You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
We need global warming in order to evolve.
Without change there's, no pressure to evolve. This planet's planet's evolutionary history is tied to the historic changes of this planet. With each major climactic change came great extinctions. But each great extinction was also followed by an influx of new organism that otherwise would not have gotten their chance to thrive.
We do not need global warming in order to evolve. We don't even require natures selective adaptations to evolve further. We have reached a level of understanding of genetics that allows us to change or evolve ourselves.
Humans also reproduce more slowly than most other creatures on the planet, and as such would be slower to adapt to these changes.
As such, if adapting to cyclic changes in the earths temperature is necessary to survive, then it is in our best interests to make the cycle transition take as long as possible, so that we are better able to adapt.
It is accurate to say that global warming can potentially represent a form of selective pressure, but we should still be doing our best to slow it down.
GCC is currently happening unnaturally, obviously, so to speak in a futuristic context, if you are, is unintelligible and irrelative.
It is apparent that you wish to take a simple statement and act as if I am not speaking of the extent in which current GCC can be stopped (simple English context... and I thought English was your area of expertise).
I thought this was your area of expertise...?
Ha, please site a debate where I have said that I was a meteorologist or climatologist? (Zoology, botany, psychology...?)
It is apparent that you wish to take a simple statement and act as if I am not speaking of the extent in which current GCC can be stopped (simple English context... and I thought English was your area of expertise).
The correct response to my criticism is something like: "LOL shit, yeah, that was stupid". The original poster clearly said 'slow down' (this is the correct term) but you had to be a smart arse and say "no no you can stop it!!" but you said it without thinking it through properly.
If you're right though... I should definitely complain about me failing my driving test. When we were going down hill the instructor shouted "stop stop stop!" I slowed down from about 70 to 30 as I figured that only the difference between 30 and 70 were due to my acceleration and the rest due to (natural!) gravity. I argued with him that I had stopped the car. He wasn't having any of it. Now, as soon as he sees that a Harvard student has made this argument, he is sure to change his mind.
This reductionist comment induces philosophical discourse in the realm of semantics "what is unnatural". Just to clarify, I am using unnatural to mean what would typically not happen if it wasn't altered by man. I understand to you raping a one year old is a 'natural' act given it happened in the natural realm, but for the sake of argument, that is not what I am meaning by natural (a liger is unnatural in the sense I am using it- fitting outside of what should be (these two animals, naturally, would not meet in the wild, so a combination of the two species is unnatural), but homosexuality is natural, for instance).
I am using unnatural to mean what would typically not happen if it wasn't altered by man.
Ahh then GCC does not typically happen without man's alteration of the the natural climate. Very well, I will accept your assertion right after you explain the cyclical periods of glacial advance and retreat in earth's history, as that relates to man altering the climate.
You cannot of course offer any such explanation, so I will continue with this.
The current GCC fantasy rests on the opinion that current global warming is actually significant.
The GISTEMP data set shows temperatures rising at 0.018 +/- 0.003 deg.C/yr, and the HadCRU data set shows an increase of 0.019 +/- 0.003 deg.C/yr during the same period 1998 - 2013. This noted increase is described as a significant and clear trend, while in fact it measures as a change of .022/.015 deg C. I will generously take the highest number which reads as a whooping twenty two thousands of one degree/yr.
As with many arguments, opinion is based on facts. In the case for global warming, an acknowledged part of GCC, I claim insufficiency based on insignificant facts.
Your words Global warming, to some extent, is a inevitable natural process.
You nor anyone else are able to quantify what part of this tiny change is attributable to either narure or man.
1) You can justify all kinds of behavior with this line of thinking. You can justify totalitarian behavior, "oh we're just helping them evolve!"
2) The earth is not an eternal garbage can for our experimentation.
3) We don't have another planet to experiment on. You therefore have to give the alarmists the benefit of the doubt and take global warming more seriously.
Without making a statement about global warming, your 3rd point can be used in a number of ways. We should not take alarmists seriously based solely on the fact that we don't have another planet. Do you give (insert religion) the benefit of the doubt because you only have one life/ soul?
We should not take alarmists seriously based solely on the fact that we don't have another planet.
Given the circumstances, I don't see why not. Do you consider the fact that most climatologists do believe the warming is man made?
Do you give (insert religion) the benefit of the doubt because you only have one life/ soul?
Religion is outside the realm of science, derivative of human language, visions, and mythology. Religion categorically doesn't have any scientific evidence. Climate change has loads of data accepted by the majority of climatologists.
I am not an atheist primarily because:
(1) mere rationality is not a good basis for morality, we can rationalize our way into anything.
(2) meaning or purpose is lacking without religion. I cannot stand a meaningless existence.
We should consider alarming information based on its merits, not based on how many planets we have. That's why I said I wasn't making a statement about climate change. I didn't mean to make this a religious debate, I was simply using it as an example of how alarmists can make statements pertaining to something that we only have one of. The singular nature of certain valuable conditions (ones life or planet) is not enough to take any given alarmist seriously.
There are alarmists who warn of terrible alien conspiracies to sap our planets resources. Despite only having one planet, I would not take them seriously.
On a separate note, a reasonable criticism of climate change predictions is that expert predictions are notoriously inaccurate, especially when the prediction incites high emotion.
of course it's not meant to be the sum argument of global warming, but it's worth mentioning since the topic of discussion is this notion that global warming is good for survival. that idea is also a prediction, but I don't think it's an expert prediction.
It has been theorized that climate change caused the evolution of higher cognition in humans. It made us highly adaptable. This shouldn't imply that we still need it for further evolution.
forces in nature are impartial and swing both ways. what causes evolution of higher consciousness can also cause decay and death. of course climate, but also drugs from psychoactive plants have caused evolution of consciousness. drugs is a good example. they can cause expansion and awareness or decay and death. this recognition leads to my earlier point: not to play russian roulette with the only planet we have.
Woooow catch up there Jolie. Due to unexplained climatological inconsistencies its now called climate change. Which will conveniently fit what ever happens. Now continue with your fantasy.
Many scientists referred to it as Climate Change from the start, but "Global Warming" just happened to catch on. That doesn't really change anything relating to the science itself.
Climate change was called inadvertent climate modification before 1970ish. Global warming wasn't coined until later but is not interchangeable with climate change although the general public uses them as such. Within the field of study the terms global warming and climate change are referring to two specific things.
Global warming: the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse gases.
Climate change: a long-term change in the Earth’s climate, or of a region on Earth.
Within scientific journals, this is still how the two terms are used. Global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate change includes global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas amounts will affect.
Thank you for clarifying my statement, as I did not mean for it to imply that which it quite clearly did. I was trying to state that there were climate scientists who from the start wanted to use the term climate change when referring to global warming, not as an interchangeable term, but to refer to all relevant changes and trends, as opposed to referring to the contemporary warming trend as "global warming" which fails to capture the whole range of environmental changes.
Thirty percent of all the carbon emissions generated since the beginning of the industrial revolution, have been released between 1997 and the present. Interestingly the global warming trend ended in the late 1990's. These two facts together debunk the imagined and never proven theory that carbon emissions cause global warming. The largest El Niño effect ever recorded happened in 1997/98. El Niño's are naturally occurring warming trends in the Pacific ocean.
The polar ice caps are not melting. Satellite data shows that a greater area of Antarctic sea ice exists now than any time since space-based measurements began in 1979.
The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change(IPCC) of 2012 concluded that there has been no significant increase in either the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events in the modern era. The IPCC 2013 report concluded the same. Citation
Your link is an opinion piece that is full of falsehoods.
Global warming ending in the late 90's? Bunk. The el nino event you mention is part of this claim, using a incredibly high outlier as a focal point in statistical analysis skews the warming to appear to stop or slow down. This action is not statistically sound nor is it academically honest but of course the attacks on climate science are anything but academic or honest.
The bad starting point for the claim of warming slowing or pausing has been explained to death by stastiticians and other scientists as garbage in garbage out. Of course the years following 98 had hotter years even and yet politically biased sites ignore science and continue to claim global warming stopped.
Polar ice caps not melting? Why discuss only one ice cap of the antartic then? There are two caps aren't there? The data clearly shows the Arctic is losing more ice than gained in the Antarctic. The concern is the loss of sea ice, I have seen no peer reviewed paper that claims "the poles are melting". Plenty of blogs yelling they are not though...
“Even though Antarctic sea ice reached a new record maximum in September 2014, global sea ice is still decreasing,” said Parkinson, who is based at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. “That’s because the decreases in Arctic sea ice far exceed the increases in Antarctic sea ice.”
The link shows you the measurements they are working with if you want to check methodology and such. Open methodology is something that is obviously absent from sources attacking climate science. Many non scientific sources avoid the real claims of scientists and chase red herrings like "the ice caps are not melting" instead of addressing actual claims in the field of study.
Those IPCC reports do note the changes in climate that has happened as well.climate is long term and changes year to year will be impetceptable, it is long term that climate is concerned with. I am not sure what you are getting at here though as the predictions are out to 2050 and 2100, we're not at either date yet you know?
I suggest people get their science from science sources as other can easily botch the message that was originally intended. The media is a poor mediator between the masses and the sciences.
The often referenced el nino is a naturally driven cycle of ocean warming. Not driven by emissions of anything humans are doing. Your second link reveals two things. The minuscule magnitude of the warming.
Clearly there’s a strong warming trend in both data sets, with GISTEMP data rising at 0.018 +/- 0.003 deg.C/yr, HadCRU at 0.019 +/- 0.003 deg.C/yr. This strong and clear trend is in fact measured as a change of .022/.015 deg C. I will generously take the highest number which reads as a whooping twenty two thousands of one degree.
The presence of opinion exists in science, when such a change is considered significant.
Your next link points to a equally stunning net loss of polar ice.
Earth has been shedding sea ice at an average annual rate of 35,000 square kilometers (13,500 square miles) since 1979
Science and mathematics tell us two things about this number. To judge its significance, it must be compared to the earth's total surface area of 196,939,900 square miles. When this is done we have .000685 or .0685% which reads six hundred and eighty five ten thousands of one percent.
In conclusion we can safely predict that the earth's temp could rise 3.0 to 4.4 degrees C. in the next 200 years. Is it not likely that clean efficient power sources will be in use long before then. Nuclear fission is already here. It is also clear that we are wasting hundreds of billions of dollars annually on a problem that will be corrected by a shift in energy sources long before actual damage is done.
El niño being natural or not (more on this later) does not excuse its use in the context your source used. Making an outlier a focal point in a statistical analysis that is supposed to represent the overall trend is not sound nor honest no matter how you slice it. Even if you accept this faulty method there is still a positive increase in warming.
This strong and clear trend is in fact measured as a change of .022/.015 deg C. I will generously take the highest number which reads as a whooping twenty two thousands of one degree.
So you are moving away from global warming has stopped to now it is just slow? So much for the link you posted as your support I guess, now you are contradicting your own evidence. Not sure if this is a concession or you are moving goal posts now.
My first link also explains why studies using similar numbers like what is used in the 2nd link (older data) is likely undervaluing the warming. Your math also assumes the rise in temperature is linear which it is not. We are experiencing a low ebb in warming at the moment likely due to solar cycles being at the low end of its cycle and yet we are still experiencing warming. You are missing much context in your evaluation.
Like here when discussing sea ice loss;
To judge its significance, it must be compared to the earth's total surface area...
Just because you are trying to make something look small does not mean that something is insignificant, it is important to measure the affects of something not just its relative size to X. Your measure misses a slew of things that are crucial like the loss of the albedo effect on the northern hemisphere or area ocean desalination.
The quick and dirty of it is that loss of sea ice decreases albedo (northern hemi) increasing how much more heat gets absorbed by water. This is coupled with the fact that water is a great heat sink, the more water exposed by receding ice allows for more heat to be trapped by water which in turn increases the amount of sea ice we lose in the northern hemisphere. Loss of albedo due to shrinking sea ice is having feedback effects, increasing loss of sea ice exposes more water which traps more heat thus melting more sea ice increasing temperatures as it goes.
This heating of the oceans certainly has effects on things like El Niño events despite you claiming "...el nino is a naturally driven cycle of ocean warming. Not driven by emissions of anything humans are doing." Driven by? No. Affected by? Yes. The claim is and always has been Human activity affects climate change.
Early studies (late 90s early 2k) were clear in that we could not rule out human influence on El Niño events and more recent data continues to shed light on this phenomenon.
Using calculations based on historical El Niño indices, we find that projections of anthropogenic climate change are associated with an increased frequency of the CP-El Niño compared to the EP-El Niño.
The presence of opinion exists in science, when such a change is considered significant.
And these opinions are striving to be more objective about issues by gathering much as much data and context from various sources on the issue as possible. A layperson may lack much information and context when deciding what is a significant amount of change or not which as we can see greatly skew their results. I would rather side with those that have a more complete veiw of the data and context when they are making their assessments of what is significant or not.
Is it not likely that clean efficient power sources will be in use long before then. Nuclear fission is already here. It is also clear that we are wasting hundreds of billions of dollars annually on a problem that will be corrected by a shift in energy sources long before actual damage is done.
The rest of your post here has nothing to do with the legitimacy of climate science but rather what we should do about the issue at hand. You seem to side with do nothing things will work themselves out. I find this problematic as it just kicks the can further down the road. It also lacks context of the situation. The "before any damage is done" bit seems to lack qualifiers and context considering CO2s feedback effect is predicted to continue wsrming for the next 50 plus years whether we stop emissions now or not. The current focus is on the permafrost and the possible consequences the warming Arctic has on that. I am of the mind we are not past the tipping point yet but think we will long walk past it before we enact any meaningful change.
Unless those who are feeding the cycle the most feel the pressure of a changing climate there will be little to no incentive to change for them. Currently countries like the US have huge tracts of land and immense wealth, they can shake off weather related incidents that would cripple less stable countries. The US can have a major city flood and have the citizens voting in elections within a week, a situation which many other nations would greatly struggle with.
Your position of wait it out is hardly suprising in this context.
El niño being natural or not. The causes of this Pacific ocean warming are known to be natural and have nothing to do with climate change or melting polar ice. Causes
If you look at the magnitude of the temp. change there is no significant warming.
My math took the worst case, rate of change and carried it forward to its insignificant result. Including cycles would only weaken the trend even further.
Just because you are trying to make something look small does not mean that something is insignificant Neither does size automatically denote significance, as your source clearly implied.
This heating of the oceans certainly has effects on things like El Niño events despite you claiming "...el nino is a naturally driven cycle of ocean warming. Not driven by emissions of anything humans are doing."
Heating of oceans does not effect El niño, heating of the Pacific IS El niño.
And these opinions are striving to be more objective about issues by gathering much as much data and context from various sources on the issue as possible.Opinions are just that.
It is not settled science. There is zero proven causality connect between man and global warming. There is only correlation. Like this happened an that happened, so this must have caused that. Hmmm
The rest of your post here has nothing to do with the legitimacy of climate science but rather what we should do about the issue at hand.
The rest of my comments are directed at an even more fundamental question. Not is global warming a significant problem, not are we causing it, but what tells us we can stop or slow it when we are not even proven to be effecting it. And the answer in fact is nothing and we don't know.
No science is claiming that man is causing El Niño events, influencing is the word. This is similar to the claim about the poles melting, it does not address the claims made in the literature.
Your link is quite old (97) and does not rule out human activity influencing El Niño. It doesn't even approach the subject in fact. In science old data is not better than newer ones as older studies lack the data newer studies have access to and can build upon. My study linked was from 2009, and plenty of earlier studies do addres the issue and conclude that we could not rule out human activity. Finding older data with absent claims of human activity either way at all does not support your stance. Your source does not address lots of things, can we assume it is against those as well? Simply no.
The possibility that global warming is affecting those variations cannot be excluded.
In context with newer studies like the 2009 study I linked above I do not see how you can rationally maintain your stance.
If you look at the magnitude of the temp. change there is no significant warming.
I already addressed your methodology and find your lack of context and background information to invalidate your opinion. You are valuing a laymans understanding of a complicated issue over a body of professionals. What you feel is insignificant or not is not on sturdy ground. Certainly not sturdy enough to tackle and overturn a concensus of scientists from around the world.
Neither does size automatically denote significance, as your source clearly implied.
If you had textual evidence to back your claim that would help. The link explictly stated thst the Arctic is losing more sea ice than the Antarctic is gaining. I linked it in rebuttal to you biased claim that the poles are not melting, your source completly ignores the Arctic and was devoid of any scientific claim made by those it suposedly opposes.
There is zero proven causality connect between man and global warming.
I suppose if you ignore the properties of GHGs you can come to this conclusion. These are things that we can measure and test you know? Heat trapping properties of gasses has been studied and verified since the 1800s. We have evidence much older than that as well. We have plenty of evidence that suggests GHGs have changed climate in the past like permean triassic period. Why would the properties of these gases be any different than what tests and history shows us just because man is releasing them now?
It appears your stance on science being opinion is unshakeable with you. As per our discussion in the following link I am unsure if any further discussion on scientific topics between us will be fruitful. Our foundations differ so that discussions in this realm will almost always be at odds unless by chance they coincide like on evolution.
We have already came full circle on a few points. If something new or worthwhile gets discussed I will jump back in but for the sake of avoiding repetition last word is yours.
Global warming is the biggest lie every perpetrated on the people. Liberals will say or do anything to get their agendas passed. They are hideous liars.
So why do you think it is that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community believes in climate change? Are they all liberals, bent on passing an agenda?
The statement was "maybe", and did not say " entire". If a scientific issue has political significance, and the scientific community received government funding, then it is not a stretch to think that scientist may stand to gain by being biased on a politically polarized scientific topic.
I would agree with you if it weren't for the fact that it isn't just certain groups of scientists who receive funding that are at issue. When the overwhelming majority of the scientific community recognizes a problem, then the issue of funding leading to conflict of interest is rather minimal.
The pseudo science behind eugenics was once held by the majority of scientists within the relevant field. Again, I am not saying that climatology is pseudo science, only that it is not unreasonable to be skeptical of politically charged scientific topics.
I definitely agree that it is not unreasonable to be skeptical, but the methods that many (certainly not all by any means) employ with their skepticism is often more questionable.
This road goes both ways. If a skeptic finds that there is political money going to push a scientific opinion, it should not be ignored just because one agrees with the opinion.
No, I mean to imply that most scientists who support the concept of climate change are not functioning off of research grants based on climate change research.
First world countries - Industrial revolution -> We need Global warming!
Third world countries - Industrial resolution -> Wait.. what?? NO!!!
Recently, developed countries have adapted environment-friendly technologies, which means they are no longer the ones that harm the green on the earth. However, they are the ones that caused this GLOBAL WARMING. Today, we are dealing with the side effects of industrial revolution in the 18th century
The current thought provoking issue is that there are still a number of countries that could potentially worsen this world-wide environmental problem. Do they need global warming in order to evolve? - NOT NECESSARILY. If the first world countries share their intelligence with poor ones, no nation needs global warming so as to step forward.
Just to clarify, I meant "human" evolution not "country" evolution. But "country" evolution works too. If Third World countries can't evolve and survive, oh well.
change isn't really the drive of evolution. people are born with mutations regardless of whether the world they are born into will be difficult for them or not. rather global warming would kill all but the ones with such a mutation that might benefit them to put them above others to survive more easily. non-strenuating circumstances does not prevent evolution. also, there seems to be some preconceived notion that we and other species will evolve, but there is no guarantee at all. the odds of a beneficial mutation are small, much less one specific mutation for one specific purpose. sure we have technology to dull the effects of the climate around us, but it would still be a huge issue for us. for other species it would be far worse. with no shelter from a change in environment, countless species would die, and very few would evolve perhaps other than some of the rapidly breeding species such as bacteria, which would not be fun to live with as they would likely take more dominance than they already have.
Yes, people are born with mutations. But, if those mutations are not beneficial to the current state of the world, then those mutations do not thrive. Only when the state of the world changes do those other mutations have a chance to thrive.
Why is it better to give those other mutations a chance? Because if the world had not changed, the mutations that lead to smarter humans may not have been realized.
If the world had not changed, we would not have been forced to leave our ancestral home in search for better climate and sources of food. The harsh world our ancestors had to deal with forced them to use their brains or die. The smart ones survived.
