CDZ Biology Deniers

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by P@triot, Dec 23, 2016.

  1. danielpalos
    Offline

    danielpalos Silver Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2015
    Messages:
    15,483
    Thanks Received:
    366
    Trophy Points:
    95
    Location:
    Alta California, federalist.
    Ratings:
    +1,483
    We already know climate change happens, regardless of Man's input.

    We need to advance science and technology, until we can develop our own, Atlantis type, submersible cities.

    Our "finals" is to be able to build a RingWorld by the time our sun goes supernova.
     
  2. Dr Grump
    Offline

    Dr Grump Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    21,425
    Thanks Received:
    3,238
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    From the Back of Beyond
    Ratings:
    +5,125
    Of course there is scientific evidence that humans are contributing to global warming. Just because you don't like the parameters, or believe their methods are not 'science' doesn't make it so. One of the biggest critics of it in Merchants of Doubt is Seitz. The same guy who was paid by the tobacco lobby to have 'findings' that tobacco didn't cause hardened arteries or lung cancer.

    Of course the sun warms the planet. However as Santer has PROVEN with his fingerprinting, the troposphere is heating up and the stratosphere is cooling. If they were BOTH heating up, that would the sun. With only the troposphere (the layer of the atmosphere closest to the Earth) heating up, there is one cause. Greenhouse gases, which are natural too (i.e. volcanoes etc), but mainly due to humans.

    You know, what I find funny. I lived in NZ for almost 40 years. A massive hole in the ozone layer appeared over the Antarctic every summer. It can bigger and bigger every year until it extended to parts of NZ. Scientists said "Hey guys this is being caused by CFCs from refrigeration units and the like." Of course, refrigeration manufacturers hit the roof, going "BS" and all the rest like you GW deniers are now. However, govts around the world made the manufacturers change the gas in fridges. They stop putting CFCs and HCFCs into the atmosphere and the hole in the ozone layer starts reducing. Gee, what a coincidence - not.

    You don't have to abandon industrialisation at all. What you have to have are more environmentally responsible corporations. The world shouldn't need Greenpeace or Erin Brockovich, but corporations can't be trusted period. If Brockovich hadn't done what she did, the water in California wells would still be shit. You also have renewables as an alternative source. This is the one thing I really hate about capitalism. It's all about money, money, money. Make me, my shareholders, my friends rich. That's all that matters. You can be rich and environmentally responsible, too. Too much weight is given to shareholders and the like. So your company makes $100 million instead of $120 million because it had to outlay better filters on its chimney stacks bellowing out shit into the atmosphere. Cry me a river.

    if you think you can put 10s of millions of tonnes of shit in the air over a 300 year period and it has no affect on the planet and its ecosystem you're a fool.
     
  3. Boss
    Online

    Boss Take a Memo:

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2012
    Messages:
    19,359
    Thanks Received:
    2,413
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    Ratings:
    +8,516
    Of course there is scientific evidence that humans are contributing to global warming.

    I've already pointed out that humans do produce carbon dioxide which does contribute to amplification of the greenhouse effect, which does contribute to warming. My argument is on the degree to which man's activities are actually resulting in significant increase in warming. I believe it's inconsequential.

    Of course the sun warms the planet. However as Santer has PROVEN with his fingerprinting, the troposphere is heating up and the stratosphere is cooling. If they were BOTH heating up, that would the sun.

    Nope. The Sun is the source of ALL heat in our solar system. Because of the greenhouse effect, the Earth retains heat from the Sun. Santer simply proved that carbon dioxide acts as an amplifier of the warming effect. We're still uncertain as to what the actual thresholds are with regard to the maximum amount CO2 can have an amplifying effect. We do understand the Laws of Thermodynamics predicts equilibrium and at some point, additional CO2 will cause no further warming.

    With only the troposphere (the layer of the atmosphere closest to the Earth) heating up, there is one cause. Greenhouse gases, which are natural too (i.e. volcanoes etc), but mainly due to humans.

    Nope. Because the greenhouse effect was working well before any humans roamed the planet. The PRIMARY greenhouse gas is water vapor. Also, a single major volcanic eruption dumps more CO2 (along with sulfur, sulfur dioxides and other toxic gases) into the atmosphere than man could accomplish in 10,000 years of industrialization. We have at least one of these natural events every few years.

    They stop putting CFCs and HCFCs into the atmosphere and the hole in the ozone layer starts reducing. Gee, what a coincidence - not.

    It was indeed a coincidence because scientists later discovered the infamous "ozone hole" was completely natural and it always expands and contracts. It has nothing to do with man's activities.

    You don't have to abandon industrialisation at all. What you have to have are more environmentally responsible corporations.

    Uhm... yes... if what you are claiming is 100% true, we MUST abandon ALL industrialization immediately and hope that's enough to reduce the damaging impact. The principles and dynamics of physics are not impressed with our feeble efforts to reduce our carbon footprint. In order to reverse what you claim is happening, draconian measures are in order. We have to stop driving cars. We have to stop making iPhones! Now... even then, we're still going to be churning out plenty of carbon dioxide because we'll have to breathe... and because we'll have to burn something to stay warm in the winter. But aside from the human race committing mass suicide, that's the best we can do.

    You also have renewables as an alternative source.

    Right now, the best alternative we have is solar and it only provides about 4% of our energy needs. And if we are going to kill off industrialization and capitalism, you can forget about developing anything better. The best hope for such a thing in the future relies on free market capitalism.

    if you think you can put 10s of millions of tonnes of shit in the air over a 300 year period and it has no affect on the planet and its ecosystem you're a fool.

    Well here's the thing... Carbon Dioxide is not "shit" ...it's a naturally-occurring compound that is most abundant in our universe. It happens as a result of covalent bonding of oxygen and carbon, two of the most fundamental elements in the universe. Nature produces far more of this than humans ever could. Nature also processes a lot of this in plant respiration. You want to reduce carbon dioxide? Plant a fucking tree!

    I am all in favor of clean air and water. I am a conservationist who believes in strong protection of our environment from toxins of all kinds... Carbon dioxide is not a toxin. So hop down off your moral high horse and stop it with the virtue signaling. Science is not participating in your little exhibition.
     
  4. Dr Grump
    Offline

    Dr Grump Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    21,425
    Thanks Received:
    3,238
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    From the Back of Beyond
    Ratings:
    +5,125
    You can believe all you want. Facts say otherwise.

    Human activities since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (taken as the year 1750) have produced a 40% increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, from 280 ppm in 1750 to 400 ppm in 2015

    Also, the ozone layer no longer being depleted is not a coincidence. Prove otherwise.
     
  5. Boss
    Online

    Boss Take a Memo:

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2012
    Messages:
    19,359
    Thanks Received:
    2,413
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    Ratings:
    +8,516
    Facts are not "believing" anything... facts are facts. First and foremost, we did not have an accurate way to measure CO2 in the atmosphere circa 1750... that's a relatively new technology. What we've done is sample ice cores to give us an approximation but those are only valid where ice has been present since 1750. We know for a fact, from the many observation stations we currently have today, that the actual levels of CO2 can vary greatly at any given time. So we are forced to calculate an "average" and then, we have to compare that with the best data available for the past, which is isolated locations where ice cores are available to test. Now, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out, if I have many locations vs. few locations, the many locations will produce a more accurate result over time. So we have accurate data of today being compared with questionable and limited data from the past.

    Now you claim "human activities" caused the increase from 280 to 400 ppm, but are you saying that natural phenomenon failed to produce ANY CO2 during that time period? Was Mother Nature in on this conspiracy? We can safely assume that nature was responsible for some portion of that supposed 40% increase. Again, before man ever existed, nature was producing massive amounts of CO2.... it had to in order to support plant life. But if humans are to blame for every ppm between 280-400, then Mother Nature has to be in on the conspiracy as well.... supposedly, she just stopped producing CO2 when man industrialized.

    Also... every form of plant life on the planet must be in on the conspiracy as well.... because if man caused all the extra CO2 from 1750-present, then plant life must've discriminated against evil man-made CO2 when respiration happened. I certainly hope you are not just going to totally ignore the last couple of paragraphs I've written and start lobbying for whatever quack scientist is waiting for his government grant again... I am presenting you with SCIENCE to debate the topic and you keep trying to run away and appeal to popularity.

    Either you are ready to have a serious discussion about the science or you're not. I don't claim to be an expert on climatology... my science degree is in human behavior (psychology) but in order to obtain any science degree you have to take a bunch of science courses. My favored courses were biology. I've always been fascinated with the process of living things. Botanical science has always been one of my favorites to study. So let me give you some info there....

    In studying about plant life, I learned that almost all plant respiration is processing carbon dioxide and producing oxygen. I can go look up the actual mathematical formulas if you just need me to show off... but the botanists have calculated what level of CO2 plants perform their growing process optimally. The natural rate for optimal function is around 580~600 ppm. Anything over 600 ppm is inconsequential... it may help a little but the plants are at near 100% efficiency. When you reduce their source of respiration, the plants still thrive but are not processing optimally. This is why we often see commercial greenhouses use CO2 in their facilities to enhance vibrant plant life.

    At 280 ppm.... to put this in an analogy that health-conscious fruitcakes can understand... plants are not receiving their recommended daily allowances of CO2. Essentially, they are beginning to starve. This is probably why we find large swaths of desert where lush forests once stood.

    Finally... this may come as a shock to you but ice melts.... that's what ice does. If we were in an Ice Age a few thousand years ago, it stands to reason that ice is going to be melting unless we are heading for another Ice Age in the relative future. If ice didn't ever melt, we'd be locked perpetually in an ice world... so it's a good thing that ice is melting somewhere. And the better news for human life and really, all life, is that life tends to thrive better in warmer temperatures as opposed to extremely cold ones. This is why we put our leftovers in a refrigerator.... it slows down the growth of life (bacteria) in the food.

    So now... here is you some actual SCIENCE to debate with me if you have the intelligence. OR.... you can just keep on demagoguing for your activists like you've been trained to do, with arguments of popularity and ridicule.
     
  6. Boss
    Online

    Boss Take a Memo:

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2012
    Messages:
    19,359
    Thanks Received:
    2,413
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    Ratings:
    +8,516
    Go look it up. It was back in 2003 or 2008, they discovered the ozone layer naturally has holes certain times of the year. The air column measurements between the equator and north or south pole vary greatly and rise and fall with temperature. It's still WAY too early to tell if our chlorofluorocarbon measures of the 1980s had any long-standing effect on the ozone layer. There are still ozone holes and it still rises and falls.
     
  7. danielpalos
    Offline

    danielpalos Silver Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2015
    Messages:
    15,483
    Thanks Received:
    366
    Trophy Points:
    95
    Location:
    Alta California, federalist.
    Ratings:
    +1,483
    i don't deny biology; i just hope for nice girls who are also, "horrible bosses".
     
  8. P@triot
    Offline

    P@triot Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Messages:
    28,378
    Thanks Received:
    3,334
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +12,475
    We have proven otherwise. Indisputably proven otherwise. You choose to ignore the facts. You choose to ignore that progressives were caught in multiple rounds of "Climategate" where e-mails showed them discussing how they falsify their data. You choose to ignore that after progressives claimed the entire polar ice-cap would be completely melted by 2014, it actually expanded an astounding 60% (over 900,000 sq. miles) by that point. You choose to ignore that we've experienced colder than normal temperatures - humiliating the progressive "Global Warming" crowd and causing them to "rebrand" it to "Climate Change" in a panic.

    You choose to ignore the facts. Doesn't matter. The rest of the world knows the truth.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. P@triot
    Offline

    P@triot Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Messages:
    28,378
    Thanks Received:
    3,334
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +12,475
  10. Dr Grump
    Offline

    Dr Grump Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    21,425
    Thanks Received:
    3,238
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    From the Back of Beyond
    Ratings:
    +5,125
    i wouldn't believe a thing you said even if it came notorised...
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

biology deniers

,

does ozone hole cause increase in heat