So for my Organic chemistry class we are talking about chlorofluorocarbons and my teacher would like to have a simple debate on climate change. Namely, is it happening, is it anthropogenic, etc...
I need someone to basically walk me through either side of the debate. Scientifically it seems like we are depleting our Ozone and trapping heat, other than that I just don't have enough information to effectively debate.
Help?
Other urls found in this thread:
sciencebits.com
sciencebits.com
skepticalscience.com
blog.dilbert.com
youtu.be
twitter.com
Climate change is a lie made by jews there you have it
By the way, I did read the post about it being centered on wealth distribution in developing countries globally. I'm more concerned with the science and patterns to be honest.
The truest and hardest redpill to swallow is that Climate Change is absolutely real, and furthermore it is completely ethical to work towards it.
It's the last samson option.
If you want to argue against it, explain that data is inconsistent and often uses different techniques to gather said data which normally in science is a huge no-no. Or how about that our carbon emissions are a tiny percentage of the total emissions by the planet.
Frankly I think that even if it were real, it would be something that we couldn't stop.
Solar and undersea volcanic activity are the main factors regarding temperature on this planet.
I want to be a bit thorough. Would you mind explaining how the data gathering is varied? I'm not trying to be petulant, I just want to be very clear with my understanding.
It might be real but the way the government handles it shows that the legislation based on it is a scam.
Climate changes on its own. In the 70s science said we were going in to a new ice age. Then somewhere after that they said it turned to global warming. Now it's no longer global warming, just "man-made climate change".
How much impact are we having on the natural change of the climate? How are they measuring this? What are the models predicting? How have the models held up in the past?
What is being proposed to combat this purported problem? What are the risks of the proposals? Who benefits from these proposals?
Why won't they feed seaweed to cows?!
The CFC - ozone hole fraud was really just paving the way for the larger fraud of man made climate change and global carbon taxation.
Certain entities on this planet role in centuries not 4 year terms.
If it were really higher learning you would be learning about the power of the dialect not participating in one. And to think people pay good money for that! Wew lad!
So it would seem like the debate is less of a science based argument and more of a institutional argument.
Surely what we do does affect the environment but would it cause "climate" change. A general worldwide shift. As in, if I pee in my pool will it chain react the pool into a phosphoric mess?
The ozone "layer" doesn't block harmful radiation from the sun. Radiation from the sun strikes molecules in our atmosphere - sometimes hitting oxygen molecules, causing them to split into oxygen atoms. Those oxygen atoms attract each other and form ozone molecules, existing briefly before breaking back down. Oxygen is what actually protects us from the sun - ozone is continuously formed as a result.
The ozone "layer" and is a lie and CFCs are a hoax.
This is just his way of introducing our studies of synthesis and mechanisms into a real world context. No agenda pushing, just a way to make it relevant.
A lot of the techniques used in gathering temperature data about time periods use Ice core data and compare it to temperatures gathered through normal means. Googling ice core data or temperature gathering techniques should bring up some articles.
Regulation and DuPont
In 1978 the United States banned the use of CFCs such as Freon in aerosol cans, the beginning of a long series of regulatory actions against their use. The critical DuPont manufacturing patent for Freon ("Process for Fluorinating Halohydrocarbons", U.S. Patent #3258500) was set to expire in 1979. In conjunction with other industrial peers DuPont sponsored efforts such as the "Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy" to question anti-CFC science, but in a turnabout in 1986 DuPont, with new patents in hand, publicly condemned CFCs.[13] DuPont representatives appeared before the Montreal Protocol urging that CFCs be banned worldwide and stated that their new HCFCs would meet the worldwide demand for refrigerants.[13]
She reactions of CFC's with Ozone seem to be accurate. Are you saying that the reaction doesn't take place because the CFC's never get that high or that somehow they are terminated beforehand?
The ozone hole let's more solar radiation in making the problem worse, but increased CO2 is the real issue. It is increasing at way too fast of a rate.
I'm a Trump voter and of course global warming is real I just disagree with my liberal friends on how to solve it. I think we need large scale infrastructure and carbon capture tech, not fucking carbon credits and shutting down business.
CFCs don't get that high - they are heavy particles.
But the main point is that there never was an ozone "layer" to destroy.
How is climate change even a debate anymore? The only people who say it's fake or not caused by humans don't understand it. Yes, the earth does naturally produce more CO2 than humans, but it also absorbs what it emits. The CO2 that we produce throws this off this equilibrium and we end up with an excess.
See nir shaviv presentations on youtube. He covers it best and identifies the largest factor behind climate change. He obliterates the UN.
He has published a lot of papers on the subject of cosmoclimatology, as well as Svensmark.
I dont know much about CFC but you just here about refrigerators and aerosol spray can and other dumb shit. It just doesnt make sense to me that thats the fucking cause for ozone depletion,
>CO2 levels increase
>Plants grow to consume increase
>Oxygen levels increase
>Animals grow to consume increase
>We Jurassic Park now
Very helpful, so the argument "if I understood correctly" is that the CFC's don't get high enough to do anything and if they did there is no O3 for radical halogenation to occur anyways. The issue is that the CO2 we are emitting is insulating too much and causing us to warm.
No, you don't understand it. Nor does the vast majority of previous researchers, including the authors of the UN AR papers.
Here is your red-pill:
sciencebits.com
Ha, nope. CO2 is a lie as well.
It seems like this would be the case, with industrial farming and orchards and grass of all things theoretically we should be soaking up alot more CO2 than before
> ozone layer
Latest research says that the hole's disappeared now.
inb4 the new consensus is that this is also bad and caused by mankind
One major problem with that is the deforestation of the world. If there's any major contributor to a climate change, it would be that.
Do your own homework.
yeah we still effecting the climate. bad humans!
You will only get one side of the debate here.
Diversify your sources
I know the chemistry of it. I'm just looking for the opinions of it. What people are saying is going on. I figured here would be a good place to get a decent spectrum of peoples understanding.
>It's wrong because I say so
Yeah fuck 100 years of research
well the solution to that would be simple just start planting more shit
That works in first world countries, but Nigger tier countries just tear down forests without regard. Most countries replant as they go along these days.
if adding more H20, CO2, and CO ("greenhouse" molecules) to the atmosphere is supposed to warm the entire planet like a blanket then why do clouds reflect sunlight back to space and make it cooler? a cloudy day is cooler than a cloudy day.
>CO2 is the biggest contributor to the green house effect
Is this true or false, user?
tree bomb the fuck out of them
>So for my Organic chemistry class we are talking about chlorofluorocarbons and my teacher would like to have a simple debate on climate change
shaking my head familia that better be a high school babby organic chemistry class. education is really going to shit. you're supposed to be learning reactions and mechanisms not this irrelevant (earth science) shit.
>H20
smdh
hahahaha
Pic relevant is data for several hundred years of data. It does not support man made climate change.
Climate change is real. You are right about depleting the ozone layer. Use the story of the maldives as an example. A island chain off the coast of india with 80,000 people on it recently got swallowed up by the sea.
It's a 4 year university. I'm aware we should be learning them, and we are, he just want's a bit more relevant thinking. Less theoretical. I think the purpose is to help us prepare to use our knowledge to answer these questions.
Clarification, most temperature change can be explained by cosmic ray flux due to proximity to dense areas of super nova as we pass around the galaxy, and our own solar activity modulates the effect on shorter time scales.
>media sensationalism
>global carbon tax/market
the proposed solutions are bad no matter what, even if climate change will destroy the planet tomorrow
Not An Argument
h20 is a greenhouse gas according to jews
This is interesting, I'll look into this more.
>Namely, is it happening
Yes. But at a rather minuscule amount. Lots of alarmism in the field still after rapid warming debunked etc.
ie: Less ice in the Arctic, while Antarctic is showing
record high lvl's of sea ice. Seasonal rotation combined
with cycle changes in sun spot location and amount etc,
produces more / less solar radiation hitting particular
parts of the earth more than others. Grandfather is a
geologist and he basically ran it down like this. Mass
of effective particles vs volume of the atmosphere, and structure of the atmosphere.
>is it anthropogenic
No. Co2 refraction has never been proven to affect global temp lvls. That is confirmed science. Pollution on the other hand which is for the most part localized, can create "hot pockets" of green house activity in their respective areas, but not globally.
The models are all over the place because the GCM's all guess or use their own recipe for cloud forcing due to tempetature change.
Pic related. They all slide their temp sensitivity for Co2 linearly because they guess at this feedback.
Debating that climate change isn't happening or that it isn't largely caused by human activity is fucking pointless. It's like debating that the Earth is flat, sure you can do it but you will just look retarded.
If you want to take a right wing position and still be taken seriously you need to just argue against lefty 'solutions' like renewables and carbon taxes which are generally just terrible. Talk about why they are terrible and maybe talk about the benefits of climate change as well.
Since it's a chemistry class though maybe that stuff isn't really relevant
If you are intent on arguing against climate change at least read skepticalscience.com
and figure out how to refute the points made there.
blog.dilbert.com
When you're done reading you'll want to buy his book
This is pretty interesting. So climate change due to gasses and various chemicals seems to be negligible in light of natural earth movements and solar effects. I will look into the cosmic influences a bit more.
I don't really want to argue for or against. I just want to understand who thinks it's happening because of what. I'll form my view after I can think about what I've learned.
Climate change cannot be considered a science as there is no anthro-CO2 free atmosphere for comparison, thus the claims are largely unfalsifiable. The models are simply not accurate enough yet for long term global trends.
Here is the kill shot. If climate sensitivity is emperically estimated (not modeled), using cosmic ray flux as a factor causes the other climate sensitivity estimates to line up, becoming consistent with each other.
This is huge.
A significant amount of science is proper data gathering techniques and creating repeatable experiments.
There are significant issues with the data gathering techniques used in many popular climate change studies. It turns out, collecting an average global temperature is rather difficult. Many temperature sensors are installed in warm areas attached to buildings.
If you are looking for chemical reactions that disprove the claims of man-made climate change I am not sure you'll find them.
For fun you can read Michael Chricton's State of Fear. It's not that great, but it asks many of these questions.
In Alaska as some glaciers have been receding stumps started showing up. They carbon dated them and some where found to be as old as 8000 years. Ice age ended, forest grew. Glacier advanced and wiped out forest. Glacier receded and exposed forest remnants. The glaciers have been advancing and receding for 1000's of years.
I took this pic.
Here is the most concise and complete presentation on how our global climate works. And, both the most exhaustive explanation of the UN IPCC's mmgw position and its biggest debunking.
Watch this user.
I do understand it, I'm studying environmental science.
All that link stated is that climate sensitivity is lower than we thought. Ok, but the number in the paper was got through gratuitous rounding and estimates. Our understanding of climate sensitivity is through comparing CO2 levels in ice sheets and comparing it to global temperatures in the past. This is a way more solid way to determine climate sensitivity and gives us a higher value.
Maybe you should understand what you are talking about.
...
If you want to red pill someone on MMGW. Start with the question: what caused pur ice ages?
They never thought to expect their overlords at the UN and the EPA to have an answer.
The answer is that we pass through a spiral arm of our galaxy at the same time. This happens roughly every 150 million yrs. It is a chain reaction caused by cosmic rays eminating from super nova which are actually particles that create white clouds that act a white T-shirt against the sun rays, thus cooling our atmosphere.
For deeper explanation see the rest of my posts.
The best lies have some truth to them.
The argument is indeed more one of exaggerations, skewed data, and corruption for furthering political agendas.
Of course there are people who think nothing is happening at all, and there are even people who think we have zero effect on our surroundings. But i dont know the formers argument and the latter probably dont really have one.
i love how all the "solar ray" theories sound so fucking ridiculous.
"no its not human beings its the cosmic radiation indicative to our portion of the solar system that comes around every 1000 years! obviously!"
>forefront of political and social issues discussion
>process entirely based off of reactions and mechanisms
>irrelevant
Why does the UN ignore obvious effects of solar activity on climate?
There is little to no evidence of co2 driving temperature. Of there was, you could show a graph of it.
The core process has been demonstrated in laboratories three times already. Including once by CERN.
I'll work on a tldr summary for this thread so I can get a rounded view. But, I'm calling it a night, I have class at 8. Thanks guys.
Climate change is real. To believe any climate, anywhere, is or ever was static is ignorant (e.g., ice ages). To believe climate change is somehow a carbon-based, anthropogenic event is also very short-sighted.
Civilization, the great marvel it is, has kind of fucked us because it roots us into in static way of living while the world around us continues to be dynamic. As a species, we no longer adapt for survival by means of migrating between locations with a poor chance of survival versus better. We, instead, 'weather it out' in our environment. Ergo, we are no longer living dynamically to retain a static kind of existentence, if you follow.
Unfortunately common sense is uncommon these days and people have long forgotten how we used to live as hunter-gathers. Now were a bunch of self-proclaimed geniuses, living off of the successes of our earliest ancestors' struggles. It is true the more we advanced, the bigger aliens to this planet and its realities we really become.
Cant wait to move to Alaska
From what I read a year or two ago, our forests are actually growing. China is doing a bunch of the work iirc. But yeah, we're planting more trees than cutting down FYI
So in the paper, it mentions that climate sensitivity is defined as dT/dF, but as I previously mentioned the actual climate sensitivity is larger than he predicts. Therefore, dF isn't having the effect on temperature he predicted and is barely, if even, a contributor to climate change.
Also I don't understand you're point on CO2 vs. Temperature graphs? There are plenty that exist
He is estimating it from past temps and energy budget (from radiative forcing).
That logically could pug an upper bound on the actual sensitivity.
dF = change in radiative forcing. Right?
Research El Nino, and construct your argument to dismiss global warming "evidence" based on
>likely existence of multiple 10-15 year climate cycles across the globe
and
>humanity's relative ignorance in almost all workings of nature
I can't pull from my phone, too late to seach around. they are not convincing, and in fact have shown an 800 year lag time, with temperature flux leading co2, not the other way around.
The release of co2 from the oceans in response to temp is what likely is happening.
I'll get you started with some important points and questions.
-Climate change is natural, major trends in glaciation are driven by periodic variations in earths orbital eccentricity, axial tilt and precession (see Milankovich cycles).
-Natural feedback mechanisms play an important role in regulating the temperature, some are negative (eg more warming, more evaporation of oceans, more cloud coverage, less solar insulation, less warming; higher CO2, more productive vegetation, more rapid sequestration of CO2, less atmospheric CO2), others are positive and can amplify change (cooling, more snow coverage, snow reflects sunlight, less solar insulation, more cooling).
-The idea that CO2 causes global warming is predicated on the strong positive correlation between atmospheric CO2 and oxygen isotope data, which is a proxy for ice sheet size (see Rayleigh Fractionation, Vostock ice core, foraminifera isotope data, etc ). Question: If CO2 drives the climate change, what geologic process drives the CO2 change and causes it to occur with the same periodicity as Milankovich cycles?
Question: What is the "natural" temperature for the Earth? What is "acceptable" natural fluctuation?
What is the "ideal" climate? There's winners and losers at either extreme: At the warm extreme, northern Canada and Siberia would be lovely for human inhabitation (see the climate during the Azolla event for example). During glacial maximums, there would be no living plants or animals in Canada because it would be under several km thick ice sheet, whereas Indonesia's island nation would be transformed into a subcontinent (see Sundaland). There's winners and losers, in either case.
If anthropogenic global warming is such a settled science, why have all the models proven to be wrong? Why have none of the dire predictions come true? Why is such well funded, supposedly self evident and irrefutable science riddled with academic fraud (see Climate gate, NOAA data manipulation)
Yea, I'm on my phone as well and it's late and I'm tired. I'm just going to agree how disagree. Maybe I'll make a thread discussing this in the future.
>using different methods to collect data is a big no no
Lol no. How data is collected is under methodology. All kinds of data collection methods are used, pretty stupid to use only one.