whatever it is).
#102
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
We have had drastic changes in the weather all throughout history.
We've also had famines too. We should be storing a decade of food for the world and building a robust nuclear power system. It's common sense, but as always so long as other people are a problem everything else comes second.


But we know that can't be true, because it has fluctuated down and up in temperature not just up.

It's fairly obviously a snap between two equilibrium levels, very normal for a differential equation. Almost certainly albedo change from melting ice.

We have some ice to melt, but ice where the sun is weak will have much less of an affect, but more importantly we're on the hot side of the snap. Some major factor is keeping us from getting warmer and if I had to guess I would say cloud cover. The warmer it is the more water evaporates the easier clouds form.

#103
Mps1213
Mps1213's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 169
0
3
7
Mps1213's avatar
Mps1213
0
3
7
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
“It's most likely that my drug (caffeine) cannot compete with yours (whatever it is).”

Lol my drug is working 13 night shifts brother. 

And look you’re a smart fella, and like i said im not well versed enough to really break down your argument the way I would need to. I just suggest you go talk to someone who is, with open ears. I don’t find it coincidental that basically everyone who studies this topic all comes to same conclusion, and that is CO2 has a warming effect on the atmosphere. It’s probably because they have very, very solid evidence to support it. Im not well versed enough to back it up perfectly, just because that’s not the type of geoscience I study in school. 

Go find someone who is willing to talk to you about this, they really would be happy too. Professors are generally cool people who just have their email on school websites for anyone to reach out to and they will respond. 
#104
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
Climate is changing.



Climate change is getting worse.
Doesn't really make sense.


The negative effects of a changing climate upon human society and its infrastructure are perhaps getting worse.


Though one could also argue that the negative effects of a changing human society and its infrastructure are getting worse.


Everything is constantly changing. 

Topic's author
#105
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@zedvictor4
And we are changing it 
#106
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,623
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Vegasgiants
We have already reached the point of no return. Assuming that humanity doesnt die in a nuclear war, in 20 years they will die from heat and rising sea level.
Topic's author
#107
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@Best.Korea
Unlikely.  Some will die, generally the poorest, but the rest will live with some major problems
#108
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,623
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Vegasgiants
People get what they asked for. I dont feel sorry for them. They worked hard to make this happen.
#109
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,623
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Vegasgiants

The temperatures are rising so fast that in 20 years this planet will be very hot. Of course, as the sea level rises, some countries will disappear under water. Some areas will be hit by floods. Some by drought. Increased number of bad weather is also to be expected.
#110
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Vegasgiants
Yep. 

We have been changing things for the past 300,000 years or so.

And will continue to do so.

Why?

Because that's what we do for some reason.

And the reason might or might not be greater than us.

And I'm guessing that it is greater than us.

But I might be wrong.

Perhaps everything that we have achieved here on Planet Earth is universally purposeless.
Topic's author
#111
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@zedvictor4
Well you have a guess

The scientific community has a guess

I'll go with them
#112
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,167
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@Best.Korea
 "in 20 years they will die from heat and rising sea level."  I've heard that very same prediction twice in my 60 years of living.  Don't hold your breath but rather prepare for higher taxes and more business killing regulations.  "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."" Ain't gonna be no third time. The worthless suedo science being used to make that prediction is the same and the people making that prediction can take their prediction and shove it up their ass.
#113
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@sadolite
I’ll assume you don’t think climate change is real at all. 

Every couple of years or so, there’s a new global heat record broken. Whilst every year there are many regional records broken, from the size of countries to continents. Isn’t there a record-braking heatwave hitting the southwest US right now?
#114
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Vegasgiants
It's not that don't  agree with the science.

We are effecting climate.

My guess was more philosophical, and relative to an assumed meaning to human existence and human actions.

What I'm saying is, that an organic material manipulator, is/was always going to affect a habitable planets climate at some point.


#115
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,167
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@Reece101
Oh climate change is very real, it has been changing for millions upon millions of years. The predictions about how the climate will change is a load of shit.
#116
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@sadolite
I’ll assume you don’t think climate change is real at all. 

Every couple of years or so, there’s a new global heat record broken. Whilst every year there are many regional records broken, from the size of countries to continents. Isn’t there a record-braking heatwave hitting the southwest US right now?
Oh climate change is very real, it has been changing for millions upon millions of years. The predictions about how the climate will change is a load of shit.
Let’s start by predicting that it will keep getting hotter. Would that be alright?
#117
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,167
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@Reece101
Predict what ever you want. Your prediction is as good as anyone's. Just don't use your prediction to make me pay more taxes.  Haven't we already past the point of no return if we don't do something now  like 20 times. Everyone should just kill themselves, you are going to die anyway, its been predicted. We are past the point of no return.
#118
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@sadolite
You might have to with insurance companies pulling out of states that are susceptible to extreme weather such as hurricanes.
#119
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,167
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@Reece101
There's a super volcano in Yellowstone when it erupts that is going to destroy the entire US. That's my prediction.  Better move to another country.
#120
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@sadolite
The super volcano isn’t in Yellowstone, it is Yellowstone. Anyway, can you stay on topic.