Climate change is real

Author: Vegasgiants

Posts

Total: 263
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,638
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Playing with global temperatures by lowering it back down one degree could cause even more extinctions of the remaining Earth life.
And continual increase of temperatures will kill many humans for sure. We are already playing a lot with global temperatures by increasing them more than ever in history of humanity.
Your theory is about plant life that might be reduced if temperatures are reduced. I am saying that human life is more important than few plants. Human life is harmed by this weather.
Life on Earth will adapt to lower temperatures just as it adapted every time for the last 30 years as temperatures increased. Life on Earth existed for so long under low temperatures.

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,972
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
And continual increase of temperatures will kill many humans for sure. 
No, that prediction is nowhere near "for sure"
What we do know is that we will lose 60,000 EU people THIS YEAR due to climate change policies in the summer and 100K people in Europe during this winter. That's because cold kills people much faster than heat in a world with seasonal changes. That's one thing that is sure.

Your theory is about plant life that might be reduced if temperatures are reduced.
No, I was talking about animal life. I was talking about browning the planet by reducing CO2 ppm.


TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Vegasgiants
>
@<<<TWS1405_2>>>
Nasa disagrees with your last paragraph 

Whatever you say, Vagina.
After all, more than one link I cited invovled....NASA.
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Greyparrot

fine, I should have said one possible cause.
I can't let that alone either, it's possible in the same way 5G is a possible cause of cancer and voter fraud: there is no publicly advanced and precisely defined mechanism that doesn't contradict proven science.

It's a purported cause.

Tis a silly idea
I wouldn't be surprised to see massive industrial greenhouses with huge DAC machines keeping CO2 ppm around 1500. Just to provide enough plant life to support more humans.
Alright but its hardly sequestration if you give the carbon to humans who poop (and breathe) it out into the general atmosphere again. That's just a plan for concentrated farming which only makes sense if we have shortage of surface area (which we really don't).


But I would say the same thing to you:

Just because we can do something does not mean we should.
*looks up from resurrecting dinosaurs* whoops.


There are some extremely nasty consequences for a lot of current Earth life if we suddenly lowered temperatures. Much of the remaining life has adjusted for the higher temperatures. Playing with global temperatures by lowering it back down one degree could cause even more extinctions of the remaining Earth life. Lowering CO2 PPM would cause the browning of all the present Earth greening NASA observed. For what reason?
Oh yea I'm not saying we need to mess with anything, but we should put ourselves in the position of being able to since we don't know what will happen next.

Also between lowering the average temp by 1 degree C and cutting the carbon dioxide concentration in half the latter would be far more catastrophic.


If there's a way to cool the planet (for whatever reason you think it's important) surely doing it in a way that doesn't destroy green life should be considered.
Absolutely. I say we should be burning our trash at 6000C so we stop burying carbon (and other useful stuff) in these disgusting useless landfills.

It's not a problem now because we're digging up more carbon elsewhere but eventually that will stop and we need to stop burying carbon. We like plants, the animals like plants, in fact it's only zombies who don't like plants.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,972
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Whatever you say, Vagina.
reported.
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Greyparrot
Tattle Tail.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,638
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
No, that prediction is nowhere near "for sure"
The number of floods and droughts is increasing. Take from that what you will.
I said multiple times that I dont support Europe's policies. There are better ways.

Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@TWS1405_2
Reported. 

And nasa has an entire website where they disagree with your assessment
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
No you won't.  You will simply dismiss basic science in favor of conspiracy nonsense.

You got nothing 
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,972
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
The number of floods and droughts is increasing. Take from that what you will.
Just curious, do you think the number of people dying from floods and droughts in EU is increasing or decreasing?
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,972
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@cristo71
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Vegasgiants
You got nothing 
The irony of saying that as an excuse to not make a positive argument is amusing.
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
Whatever you say, Vagina.
Such a banal, childish comment. The kind of comment that comes from someone who wears a ball cap every day.

Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
AGW has caused significant increases in global temperature and will cause significant negative effects on the planet
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Vegasgiants
AGW has caused significant increases in global temperature and will cause significant negative effects on the planet
That's not an argument, it's an assertion. Three assertions actually:

1.) The Earth is warming
2.) It is caused by man
3.) It will cause significant negative effects on the planet

It's also a bit funny that you implied self-causality. AGW = anthropogenic global warming. You said "anthropogenic global warming has caused significant increases in global temperature".

Global warming has caused increases in global temperature? Does commuting cause significant movement from home to work? Do waterfalls cause significant amounts of dihydrogen oxide to exist a lower gravitational potential?

Anyway I say "ACGCC" = Anthropogenic Catastrophic Global Climate Change, that's the true claim that separates the two sides of this political controversy.

All you have said is "ACGCC is happening". I still say: Prove it. (or at least try to support it).
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You can say anything you like.  The scientific community uses the term AGW because the warming is human induced.

I prefer scientific terms whenever possible when discussing science 

The evidence 


You may now start crying about nasa and tell us we should accept YOUR interpretation of the data instead of theirs.  Lol
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,972
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
All you have said is "ACGCC is happening"
I dunno, He seems to support AGW, to some degree. 
Not sure about his ACGCC claims.

Whether AGW is responsible for 1% or 100% of the recorded warming, we don't know, because none of the NASA articles cited address that issue.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,972
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Vegasgiants
Why do you use the term "climate change" if you want to prove global warming?
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@Greyparrot
Well we know that humans have a significant contribution to AGW
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Greyparrot
Not sure about his ACGCC claims.
AGW + "significant negative effects on the planet" = ACGW

Warming is a subset of change so ACGW is ACGCC just as ACG[Cooling] is.
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@Greyparrot
I prefer the term AGW when discussing the science
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Oh look.....a claim with no evidence.  Lol
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,972
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Vegasgiants
have a significant contribution 
Define this exactly. How about a ballpark estimate if not.

I prefer the term AGW when discussing the science
So maybe NASA articles about climate change wouldn't be your best source. Sources about AGW would support your claim better.
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Vegasgiants
You may now start crying about nasa and tell us we should accept YOUR interpretation of the data instead of theirs.  Lol
You may now make a positive argument so that I may evaluate it and debunk if possible.
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@Greyparrot

Humans emissions and activities have caused around 100% of the warming observed since 1950, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) fifth assessment report.
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Already did.  You got nothing
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@Greyparrot
AGW is clearly related to clinate change according to nasa
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,972
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Vegasgiants
around 100% 
Define this exactly. Is that 90% 99%....

And what are the sources of warming from the remaining percent?

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC)

I just did a word search for "around 100 percent" and found nothing in your source.
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@Greyparrot
Why exactly?  Science is rarely exact in these areas

Exactly how much of lung cancer is caused by cigarettes for example 
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,972
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Vegasgiants
In the United States, cigarette smoking is linked to about 80% to 90% of lung cancer deaths. Using other tobacco products such as cigars or pipes also increases the risk for lung cancer. There's multiple studies on this.

Where's your source for percentage of AGW contribution for warming? If you say we cannot know, then that's fine.