Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

global warming erah climate change explained

sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2011 3:25:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2011 10:02:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I have a rather unusual take (theory) on man caused global warming/ climate change that I've not seen anyone else propose.

Would anyone here be interested in exploring it with me?

~Chuz
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
headphonegut
Posts: 4,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2011 10:08:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/12/2011 10:02:30 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
I have a rather unusual take (theory) on man caused global warming/ climate change that I've not seen anyone else propose.

Would anyone here be interested in exploring it with me?

~Chuz

absolutely care to share that theory? how exactly do you prove man caused global warming?
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2011 10:11:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/12/2011 10:08:03 PM, headphonegut wrote:
At 7/12/2011 10:02:30 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
I have a rather unusual take (theory) on man caused global warming/ climate change that I've not seen anyone else propose.

Would anyone here be interested in exploring it with me?

~Chuz

absolutely care to share that theory? how exactly do you prove man caused global warming?

Sure. I want you to know up front that I do NOT buy into the doom and gloom we're all going to die predictions.... I just agree that we have an effect (to some degree) on the average temps.

A question, first.

1. Do you agree or disagree that man has an affect on the Planets Temperature?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
headphonegut
Posts: 4,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2011 10:19:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I agree that man affects the temperature
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2011 10:25:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/12/2011 10:19:40 PM, headphonegut wrote:
I agree that man affects the temperature

That's fine. My theory really won't challenge you much. But it may give you some ammo in a future debate. =]

My "theory" is so simple, it's likely to be beyond ridiculous to some (you?) but here it goes.

My theory starts with the law of physics that says "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

Are you with me so far?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2011 10:25:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/12/2011 9:43:08 PM, headphonegut wrote:
erah?

He was probably trying to cram it all into the title. There's a character limit.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
headphonegut
Posts: 4,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2011 10:33:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/12/2011 10:25:31 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 7/12/2011 10:19:40 PM, headphonegut wrote:
I agree that man affects the temperature

That's fine. My theory really won't challenge you much. But it may give you some ammo in a future debate. =]

My "theory" is so simple, it's likely to be beyond ridiculous to some (you?) but here it goes.

My theory starts with the law of physics that says "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

Are you with me so far?

I'm not a moron and I don't mind reading long posts just say it.
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2011 10:44:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/12/2011 10:25:31 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 7/12/2011 10:19:40 PM, headphonegut wrote:
I agree that man affects the temperature

That's fine. My theory really won't challenge you much. But it may give you some ammo in a future debate. =]

My "theory" is so simple, it's likely to be beyond ridiculous to some (you?) but here it goes.

My theory starts with the law of physics that says "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

Are you with me so far?

Anyway, I'll finish because I need to get to bed....

As a technician, I've learned that the byproducts of the use of any energy is heat.

That means every transistor, resistor, integrated circuit, light bulb, transformer, car engine and exhaust, friction of a tire on the road, air conditioning units, burning of fuel,... EVERYTHING man does, gives off heat.

"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"

Then there are the OTHER things man does that not only generates heat when it's produced, but gets into the Earth's ability to absorb and regulate temperatures as a secondary affect.

How many square miles do we have of shingles, blacktop parking lots and roads, rooftops and structures that not only fail to mimic the trees, plans, soil and grasses they displace.... but catch and store the suns energy, reflecting it directly during the day (take a walk on a freshly paved parking lot barefoot in the summer).... but also slowly releasing the stored energy at night.

In short,.... Man could hardly do a better job warming the planet INTENTIONALLY than we do already, just by the "cause and effect" (action - reaction) nature of our "footprint."

Now, most people will be quick to point out that the Earth has a great ability to absorb most (some say all) of the heating that man introduces into the atmosphere.... But, there is something about the "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" that tells me that for at least short periods at a time 9and averaged OVER time).... man has SOME affect.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2011 10:56:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Sorry for the rush job on that last post. ~Chuz
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2011 11:02:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
It is true that the color of the landscape changes the heat balance. Snow and ice reflect a lot of radiation, so having ice tends to help preserve ice. However, the amount of surface of the earth that is covered by human structures, including roads, is negligible overall. For example, in densely populated Japan, only 4.5% of the land has buildings and roads. Most places, and the oceans, are much less.

There are local heat islands. Cities, and even towns, are warmer that isolated areas because of the pavement and buildings. This makes the temperature readings at weather stations, mostly in developed areas, warmer than the environment as a whole. Satellite temperature measurements are more reliable.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2011 1:39:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/13/2011 11:02:41 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
It is true that the color of the landscape changes the heat balance. Snow and ice reflect a lot of radiation, so having ice tends to help preserve ice. However, the amount of surface of the earth that is covered by human structures, including roads, is negligible overall. For example, in densely populated Japan, only 4.5% of the land has buildings and roads. Most places, and the oceans, are much less.

There are local heat islands. Cities, and even towns, are warmer that isolated areas because of the pavement and buildings. This makes the temperature readings at weather stations, mostly in developed areas, warmer than the environment as a whole. Satellite temperature measurements are more reliable.

Those are some great points and I don't want to take anything away from the fact that man has only managed to change a small percentage of the Planets landscape.

I don't hang my hat on that alone.

If man is affecting the "planet" it is a cumulative effect that we are having. A combination of all the factors and not of just one or two things we are doing independently.

My point is that if the laws of physics are applied, one can not say that mans "actions" have had no "reactions" towards affecting the environment.

However great or small,... we have either had some effect or the laws of physics (Newton's Law, specifically) needs to be re-visited.

Agree?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2011 9:00:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/14/2011 7:13:43 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
Of course we have had some effect. That is trivial. But having some effect does not mean anything.

There are people (I've seen on these boards) who deny that many has had ANY affect on the climate of the planet.

I am by no means paranoid about it. The climate has NATURALLY changed by much greated degrees than what we have managed to 'change.'

My point is only to bring two aspects back into the discussion which I seldom ever see being addressed.

1. Newtons law
2. The cumulative aspect (sum total or 'big picture' of our footprint)

It's not just a matter of our use of fossil fuels.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
freedomsquared
Posts: 450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 5:53:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/14/2011 9:00:40 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 7/14/2011 7:13:43 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
Of course we have had some effect. That is trivial. But having some effect does not mean anything.

There are people (I've seen on these boards) who deny that many has had ANY affect on the climate of the planet.

I think that those people mean men have not had any SIGNIFICANT affect on the climate of the planet, which is all that really matters.

My point is only to bring two aspects back into the discussion which I seldom ever see being addressed.

1. Newtons law
2. The cumulative aspect (sum total or 'big picture' of our footprint)

It's not just a matter of our use of fossil fuels.

Of course man has affected the environment, I could walk outside wearing a black hat and affect global temperatures, but not in any significant way. The argument is not if man has any effect on the environment, it's whether or not the effect he has is significant compared to other natural factors.
But it's Norway, sort of the Canada of Europe."
-innomen

http://www.debate.org...
-humorous debate with brian_eggleston

http://www.debate.org...
-tournament debate, need votes
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 5:58:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It doesn't have to be significant compared to other forces, but significant in general.

If three other forces, comprised 90% of the climate change (30% each) and we did the 10% that's left. That 10% is nothing compared to the big 3, but it is still part of the big picture.

Now, if there are 100,000 different things, each which only makes up 0.001%, and we're doing 0.007%, that is significant compared to the others, but not to the big picture.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 6:22:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I recall somewhere that bacteria drastically changed the Earth's environment basically from sh!tting everywhere and breathing.

If those tiny little sh!ts could have such a massive impact, why not people? Nevermind that it took hundreds of millions of years...

...
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 6:25:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 6:22:28 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I recall somewhere that bacteria drastically changed the Earth's environment basically from sh!tting everywhere and breathing.

If those tiny little sh!ts could have such a massive impact, why not people? Nevermind that it took hundreds of millions of years...

...

I don't know about bacteria, but plants for sure. There use to be a lot more CO2 in the air. After the meteorite killed off the flintstones and their kitchen appliances, plants recovered much faster than animal life (was still slow as snot), and they began eatting up a lot of the CO2, until animals popped up to counter balance them.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2011 4:03:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/13/2011 1:39:54 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:

My point is that if the laws of physics are applied, one can not say that mans "actions" have had no "reactions" towards affecting the environment.

However great or small,... we have either had some effect or the laws of physics (Newton's Law, specifically) needs to be re-visited.

Agree?

Yes, there is some effect. I don't know of any scientist who disagrees that there is some effect. So what? The usual argument thread is to leap directly from "global warming exists" to "therefore, bureaucrats must manage every aspect of your life." That's nonsense, of course. The leap is so predictable that many of us no longer take "global warming exists" in it's literal sense, in which it is quite true, but rather in it's popular meaning, with the implication "the world will end if you don't do exactly as I command." Meaning is defined by how words are used, even if the use is illogical.

Following the leap of logic, the California legislature serious considered banning the sale of black automobiles. Black cars require more air conditioning when it's warm, California is generally warm, more air conditioning requires more gasoline consumption, more gasoline consumption produces more CO2, and more CO2 ends life on earth. Of course, the effect isn't a millionth of degree by any account, but the leap is made by climate believers.