975Views139Replies

Author Options:

Global warming is real. Argue with me, I dare you! Answered

I have a debate coming up in religion class on global warming. Would anyone like to try and convince me that global warming is NOT real? Any help would be appreciated. (Plus: I always love demolishing someone's argument with my Hammer of Peer-Reviewed Articles). :P

Discussions

0
None
musicalbee2003

10 years ago

The problem is, everyone is debating about how''' global warming is caused. Some think it's natural. Most think we are causing. Then there are the complete loons who walk around blindfolded and say it doesn't exist. The loons aside, we are arguing about the wrong thing. How it began means very little. We should be coming up with a solution. If the people in charge continue to tell eachother their theories are wrong, it's really caused by this, then waders will be the newest fashion statement by the time we get to solving the problem.

0
None
ll.13

11 years ago

The world gets warmer then it gets colder, simple. The great freeze of the 1970's? (at least sometime or another, it's in Winter Holiday - Auther Ransom) it'll happen again when the time is due.

0
None
megziewoodles

11 years ago

It doesn't really make a difference whether global warming exists or not. As long as we're still pumping nasties into the atmosphere, we're still probably all gonna die of cancer. Plus, the sky isn't as blue as it used to be, and that makes me sad.

0
None
royalestelmegziewoodles

Reply 11 years ago

Yeah, me too. Spent a couple weeks last summer in NYC. Very glad to be back in the boonies. What a crazy hell-hole.

0
None
Metal4God

11 years ago

global warming does exist but were not causing it if we are causing it then whats causing it Because theres we've never been to mars and there is no such things as Marshins so argue with me I Dare You then argue with Glen Beck he take global warming out of you.

0
None
royalestel

11 years ago

How'd your debate go?

This topic has gotten me reading and researching more. The more I read the more I'm convinced there is probably an increase in global surface temperature, and it's caused by something other than greenhouse gases.

My primary concern about the anti-Global Warming movement is the hysteria. The baseless fears in turn tends towards virulent reaction to any dissenters from the group think. I normally wouldn't even be bothered by that, but with seeming millions of people advocating dangerous things like CFLs in every house, and oppressive things like "carbon taxes" to offset a mythical problem, I get a little worried. Some of these measures would surely, obviously cause problems without being able to show any progress towards solving the "problem" as they see it, of global warming.

Anybody remember the ozone hole thing from the 90's? Yeah, turns out CFCs were better for the ozone hole than the propellants we now use in their place. Classic example of the cure being worse than the disease, although, I don't even think that the ozone hole was a problem, either, considering it's cyclical nature. Again, the problem was that we took measures without thinking them through and without really understanding what we were fooling with. We banned CFCs because we could, with no serious thought to whether we should. Jurassic Park, anyone? There are factual deaths in millions for many other real, substantive, non-theoretical problems that we would be far better expending our resources towards solving.

I say, let us all work towards safer driving and save some actual lives.

Enough worrying about melting ice.

0
None
carbonroyalestel

Reply 11 years ago

Actually, we ended up not holding the debate at all. Or at least, there wasn't an official debate. :P We all had an ongoing discussion as we went about our day. Having read the information presented here, I was very well prepared.



Anybody remember the ozone hole thing from the 90's? Yeah, turns out CFCs were better for the ozone hole than the propellants we now use in their place.

I'm guessing that they're worse in the long-term? (Because no one cares about the long-term effects anymore...)

0
None
Lextoneroyalestel

Reply 11 years ago

It was discovered that the biggest culprit to Ozone depletion is Methane gas. The most widely agreed cause of the hole in Antarctica is attributed to the warming of the earth causing more methane to be produced from the floors of the rainforest's. It is a natural occurrence but the debate is Co2 and GW accelerating it.. If we were to take the knee jerk reaction we would chop down the rainforest's I am kidding by the way....but it does make you think....are all the forest fires lately natures way of protecting its self? .

0
None
trebuchet03royalestel

Reply 11 years ago

Yeah, turns out CFCs were better for the ozone hole than the propellants we now use in their place.

Not so sure about that - can you link us up to your research, I'm curious to learn more? While I haven't heard that claim - I have heard the claim that they contribute to GW but not to extent of some other gases. So I guess yes, the cure is worse than the disease if you're following GW :p

But, for thuroughness - here are charts of CFCs, HCFCs and HFC's - note that the ozone depletion index on HCFCs is never greater than .1 and all HFC's are 0 (no chlorine or bromine)

CFC - Banned
HCFC - Banned
HFC

As for remembering it in the 90's.... Really, a lot of us won't remember when it started because the bans started in the late 70's :p But that allowed the use/sale of the chemicals with an import tax :p The late 90's brought the final ban on either CFC-11 or CFC-12 (or maybe both?), I don't recall (that was over 10 years ago :p).


I say, let us all work towards safer driving and save some actual lives.

I vote for bike riding :p Especially considering the average weight in the US is overweight :/

0
None
royalesteltrebuchet03

Reply 11 years ago

I remember well the big push that resulted in the final ban of CFCs and the labels on the cans "CFC Free" the new styrofoams, etc. You're right Treb, I got it mixed up. People that think greenhouse gases cause global warming believe the cure is worse than the disease in the case of CFCs. Sheesh.

0
None
Punkguyta

11 years ago

I don't deny it, It's just a sign that we need to "depopulate" this world. It's a rather simple formula as followed: The natural rate of reproduction leads to on the adverage of thousands of children born every year. Add this to the rate of growing with a large amount of people for pretty much all age groups. Now what this comes down to is more people needing jobs, more parents needing jobs to pay for the kids that need food, schooling and apparently cell phones for their 11 year old kids (I so desperatly want to set off a electrostatic bomb at rogers HQ or something). More jobs means more people creating factories, corporations needing factories for manufacturing needs obviously. Well you all should know where this is going, more factories and industry property means more CO2 going into the air from manufacturing proccesses. This of course leads to global warming as we know it and the rate of the "pollution" is increasing at a rather astonishing multiplier number. At the rate we're going, we should die in about 230-300 years. Seems like a long time. I'd actually be interested to see what would happen if we all died. Would there be a big bang again and we'd form another earth of fishmonkey's? Anyways, my point is that there is too many god damned people on this earth and the only way to stop that is to crush the UNWORTHY! But seriously, try to argue with that, Just having such a population is increasing diesese and other sicknesses. This world actually disgusts me.

0
None
westfw

11 years ago

I can't wait for the "Coalition of globally cold countries", who will decide that global warming will be good for them and that the whole euro-american anti-global-warming thing is a plot against them. Imagine siberia a temperate rainforest, the sahara returned to swampy greenery, etc...

0
None
ich bin ein pyro

11 years ago

okay im going out on a limb here

if all the ice melts then all the water has to go somewhere right? then it would spread over the world and since the ice under the watermelts it would just replace the ice with water resulting in no change i think and that 10% thats over the water cant be so much ice itll flood the world, correct?

0
None
Easy Buttonich bin ein pyro

Reply 11 years ago

huh theres not that much ice to flood the world........ or i just read ur comment rong i think i read it rong

0
None
Lextoneich bin ein pyro

Reply 11 years ago

Hmmm....Water is basically indestructible. It transforms from a solid to a liquid to a gas. So the earth which is mostly covered with water, and if you subscribe to the great biblical floods, I would say that another great flood is inevitable. Just as another Ice age is inevitable. I mean come on, if you flood the earth with that much water it will rapidly cool down without land mass conducting heat. Amazingly, its all cyclical. I think Man credits himself way too much with his ability to affect and control nature. Nature controls us. Governments love stuff like this that take attention away from much more pressing issues. Ten years ago it was Ebola fever, Killer caterpillars, Killer bees, then SARS, then Asteroids, Killer ants were on the march from South America then Floods, then it was Ozone depletion and cosmic radiation skin cancer, then Bird flu, then Hurricanes and Global Warming. Any predictions on the next big scary monster in the closet? My pick is the next big Volcano scare..."is there a killer volcano in your backyard? Tune in at 11 to find out"

0
None
trebuchet03ich bin ein pyro

Reply 11 years ago

See my earlier post... Taking into consideration ONLY ice in Antarctica that is above ground (that is, cap ice - not shelf ice over the ocean). Making some basic assumptions (to make the calculation easier to follow and easier to post) - I got a rise of ~200 feet.... Which is pretty close to the estimates of 200-210 feet ;)

0
None
lemonieich bin ein pyro

Reply 11 years ago

It's the massive quantities of ice above the water that are referred to. If you did some research, I'm sure it's possible to get some estimates in million cubic Km. And only lower-lying bits of the world get flooded.

0
None
VIRON

11 years ago

A few comments on global warming without prejudice: Where do you live if you ride horse driven sleighs with jingle bells on them to grandma's house on Christmas Eve? Ice is bigger than the water it makes when it melts, and the polar ice caps float. Greenland has an inland sea, and Antarctica is two continents smaller than Australia. So when the ice caps melt, the sea level will drop. There will be more water and the deserts will be rain forests. (IMHO and science) Erosion explains the observations to the contrary. Pollution is bad. If it wasn't poison they wouldn't call it pollution. Solar and wind power are heat sinks. Since the power is FREE as far as I'm concerned, I'm not freaking out about inefficiency, but again they make useful power and do so in a cold sort of way, relative to combustion of fuel. Also, most solar panels run mostly on infrared (hot) light. Wind costs Makers almost nothing and has lots of power, used for sailing and windmills for Ages! Nuclear waste that's still hot can be used in smaller reactors until it's nearly dead lead. It's not cost effective for the big guys, but it could probably keep the lights on at smaller facilities if well guarded against terorists stealing it. "Hot" water lights up fluorescent, neon, and similar lighting without electricity, with the weakest and safest kind of radiation. Let's use white concrete in our parking lots, and white roofing where there are no solar panels. It'll replace the lost white (sun-reflecting) glacier snow, and be cooler.

0
None
royalestelVIRON

Reply 11 years ago

Oh yeah, I forgot about the displacement effect of water. Good stinking point. Hmm.

0
None
fungus amungusroyalestel

Reply 11 years ago

Ice is bigger than the water that made it, which is why it's less dense and why it floats. If ice in water melts, the water level stays the same. All that ice that's above the water level drops down and becomes water as well.

0
None
royalestelfungus amungus

Reply 11 years ago

You're forgetting that the shape of the iceberg/shelf has a lot to do with the displacement--most of an iceberg--what is it 90%? is underwater.

0
None
fungus amungusroyalestel

Reply 11 years ago

No, we're talking about the same thing. If 90% of the iceberg is underwater, then 10% is above the water level. That 10% makes up for the shrinkage as the ice below the water level changes state. If the iceberg is in salt water, then the water level will rise as it melts since the salt water is denser than fresh and pushes the iceberg up out of the water even more.

0
None
carbonfungus amungus

Reply 11 years ago

This seems like a really simple thing, but I still don't understand it. :(


No, we're talking about the same thing. If 90% of the iceberg is underwater, then 10% is above the water level. That 10% makes up for the shrinkage as the ice below the water level changes state.

So doesn't that mean that it would break even? (If the 90% below the water changes back into liquid, then won't the over-all size of the berg shrink? ((And then you said that the 10% makes up for that shrinkage?)))

0
None
fungus amunguscarbon

Reply 11 years ago

That's right, the ice melting in water is a break even situation. If the ice melts in salt water, the water level would rise slightly. That's really not that important, though. The bigger issues are that water absorbs a lot more of the sun's rays than ice and that there is an influx of fresh water into the oceanic system.

0
None
royalestelfungus amungus

Reply 11 years ago

Oh. Alrighty then. So if icebergs melt, then the water level will rise. Got it. But something bugging me about this. I've read that some glaciers and ice shelfs are actually increasing in size due to precipitation due to slightly warmer weather. So the whole ocean level affected by ice melting might be still be at a net loss or gain or zero. We won't know unless we know what the whole system is doing. Hmm . . .

0
None
trebuchet03royalestel

Reply 11 years ago

We won't know unless we know what the whole system is doing. Hmm . . .

Here's an inventory of 67,000 glaciers world wide ;) World Glacier Inventory

Some glaciers are growing -- actually, a few of them, mostly in the Middle East.... But the net glacier change is negative (an the rate is slowly increasing)...

0
None
royalesteltrebuchet03

Reply 11 years ago

What about world ice shelf/icebergs? That's part of the system.

0
None
trebuchet03VIRON

Reply 11 years ago

o.0

....and Antarctica is two continents smaller than Australia.

Australia, is the smallest continent... Antarctica is #2 in smallness (bigger than Australia)... Now, if you consider Europe it's own continent, then Antarctica becomes #3, Europe being #2 ;)

The land in Antarctica is, in many places, 1000 feet below sea level because the Ice above it is typically more than a mile thick...

There are 1.47680851 × 1014 square feet of ice covered land mass...

The ice cap, that is - ice above land, contains 1.02412533 × 1018 cubic feet of ice. And should that pressure be released from the land below, geological events in other parts of the world tell us that the continent will rise above sea level (albeit, VERY slowly, but it still will rise).

Given that salt water has mean density of 1.025 and fresh water is 1.00... So, equivalence to salt water is 9.99 × 1017 cubic feet.

So... a column of equivalent salt water, above the ice covered land mass of Antarctica rises about 6,700 feet.... Now- if we assume ALL of the ice covered land mass is 1000 feet below sea level... That column is 1.09 miles above sea level. Making a volume of 8.52 x 1017 cubic feet....

A big problem is.... Fresh Water. Fresh water and salt water don't mix too well - just look at fresh water wells, tap too deep and you're likely to get salt water :P If it happens fast (as in, once a critical temperature is reached) you'll end up with stratified layers of salt water, brackish water and fresh water. Not good for the marine life that supplies us with a great deal of oxygen :P


Now, here is where it gets tricky... I've been conservative in everything else, except for this next part because I can't take into consideration land shape.... BUT, if we assume that the water can only rise where he ocean currently covers - 3.88 × 1015 square feet...

The ocean will rise 219 feet.... Now, I just did those calculations myself... And doing a quick Google search that number is damn close to what the experts statistic is, 200-210 feet. AND that does NOT take into consideration glacial ice - Greenland being estimated to have 1/10 the amount of ice of Antarctica. Greenland doesn't have an inland see so much as it has a basin (also in the 1000 feet below sea level region).... due to the weight of the glacier that covers most of the island.


That is just one reason why so many people are concerned.... I mean, lets say that we don't know if we have an impact in any direction as almost all sides of the debate have "facts" on why their reasoning is correct (facts being the tools used to find an accepted truth). Would you take the risk of being wrong when things could have been done to make a difference?

0
None
HamOtrebuchet03

Reply 11 years ago

Would you take the risk of being wrong when things could have been done to make a difference?
Ireally admire your instructables and the great deal of logic dispayed here, but please tell me,what could be done to make a difference? If in fact man is responsible for GW then we must assume man can correct it. But how? Specifically, do we go back to pre-fosil fuel. Would that correct the problem? Do we give up all the comforts we take for grante today? I beleive the earths climate has been cyclical since the beginning and thereis nothing that can be done by man to change that!

0
None
trebuchet03HamO

Reply 11 years ago

If in fact man is responsible for GW then we must assume man can correct it.

The argument I stand for, which I have not yet presented here, is that climate change is cyclical based on natural CO2 production. The rate at which this happened can have external influence which includes man or extraterrestrial events (I don't mean aliens ;) ).

Specifically, do we go back to pre-fossil fuel.
Well, if the Central American Oil fields are an indication (down 20% from last year -- OPEC is down 8%, but they claim that's intentional) - that's not going to be our choice. The "life cycle" of existing oil fields follows a bell curve. We're not exactly sure where we are on the curve, but recent developments show we might be at the plateau. We'll have a better picture in 10-20 years.

But the answer is no - we don't go back to pre - fossil fuel... We move on, to post fossil fuel. No one ever said that there would be nothing to replace our carbon based energy. But, someone has said that if we don't research soon enough - there's going to be a painful (for most) transition period. To be honest, when talking about this subject - I get asked that question most of the time. Don't look at the past alternatives - think of new ones, invest in new ones.

Would that correct the problem?
Like with credit debt problems... The first step to getting yourself out of the hole is to stop digging. In all likelihood - no, it will not correct a problem -just stop it from "snowballing"

Do we give up all the comforts we take for granted today?
Please, take this to heart:
Necessity is the Mother Of Invention. A phrase you have no doubt heard before now. But lets continue that rhetoric with the next phrase. Excess is Necessity's Bastard child - his father, Greed.
When you say "we" do you mean Americans? Or the world? Because there's a good portion of the world that does not take these comforts for granted. In fact, they find these "comforts" ridiculous. And what's really funny, these societies don't have the great deal of stress that "the rest of us" have - there's no emotional freak out when you hit puberty or anything of that sort. I find that funny because our "comforts" are supposed to relieve stress. But it would seem the monetary cost of these comforts bring on a new stress factor... debt.


Now, someone once told me: "Do you honestly think you can come up with an infinite number of solutions? You can't grow something forever."
This is correct. However, I can assure you, that's no reason to stop putting up a fight. When the human race eventually goes - we'll go bare knuckle boxing to the bitter end. So as long as we feel threatened by something, we'll feel compelled to find a solution.

And to your first question

...but please tell me,what could be done to make a difference?

There is no one thing, done alone, that can make a measurable difference. Effort's such as Richard Branson’s CO2 X-prize are a good start. Hell, it could turn out that it's too late for our civilization. In 1000 years we could be back to an egalitarian hunter-gatherer society.

A big problem, in America, is we're a society built around the car and rooted in the suburbs. Suburban lifestyle is VERY inefficient and VERY costly (from an Energy stand point). You "must" drive to get necessary food and supplies. To top it all off, most of the vehicles sold, in America, are classified as "Farm Vehicles." I watched, in awe, a person drive to Taco Bell - himself in an H2 AFTER A HURRICANE JUST WIPED OUT OUR POWER GRID. It took 4+ weeks to get power back and a little longer to get fuel... And this guy was driving around for no reason whatsoever. (sorry for that little rant)


For my last point.... From an environmentalist point of view - this is not the first time this debate has come up. It took quite a fight many years ago to ban leaded fuel. During it's tenure, there was literally TONS of lead in the air. But as soon as it was phased out.... What would you know - the air was safer to breathe :P I'm not saying Pb can be directly compared to greenhouse gases - but at first, those wanting change were laughed at. It took decades to get the government to mandate change - and that was for a problem with faster consequences!



I really admire your instructables and the great deal of logic displayed here...

I'm flattered :P The only reason I wrote so much about it.... I've heard the "lower sea level" argument before. And it too was based on the "ice water glass" test. Floating ice doesn't change the level of water when it melts. Unfortunately, a great deal of ice isn't floating and displacing ocean water :/

0
None
royalesteltrebuchet03

Reply 11 years ago

The argument I stand for, which I have not yet presented here, is that climate change is cyclical based on natural CO2 production. The rate at which this happened can have external influence which includes man or extraterrestrial events (I don't mean aliens ;) ).


Did you miss the part about CO2 seemingly being driven by temperature on the ice core reconstructions? That would mean temperature is probably driving CO2 and not vice versa. But again, correlation does not equal causality.

0
None
HamOtrebuchet03

Reply 11 years ago

Well done, as you usually do. I b{{{
el
}}}eive I saw your H2 guys cousin after Hurricane Rita here in South Texas. And I think you're right about the CO2 Xprize. That's a great link.

0
None
Lextonetrebuchet03

Reply 11 years ago

ummmm....problem with your theory. You should have figured for the ice mass. The mean density of ice is 0.92.........silly goose.

0
None
trebuchet03Lextone

Reply 11 years ago

Wow, what oversight :P Crunching the numbers again... 200 feet... It's also not a theory so much as a calculation - how the ice melts is a theory ;)

Second problem, Fresh and salt water do mix. The well too deep thing is a tapping of a salt bloom which contaminates a well in certain geographical areas.

Re-read what I said 'if it happens to fast.' Just a like a black an tan - different SG's. A similar experiment is done by high schoolers across the country -- using dyes and such :P

0
None
Lextonetrebuchet03

Reply 11 years ago

You are a number crunching animal!....btw did you take the displacement of the ice into account as well? The Mix will occur because cold water sinks and warm water rises. The Thermoclines continually move. The separations are only a temporary thing because Water is a very poor insulator of heat.

0
None
Lextonetrebuchet03

Reply 11 years ago

Second problem, Fresh and salt water do mix. The well too deep thing is a tapping of a salt bloom which contaminates a well in certain geographical areas.

0
None
trebuchet03trebuchet03

Reply 11 years ago

Whopese, sorry about the typo's and grammar errors in there :P I forgot to proof read before posting :P

0
None
trebuchet03

11 years ago

For those on the East Coast... There's a rather interesting program on the Discovery Channel about the impact of climate change... Weather you believe it to be man made, natural, whatever -- it's on, plus they show you footage of the "Earth Computer" (if you've ever heard of it). The giant distributive processing computer in Japan used to do very large models...

0
None
Lextonetrebuchet03

Reply 11 years ago

Don't know how many of you have seen this Documentary, the Great Global Warming Swindle, but if you have seen Gore's flick, you should see this. Especially the last 10 minutes about Africa. I am a bit of a Conspiracy theory guy, and that last part makes more sense than anything else I have seen or read about. world government domination!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455

0
None
trebuchet03Lextone

Reply 11 years ago

Well, I guess I'm obligated to see Gore's moviefilm now.... GW and Government domination - nearly 150+ years in the making :p

0
None
Lextonetrebuchet03

Reply 11 years ago

Heh.....it was all started by Margret Thacher and her fight with the coal miners and her insistence on Nuclear Power.......(insert scary over dramatic music here) Seriously....it makes a lot of sense and its all happened in the past 30 years....

0
None
trebuchet03Lextone

Reply 11 years ago

The greenhouse effect was first proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1827 (but it wasn't called that at the time - it was a simple concept of energy balance VIA radiation losses) ;) Later, in 1896, Svante Arrhenius quantized that concept and formulated a astonishingly accurate and simple model based solely on CO2 content. That was only possible due to the Boltzman constant which wasn't published until after Fourier's time (the constant is used to calculate radiation transfer from a body). Margaret Thacher may have put it into the public's eye a bit more for whatever reasons (personal, political, etc.)... but it was mathemeticians, not environmentalists, that first made the discovery well before her time ;)

0
None
royalestelLextone

Reply 11 years ago

You know, I've been watching that video. There's some very good stuff in there, some okay stuff as well.

0
None
trebuchet03

11 years ago

How would you respond if someone told you it was part of a natural cycle? Just playing along as the devil's advocate for ya ;) But yes --- articles, especially academic journals, are a great resource. I'm going to miss not having access to lexis nexus et. al. when I graduate college :P

0
None
carbontrebuchet03

Reply 11 years ago

A natural cycle? As in: The world would be doing this on its own without human influence?

While the Earth does go through phases where it swaps carbon around between the ocean, soil, etc., it is the net balance of carbon we're concerned with. Earth has a regulatory process that normally maintains the same level of carbon throughout the Earth, but humans are unbalancing this scale by adding tons (Gigatons) of carbon through a combination of fossil fuel burning, cement manufacturing, and land-use changes. The system worked before, but we've put out so much carbon that it can't keep up. During 1850-2000, through the methods mentioned above, humans added a net 174 Gt of carbon. This caused the majority of an increase from 288 ppm (parts per million) to 369.5 ppm of CO2. As mentioned above, we currently add 8 Gt/year to the atmosphere. (As in: It's going to get worse and worse.)

We know that this is what's affecting the global CO2 level because we know how much humans produce, and we know how much the Earth can absorb. We know how much CO2 is produced from burning a barrel of oil and we know how many barrels of oil we use. Similarly, we also know how much CO2 certain types of plants absorb and we have solid estimates for how many of each type of plant exist. The same goes for volcanoes, the ocean, and the soil. It is a matter of collecting this data, which is the task undertaken by hundreds of scientists. Estimates vary, but they all agree on one point -- humans are causing global warming.

0
None
carboncarbon

Reply 11 years ago

Oops, meant to put quotes around most of paragraph two. I keep trying to put it in my own words, but it's exactly how I would have wrote it. :P I'm trying to put together a packet that will maybe win over a couple of skeptics, but I can't fit all the raw data sheets in there. It really isn't convincing without all the spreadsheets and line graphs. ; ) It's so hard to fend people off in regular conversation because they don't believe you when you say "Volcanoes don't put off more CO2 than humans." I mean, they JUST DON'T!