The Instigator
Surrealism
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
gannon260
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Almost All Atmospheric Global Warming is Not Caused by Humans

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/14/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,123 times Debate No: 70034
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (25)
Votes (0)

 

Surrealism

Pro

The resolution states that almost all of atmospheric global warming is NOT caused by humans. I am arguing FOR this resolution.


First round is for acceptance only.


DEFINITIONS:


Atmospheric: of or relating to the atmosphere


Global warming: a non-temporary increase in temperature on a global scale


Global: of or relating to the whole world



Good luck!
gannon260

Con

i will be arguing that humans have caused most the warming we see.
Debate Round No. 1
Surrealism

Pro

In order to properly quantify the percentage of atmospheric global warming caused by humans, we must examine average temperatures on Earth before and after large amounts of pollution. Fortunately, the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research has provided a figure for the temperature change on average over the past 132 years:


0.85 degrees Celsius [1]


Human industrialization was not capable of producing enough pollution before then to significantly increase the Earth’s temperature, so this number will be our benchmark for the maximum amount of atmospheric change that could have been caused by humans. Now we will compare it to the rest of the atmospheric change that has caused global warming.


The University of Indiana has been generous enough to provide a program that calculates planetary temperatures based on figures such as the mass of its sun, its distance to it, etc. [2] The figures necessary for what we want to calculate are provided by NASA. [3]


First, we will run the simulation for Earth right now. The value it returns:


15 degrees Celsius (This corroborates with other estimates of the Earth’s average temperature [4])


Now, we must check our base value from which the atmosphere warms the Earth, in other words, what the temperature of the Earth would be if there was no atmosphere. The value returned is:


-10 degrees Celsius


The difference between the two, or the increase in temperature caused by Earth’s atmosphere, is thus 25 degrees Celsius. To work out the percentage that humans have caused, we simply divide our first answer by this one:


0.85 degrees Celsius / 25 degrees Celsius = 3.4%


As 96.6% can certainly be described as "almost all", and the atmospheric global warming not caused by humans makes up 96.6% of total global warming, we can safely say that almost all atmospheric global warming is NOT caused by human beings.


However, this is just Earth’s atmosphere. We never specified Earth anywhere. What about other planets?


Hopefully we can all agree that humans do not cause the increase in temperature on Venus, therefore 100% of all atmospheric global warming on Venus is not caused by humans. Our planetary temperature calculator tells us that the amount of increase caused by the atmosphere of Venus is:


Temperature of Venus With Atmosphere = 308 degrees Celsius


Temperature of Venus With No Atmosphere = -84 degrees Celsius


308 degrees Celsius - ( -84 degrees Celsius ) = 392 degrees Celsius


Thus, our new percentage of atmospheric global warming becomes:


0.85 degrees Celsius / ( 25 degrees Celsius + 392 degrees Celsius ) = 0.2%


Thus, on merely Earth and Venus alone, the percentage of atmospheric global warming is an infinitesimal one fifth of a percent. And this calculation completely ignores the billions of other planets whose atmospheres have global warming effects of their own, and reduce the fraction caused by humans to nearly zero.


SOURCES:


[1] https://www2.ucar.edu...

[2] http://www.astro.indiana.edu...

[3] http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

gannon260

Con

well, i can see you sited evidence from NASA, and according to their website, they endorse the idea that climate change in our modern age is caused by humans. This turns your evidence in my favor. Also, your argument is very unclear as to what the purpose is.

Do you understand climate change? since 1880, the temperaturs has increased by 1.4 celsius. Carbon dioxide is at an altime high since 650,000 years. Ice is shrinking to record levels ever since we started recording. Is it a coincidence that ever since we started to massively industrialize our world around the turn of the 19th century that we've been expierencing massive influxes of carbon dioxide and ice shrinkage? Is it merely a climate cycle that is correlated with the fact that we our industrious actions is pumping has increased the amount of carbon dioxide by a third? Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas meaning that it traps the suns light better then the atmosphere and therefore the atmosphere gets warmer. Most of the light is supposed to get reflected but gasses like methane, carbon dioxide, etc capture and is one of the contributing factors of our warming. Another factor is chloroflourocarbons which have been mitigated since the 1960's but the depletion of the layer that protects us from uv rays has thus led to increased radiation upon the earth.

Also, your argument that venus is hot because it has an atmosphere is true, but did you know that the atmosphere of venus is entirely made of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases? Mercury on the other hand has no atmosphere yet is cold as a rock. You agree with me that an atmosphere causes warming, but what's happening on earth is that we are changing the composition of the atmosphere where carbon dioxide is increasing in the volume of our mix of gases.

Here is a direct quote from NASA talking about a UN panel

"The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 379 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 90 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years."

to counter your claim that the sun is increasing it's radiance:

"If the warming were caused by a more active sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gasses are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere."

Don't you see? We're changing our atmosphere.

http://climate.nasa.gov...
http://climate.nasa.gov...

Even the US federal government agrees that climate change is real. They even put out a report about delaying action to stop it
http://www.whitehouse.gov...

""A new study confirms there is strong scientific consensus that human activities are causing the planet to warm. 97 percent of scientific papers (that take a stance on the issue) agree, the study finds.""
http://www.washingtonpost.com...

Climate change is real since we burn things for energy which makes CO2, CO2 has a greenhouse effect that captures the suns light better.

Greenhouse gas-a gas in an atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Surrealism

Pro

My opponent entirely misunderstands my argument. To summarize, I am saying that the maximum possible increase in temperature caused by humans is 0.85 degrees Celsius, and that as the atmosphere as a whole increases temperature by 25 degrees, humans can only be responsible for a negligible 3.4% of total atmospheric global warming.

Let me clear up a few points for my opponent:

One: I do not deny that humans have caused some temperature increases.

Two: I do not deny that atmospheric global warming is caused by carbon dioxide.

Three: I do not deny that global warming has negative effects on the environment.

Now the question arises: do any of the previous statements prove the resolution false? Of course not.

The resolution does not state that humans cause no global warming at all, it states that almost all is not caused by humans. The important thing here is to keep perspective. Yes, humans have caused the temperature to rise at an alarming rate. Yes, it is caused by human industrialization. Does the amount of increase caused by humans compare to the total amount caused by the atmosphere alone? No. Let me say this clearly, because this is the most important point.

The Earth's atmosphere causes a temperature increase of 25 degrees Celsius. Of those 25 degrees, humans are responsible for only 0.85, or 3.4%.

I hope this clears up most of the confusion. Let's examine some of my opponent's more specific mistakes.

"since 1880, the temperaturs has increased by 1.4 celsius"

You mean Farenheit, actually.

"according to their website, they endorse the idea that climate change in our modern age is caused by humans. This turns your evidence in my favor."

Genetic fallacy. The source of information is not related to its usage in an argument.

"Also, your argument that venus is hot because it has an atmosphere is true, but did you know that the atmosphere of venus is entirely made of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases?"

Yes I did. Did you know that NONE of those greenhouse gases were put there by humans?

"Mercury on the other hand has no atmosphere yet is cold as a rock."

Assuming that most rocks are hot enough to melt lead, of course. [1]

"to counter your claim that the sun is increasing it's radiance:"

Straw man. When did I ever say that?

"Don't you see? We're changing our atmosphere."

Yes, but not enough so that it accounts for a large portion of atmospheric global warming.

SOURCES:

[1]http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu...;
gannon260

Con

Your argument is illogical. Having an atmosphere means that a planet traps heat. Our atmosphere has been with us since the dawn of time and has constantly changed. My argument is that currently, humans are causing the change. You do realize were debating climate change and not the climate without an atmosphere. Your argument that the atmosphere causes warming is illogical since your argument has no timeframe. By arguing that the atmosphere causes warming is like saying that a fire has cooked an egg. The fact is, the egg is already cooked, the Earth already has an established atmosphere. What humans are doing is now burning the egg. This is what climate change is as you have defined, it is the increase in temperature. This debate is not whether or not an atmosphere causes warming or not, it's about whether or not humans are the prime cause to warming. I agree with you, the atmosphere warms the earth, but humans are changing that atmosphere to warm the earth even more. Humans are increasing the temperature of the world. The atmosphere on the otherhand is being changed by humans but it in itself is not causing an increase temperatures. The atmosphere is the dependant variable currently while humans are the independant variable.

Also, you didn't rebut much of my scientific evidence that says that climate change and warming is caused by humans.

also, your evidence is really weak, no offense

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Surrealism

Pro

"Your argument is illogical. Having an atmosphere means that a planet traps heat. Our atmosphere has been with us since the dawn of time and has constantly changed."

An atmosphere does mean that a planet traps heat. Therefore, the atmosphere is the reference frame for measuring atmospheric global warming.

"My argument is that currently, humans are causing the change."

Humans are only causing a small part of it. Currently, most of it is caused by humans. But I never specified the present in the resolution.

"You do realize were debating climate change and not the climate without an atmosphere."

Do you realize that the resolution does NOT mention climate change? The resolution specifies atmospheric global warming, which means that we must necessarily consider the heat caused by the atmosphere itself.

"Your argument that the atmosphere causes warming is illogical since your argument has no timeframe. By arguing that the atmosphere causes warming is like saying that a fire has cooked an egg. The fact is, the egg is already cooked, the Earth already has an established atmosphere. What humans are doing is now burning the egg. "

This would only be valid if I'd specified global warming in the present. The resolution does not specify that.

"This is what climate change is as you have defined, it is the increase in temperature."

No, I defined global warming that way. Climate change is something else. Climate change is just a non-temporary change in the environment in some way. If the temperature dropped that would be climate change but not global warming.

"This debate is not whether or not an atmosphere causes warming or not, it's about whether or not humans are the prime cause to warming. "

Actually it's about both. The resolution mentions both atmosphere and humans. It is necessary to use total warming caused by the atmosphere as a reference frame.

"I agree with you, the atmosphere warms the earth, but humans are changing that atmosphere to warm the earth even more. Humans are increasing the temperature of the world."

Yes, but by a very small amount compared to the atmosphere as a whole.

"The atmosphere on the otherhand is being changed by humans but it in itself is not causing an increase temperatures."

Yes it is. I already demonstrated that.

"The atmosphere is the dependant variable currently while humans are the independant variable."

I do not think those terms mean what you think they mean. An independent variable is just the value adjust in a scientific experiment to see what effect it has on something else, which is your dependent variable.

"Also, you didn't rebut much of my scientific evidence that says that climate change and warming is caused by humans."

Why would I? I agree with it. The problem is, it's evidence that a change is occurring. Not evidence that most of atmospheric global warming is caused by humans.

"also, your evidence is really weak, no offense"

If you're going to make this claim, at least back it up. And at the very least, I have salient evidence and you do not.



I believe that there is a fundamental misunderstanding here. You are confusing me for a nutter who denies that humans are causing the Earth to warm much faster than it should. But I am no such person. In reality, the wording of the debate resolution sounded similar to the wording of such nutters. Allow me to clarify what it says.

The atmosphere has gases that warm up the Earth.

Some of that is caused by humans.

I argue that most of it is not.

Do not be confused though. I agree that the 0.85 degrees Celsius change was caused by human industrialization. I also agree that it occurred over a relatively short period of time, and that this is alarming. I also agree that unless immediate action is taken, the consequences may be severe.

But none of this has to do with what the resolution says.

The resolutions merely asks whether the majority of what the atmosphere itself is doing is caused by humans. The answer, as I have shown using mathematics and models of planetary heating, is no.

You have tried to change this debate into a debate about climate change denial, but that is not what it is actually about. And if you simply assume that you know what the resolution says without actually knowing, that is your fault.

When you accept a debate, it is your responsibility to understand the resolution.
gannon260

Con

Dude i understand the resolution. Warming is a continious action. Global warming is therefore a continuing action.

"almost all Atmospheric global warming is not caused by humans."The resolution your really asking "Almost all of the atmospheric global heat change is not caused by humans."

Global warming is ongoing and therefore constantly changing and you agree with me here.

"Do not be confused though. I agree that the 0.85 degrees Celsius change was caused by human industrialization. I also agree that it occurred over a relatively short period of time, and that this is alarming. I also agree that unless immediate action is taken, the consequences may be severe."

You should have had the resolution that: "almost all of the atmospheric heat is not caused by humans." This thereby dodges the continuity of global warming itself. The key thing to remember when voting for this debate is should we take warming as a constantly changing state, or take data from two points; one without an atmosphere and then with one with an atmosphere and call that "warming" when actually just measuring the temperature the difference of something aside from what global warming really is, a continous change.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Also, i have better evidence
Debate Round No. 4
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Information_Dealer 2 years ago
Information_Dealer
Well, all in all this was an act of buffoonery, now wasn't it? Maybe meant for buffoonery.com. I still contend the debate was phrased in the present tense, about increases to global temperature that are visibly occurring, about increases to the global temperature that already is, and not to the global temperature that isn't, viz. the temperature the earth would be without all the things that are already in place responsible for the initial 70 or so degrees of warming to it. It is buffoonery to be purposely ambiguous as to what is being referenced, this initial 70 degrees, the extra few or so added by humans, or both combined. Surrealism will state that it is both combined, and since 99 percent or whatever of that is naturally caused, that he is right. I state that he is not. That an increase in temperature is an increase to the current temperature, and hence he could not be referring to anything but the added increase to the initial 70 degrees already caused by nature whether he thinks can manipulate it otherwise or not.
Posted by Surrealism 2 years ago
Surrealism
The natural phenomenon is increasing the temperature from what it would have been if there had been no phenomenon occurring in the first place. I already described this in the debate itself, don't talk to me if you haven't even read the debate.

This is going in circles. I do not care to continue this conversation.
Posted by Information_Dealer 2 years ago
Information_Dealer
When describing a noun with more than one adjective, you use a comma between the adjectives for clarification. I'm not sure it's absolutely necessary, but it's heavily considered standard, so this weighs in my favor, and if you were to get one point, I'd get, at the least, somewhere in the range of one thousand.
Your transitory definition of global warming is surely scandalous but, even with it being what it is, when is it exactly, so I know, that there was an increase in temperature on a global scale? If the global temperature was stable before industrial invention, as we have already agreed although you may change if you like as I don't care to look it up (I might, though), and let's just say it was 70 degrees, how is it there was any increase of the global temperature if you looked at the thermostat and it said 70 degrees again? And since we now know that we're talking about what is responsible for the increase of global temperature above 70 degrees, we can't say it is those same old sources, can we? We can look at today's global temperature, let's say 73 (I didn't read the debate), and say 99 percent of that is caused by natural phenomena if we may, but the increase isn't being caused by that natural phenomena, now is it? The natural phenomena is not increasing the temperature.
Posted by Surrealism 2 years ago
Surrealism
Are you saying it's impossible to describe a word with two adjectives? Because that is an outright obvious falsehood.

See what I did there?

And again, I already provided a definition of global warming in the starting round.
Posted by Information_Dealer 2 years ago
Information_Dealer
We can assume that the only adjective in your term is atmospheric, describing the created compound noun global warming, as it is well known to be (let Wikipedia be a source for starters), for if both atmospheric and global were adjectives of warming, there would be need of a comma to denote they're both aimed at it, for as they stand without a comma, atmospheric would need be an adverb to describe global, which it is not, and would be a lump sum of three words that would mean nothing. I took for granted you weren't talking about nothing, but I can never know for sure.
Posted by Surrealism 2 years ago
Surrealism
I already provided a definition of global warming. As a phrase, it simply implies warming of the globe. As you said, an adjective can only modify its noun without modifying it. Hence, global modifies warming.
Posted by Information_Dealer 2 years ago
Information_Dealer
Since the noun global warming is the increasing of the temperature of the earth since industrial invention, and an adjective cannot change the definition of a noun but only describe a particular quality of that noun, the new term atmospheric global warming can only be a quality of global warming itself. It can only be the increasing of the temperature of the earth due to the increasing of the size of the atmosphere since that same time, since we agree that the increasing of the size if the atmosphere is what has caused global warming. The earth did not increase the size of the atmosphere since that time. We did.
Posted by Surrealism 2 years ago
Surrealism
Ah no, once again you are confused. I did not make this debate because I hoped it would serve a pragmatic purpose. I knew that many people would see the title and assume I was arguing against climate change when that is not the case at all. In this way I hoped to trick someone into accepting a debate they could not win.

Deceptive, sure. Unethical? Perhaps. But it happened as it did.
Posted by Information_Dealer 2 years ago
Information_Dealer
Well, the issue at hand in the world is what we can do to curtail the warming, not whether the majority is caused by this or that. I supposed that in saying the majority is not caused by humans, you were saying that nothing could be done, as the amount of gas emissions contributed by us is so small that it couldn't be responsible for any significant damage. There isn't really an issue about what is responsible for the majority of the emissions so I figured you were talking about the real issue at hand, the tipping point past the balance that once was, by the 1% or so of extra gas emissions added by human endeavor, that has been piling up for two hundred years or so now, and isn't tangible to us here on the ground because it just up and floats away and is disguised. If the natural earth emissions of gas could be controlled, then you would have something to be talking about in pointing out that they are there. But I insist that we shouldn't be insisting that these natural gases are responsible for the recent warming of the earth of the past two hundred years. They are not, or so we are told. There is the general temperature of the earth, which is from the sun and the earth's trapping of its heat via its own emission of gases, then there is the added gases by humans that have caused the recent warming. This is the warming we are all concerned with and talking about. Not the regular heat derived by the sun and natural processes, which mustn't be dubbed the warming of the earth as well. The real issue is the warming on top of this warming.
Posted by Surrealism 2 years ago
Surrealism
You are correct in that the temperature of the Earth was relatively stable until human industrialization increased. However, it is important to remember that although greenhouse gases not put in place by humans do not increase in quantity, they still play an active part in warming the Earth from -10 degrees Celsius to 15 degrees Celsius. This is still within the definition of "global warming" and it is not caused by humans. It also is approximately thirty times more powerful than the effect humans have had. Hence, the majority is NOT caused by humans.
No votes have been placed for this debate.