CLIMATE CHANGE VS PLANTARY HEAT RETENTION.

[HeyYou]

This type of debate is so old. The problem is no matter what rational or irrational data is thrown at anyone, it never changes anyone's opinion about what they believe. No one is going to be able to prove anyone right or wrong on this topic because it always ends up the same. You either believe the science or you don't. In most cases even if someone makes a compelling enough argument there never been an instance that I have ever witness where someone comes forward and says, " Wow you are so right. I have always been so wrong this entire time!"

 

If man drops 100 nuclear bombs in one concentrated area I doubt anyone going to deny that anything has changed around it. It's my strong opinion that Man is the major contributor to escalating climate change because it's obvious we are capable of such a thing. Now that said Climate is always changing with or without mans help, but it's my firm belief that we are the major contributor to it's escalation and can be to the point of making this planet completely inhabitable either by slowly poisoning the planet or simply just dropping a big enough bomb on it.

That would be "uninhabitable". :) And yes, we are our own worst enemy. (best enemy? But, that's another debate.) So long as there is money to be made, folks are going to go right on doing what they are doing. The climate is going to continue to change, pretty much regardless of anything we do now..... we might slow the pace a tiny bit, but, that's about all. We can adapt, or, we can die. The problem with adapting is, it's expensive, and folks don't wanna spend the money. Of course, these are the very same folks that will be crying in their beer, whining "why didn't someone tell us it was going to be like this?" We've seen exactly this behavior before, and still, nothing changes.

 

We are going to be the death of ourselves, just as you say. At the very least, I see a drastic reduction in population coming.......

[exrai]

Main issue is most rational minds who understands science(experts)would concede a pt to me on the simple basis that

"Emissions/Gas Composition" is only one of the many factors playing some sort of role in the Heat Retention Process.

As to simply state nothing else plays a role in this complex planetary system of cooling & heating is a dumb argument.

 

This said I'm well aware clouds & other gases to play a role, However we mostly think in the dinoage it was more Oxygen.

So lets say back then Oxygen could have been +50% of the Atmosphere & animals seemed to live & thrive just fine LOL.

So if such a massive compositional change in the gases could still support equally amazing life why would I believe that...

 

LIFE WOULDN'T FIND A WAY! TO ADAPT TO ANY REAL CHANGES OVER TIME! EVEN IF ITS RAPID SWINGS.

 

DO YOU THINK WOOLY MAMMOTHS STARTED OUT WITH FUR OR EVOLVE FUR FOR THE ICE AGE!

 

BUT LETS NOT ADDRESS THE MAMMOTH IN THE ROOM, because trying to argue we may still be on the back of an ice age...

 

SOUNDS LIKE TO MUCH COMMON SENSE, would would have to make me believe the ice age has fully subsided before your

claims of impending CLIMATE DOOM is even remotely makes sense based on the history of the planet, which it seemly doesn't.

[HeyYou]

Main issue is most rational minds who understands science(experts)would concede a pt to me on the simple basis that

"Emissions/Gas Composition" is only one of the many factors playing some sort of role in the Heat Retention Process.

As to simply state nothing else plays a role in this complex planetary system of cooling & heating is a dumb argument.

 

This said I'm well aware clouds & other gases to play a role, However we mostly think in the dinoage it was more Oxygen.

So lets say back then Oxygen could have been +50% of the Atmosphere & animals seemed to live & thrive just fine LOL.

So if such a massive compositional change in the gases could still support equally amazing life why would I believe that...

 

LIFE WOULDN'T FIND A WAY! TO ADAPT TO ANY REAL CHANGES OVER TIME! EVEN IF ITS RAPID SWINGS.

 

DO YOU THINK WOOLY MAMMOTHS STARTED OUT WITH FUR OR EVOLVE FUR FOR THE ICE AGE!

 

BUT LETS NOT ADDRESS THE MAMMOTH IN THE ROOM, because trying to argue we may still be on the back of an ice age...

 

SOUNDS LIKE TO MUCH COMMON SENSE, would would have to make me believe the ice age has fully subsided before your

claims of impending CLIMATE DOOM is even remotely makes sense based on the history of the planet, which it seemly doesn't.

Then you need to pay more attention to history. Take a look at temp averages for the last couple centuries. Things are in an upward trend. I.E. The planet is warming. The trend roughly (very roughly) coincides with the industrial age of man. Are we the sole cause? Oh hell no. But, we are one of the significant drivers. We dump billions of tons of CO2 (a gas known to be related to warming) into the atmosphere yearly. To think this ISN'T going to have an effect is naive at best. Sure, we had a 'short' ice age in the 1800's, (related to volcanic activity....) but, it's been warming since then. I've lived in the same area for more than 50 years, and let me tell you, the change is obvious. Winters are milder, summers are hotter.

[colourwheel]

 

This type of debate is so old. The problem is no matter what rational or irrational data is thrown at anyone, it never changes anyone's opinion about what they believe. No one is going to be able to prove anyone right or wrong on this topic because it always ends up the same. You either believe the science or you don't. In most cases even if someone makes a compelling enough argument there never been an instance that I have ever witness where someone comes forward and says, " Wow you are so right. I have always been so wrong this entire time!"

 

If man drops 100 nuclear bombs in one concentrated area I doubt anyone going to deny that anything has changed around it. It's my strong opinion that Man is the major contributor to escalating climate change because it's obvious we are capable of such a thing. Now that said Climate is always changing with or without mans help, but it's my firm belief that we are the major contributor to it's escalation and can be to the point of making this planet completely inhabitable either by slowly poisoning the planet or simply just dropping a big enough bomb on it.

That would be "uninhabitable". :smile: And yes, we are our own worst enemy. (best enemy? But, that's another debate.) So long as there is money to be made, folks are going to go right on doing what they are doing. The climate is going to continue to change, pretty much regardless of anything we do now..... we might slow the pace a tiny bit, but, that's about all. We can adapt, or, we can die. The problem with adapting is, it's expensive, and folks don't wanna spend the money. Of course, these are the very same folks that will be crying in their beer, whining "why didn't someone tell us it was going to be like this?" We've seen exactly this behavior before, and still, nothing changes.

 

We are going to be the death of ourselves, just as you say. At the very least, I see a drastic reduction in population coming.......

 

 

You are right I meant to say "uninhabitable".

 

The thing about adapting now is sad because we were warned over and over and over again. I think the turning point where something could have been done to make a significate difference was either back before 2010 or earlier. I forget exactly the time frame but seems it's not important now. Not to point the finger but a lot of the reasons why we are forced to now adapt is based on a certain political ideology. The same ideology which has put officials in power ignoring these things based on their own beliefs. A Political power that has ignored the science, deregulated corporal policing, and given the very same corporations big enough tax breaks to further pollute the environment while filling their own personal coffers.

 

Now this same political ideology is on a mission to whitewash history and completely deny any facts that don't follow their narrative while also perpetually spreading misinformation. If we keep empowering such people in political office, climate change will be the least of our worries when we can't even over come a serious pandemic because people refuse to believe the science behind getting vaccinated or following mandates to reduce it's spread. The United states has become a nation of misinformed idiots. Forget about a political uprising or some civil war to be the death of our nation, we could simply be undone due to everyone just dying because of a deadly virus that could have been easily contained and stopped.

[exrai]

https://www.cdm.org/mammothdiscovery/wheniceages.html

The Ice Ages began 2.4 million years ago and lasted until 11,500 years ago.

 

To claim we humans have made drastic changes within the last 200 years is silly.

We don't know what started or stopped the ice age but it likely started with plants.

& Guess what plants absorb Carbon Dioxide & produce Oxygen as well however

its very hard to how low oxygen actually got nor the impact of low/plant animal life.

Not all plants are equal & some are aquatic & likely didn't absorb carbon but h20.

So maybe carbon does play a role but I'm fairly certain it could be an either case.

AKA wiping out surface plant life might freeze the earth but plants are being well

feed by animal & human Carbon Dioxide production & they are loving it for sure.

SO it sounds like Oxygen is what keeps the planet warm, makes sense as its in

water & water tends to be very cold resistance h20's also good at blocking heat.

Thats why it tends to get colder the further you swim down, so oxygen seems to

be playing both roles in keeping the earth warm & cool as water while preventing

cold on the surface.

 

The woolly mammoth began to diverge from the

steppe mammoth about 800,000 years ago Asia.

Woolly mammoth evolved in Yukon and Alaska

around 300,000 years ago from those ancestors.

These animals were around for a very long time.

& they lasted up to about 4,000 years ago too.

 

We are talking time spans most humans can't wrap their heads around.

 

I'm not educated enough to know which is worse Oxygen as itself or

Carbon Dioxide AKA (CO2) 1 Carbon & 2 Oxygen, However if the

Periodic-Table is anything to go off of Carbon is 6 & Oxygen is 8

Which means Carbon is less dense so it either reflects less light

or keeps less heat from escaping, meaning it either heats or cools.

But I doubt 2 atoms matters worth of difference really matters.

 

So you have to tell me if More Oxygen is better or worse AKA

is Oxygen causing heating or reducing it, because H20 rain

does also cool the earth are two, so thats also another multi

factor play Oxygen is having, so if C02 is 66% Oxygen Then

78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93 argon,

0.04, carbon dioxide. OF EARTHS GASES.

 

The 0.04% is lets say its up 0.02% with humans now if even that.

It would stil only be 0.02% carbon in the air with 0.04% of it Oxygen.

 

So Oxygen is closer to 21% instead of 20,95%, which such small numbers

I do wonder why nobody questions the logic of C02 emissions being a cause.

[Deleted54170User]

Debating isn't about agreeing. Winning a debate is a school house game. Judges decide if a debate is carried out properly and if the debating side/s have rationally thought the topic through and showed intelligence before giving a decision on whose debate material was best.

Seen any Yeti lately?

 

Debate all you want. If you want prizes for your knowledge and your skill for providing such; remember your options. School's winners piece of paper you can put in a picture frame and hang on a wall, the scholars big prize $50,000.00 Peace prize each year, or JEOPARDY!

Do you want a sticky gold star for winning a debate?

Then go debate where they give prizes for intelligent debate.

[Deleted54170User]

https://www.cdm.org/mammothdiscovery/wheniceages.html

The Ice Ages began 2.4 million years ago and lasted until 11,500 years ago.

 

To claim we humans have made drastic changes within the last 200 years is silly.

We don't know what started or stopped the ice age but it likely started with plants.

& Guess what plants absorb Carbon Dioxide & produce Oxygen as well however

its very hard to how low oxygen actually got nor the impact of low/plant animal life.

Not all plants are equal & some are aquatic & likely didn't absorb carbon but h20.

So maybe carbon does play a role but I'm fairly certain it could be an either case.

AKA wiping out surface plant life might freeze the earth but plants are being well

feed by animal & human Carbon Dioxide production & they are loving it for sure.

SO it sounds like Oxygen is what keeps the planet warm, makes sense as its in

water & water tends to be very cold resistance h20's also good at blocking heat.

Thats why it tends to get colder the further you swim down, so oxygen seems to

be playing both roles in keeping the earth warm & cool as water while preventing

cold on the surface.

 

The woolly mammoth began to diverge from the

steppe mammoth about 800,000 years ago Asia.

Woolly mammoth evolved in Yukon and Alaska

around 300,000 years ago from those ancestors.

These animals were around for a very long time.

& they lasted up to about 4,000 years ago too.

 

We are talking time spans most humans can't wrap their heads around.

 

I'm not educated enough to know which is worse Oxygen as itself or

Carbon Dioxide AKA (CO2) 1 Carbon & 2 Oxygen, However if the

Periodic-Table is anything to go off of Carbon is 6 & Oxygen is 8

Which means Carbon is less dense so it either reflects less light

or keeps less heat from escaping, meaning it either heats or cools.

But I doubt 2 atoms matters worth of difference really matters.

 

So you have to tell me if More Oxygen is better or worse AKA

is Oxygen causing heating or reducing it, because H20 rain

does also cool the earth are two, so thats also another multi

factor play Oxygen is having, so if C02 is 66% Oxygen Then

78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93 argon,

0.04, carbon dioxide. OF EARTHS GASES.

 

The 0.04% is lets say its up 0.02% with humans now if even that.

It would stil only be 0.02% carbon in the air with 0.04% of it Oxygen.

 

So Oxygen is closer to 21% instead of 20,95%, which such small numbers

I do wonder why nobody questions the logic of C02 emissions being a cause.

 

I agree! Judging from my own experiences all your information is reasonable. And your questions are testable.

 

EDIT: People seem in denial about the effects of Carbon Monoxide. CO: Carbon Monoxide effects the air quality a lot. News stories seem to think it's all about CO₂ and do not add Carbon Monoxide to any News or Scientific examination with CO_2.

Carbone Monoxide is a greater part of what the educated science minded should clearly be adding to the examination. Automobile, Gasoline fueled motors emissions are CO: Carbon Monoxide.

[exrai]

Okay plants are very hard to factor for, as some tend to be natural day, in night out.

 

Plants release oxygen during the day in the presence of natural light through the

process of photosynthesis. While at night, the plants uptake oxygen and release

carbon dioxide, which is called respiration. However, some plants can uptake carbon

dioxide during the night as well because of their ability to perform a type of photosynthesis

called Crassulacean Acid Metabolism (CAM). Having these plants at home improves

air quality throughout the day and helps people to sleep better at night.

 

But lets call it a net reduction of CO2. or rather C carbon from the air.

There is still very little carbon in the air but lets move on not important.

 

Next up is the notion of h20 as rain drops, they tend to attract one another as they are

moved close to each other across the sky, H20 is pretty light & that is why it floats too.

However it seems if there is enough of it concentrated it gets just heavy enough to fall.

Which totally baffles me as 1 Hydrogen is lighter than Oxygen meaning it should float.

 

But I don't know enough about Atoms to say if the structure of 3 combined elements is

heavier than a Single Atom, even if it was just 2 Hydrogen that seems lighter than 1 Oxygen.

But is starts making more single if its like the One Oxygen carrying 2 Hydrogens, which

makes it a bit heavier than an Oxygen not carrying any Hydrogens, this logic is sound.

But its still light enough to flow, BUT WE SHOULD THINK OF AIR LIKE A OCEAN, & its

basically has its own currents & movement + buoyancy which is important in this case.

 

If you have say 5 single oxygens beside each other with more under them the spread

would hold up the bigger single h20 but if a few more of h20s stand on top they SINK!

 

Makes alot of sense but why does any of this matter, WELL C02 is much the same

it too should attract other CO2 & sink, I've never seen Co2 rain but thats likely because

enough it doesn't exist in the air to be noticed sinking to the ground, that said its also

possible that it may also fall when rain falls but the ratio of Co2+h20 also not noticable.

 

WHICH MEANS IF 3 CHAIN ATOMS JUST SINK TO THE GROUND OVER TIME WHY

 

So why would C02 ever be a consider over, we may as well be blaming the RAIN for

so called Climate Change at that point. I'd imagine C02 simply plays no major role.

 

& IT EXPLAINS WHY SO LITTLE OF IT IS IN THE AIR CAUSE IT SINKS TO THE GROUND!

[exrai]

With my above post logic, I'd imagine factoring CO(Carbone Monoxide) is very important thx for pointing this out...

 

 

AS IT WOULD LIKELY FLOAT WAY LONGER IN THE AIR VS CO2, 2 Atoms vs 3.

Edited August 15, 2021 by exrai

[Deleted54170User]

People seem in denial about the effects of Carbon Monoxide. CO: Carbon Monoxide effects the air quality a lot. News stories seem to think it's all about CO₂ and do not add Carbon Monoxide to any News or Scientific examination with CO_2.

Carbone Monoxide is a greater part of what the educated science minded should clearly be adding to the examination. Automobile, Gasoline fueled motors emissions are CO: Carbon Monoxide.

Ever wonder why the Yeti are such a popular topic when scientist climb that famous mountain. That mountain with ice caves. Frozen, refrigerated stuff inside and so high up they may have preserved historical knowledge. Evidence preserving history in them from a possible Flood?