The Instigator
Bricheze
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
RepublicanView333
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Anthropogenic Global Warming--is real enough for us to do something about it. A debate on SCIENCE.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Bricheze
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/18/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,091 times Debate No: 6564
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

Bricheze

Pro

Rules:

1. This debate will be on science:

Were leaving out politics and scientific consensus. No Al Gore or Oregon Petition please.

2. Understand the mechanics of Global Warming

Have a basic understanding of the science before accepting this challenge. Like I said before, quotes won't cut it here. We need good scientific arguments.

3. Prove me wrong, not my credibility

Don't ignore my arguments and say 'You don't have enough evidence, therefore I don't have to respond' Whether or not you believe I don't have enough evidence doesn't matter. This is a debate on the science of global warming and often I will explain the science behind my arguments, rather then just quote random reports.

Let's make this a debate between you and I, and not our sources.

4. Quotes aren't fact

I'm not looking for quotes from reports. You can use them, but they aren't fact. Many reports lie and explaining your logic and science, behind a scientific debate, is far more important then using sources that are probably biased and incorrect.

Skeleton of this debate:

Sources, logic, and evidence will come later. This is just the basic argument of global warming that I would like my opponent to refute:

1. The green house gases are ranked by their contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:

* water vapor, which contributes 36–70%
* carbon dioxide, which contributes 9–26%
* methane, which contributes 4–9%
* ozone, which contributes 3–7%

2. The green house gases cause the Greenhouse effect, which is:

An atmospheric heating phenomenon, caused by short-wave solar radiation being readily transmitted inward through the earth's atmosphere but longer-wavelength heat radiation less readily transmitted outward.

3. Humans have and are increasing the levels of carbon in the atmosphere

4. This is causing the greenhouse effect to 'block in' more long-wave radiation, causing the earth to warm
RepublicanView333

Con

Hi,
To be a hundred percent honest i havent done this in a while so im kinda knocking some rust out of the old gears, but i do believe that Global Warming is purely a myth and if we DO do something about it we could possibly destroy our economic system and our lives.

First of i read through your rules and i kinda think there stingy 4 a online debate, quotes are very credible and can be used as facts as long as there not from unreliable sources, so i hope u dont have a problem with me accepting them as fact.

Now I understand the bases of global warming, so im not gonna waste time repeating it.

So, the title of this debate is that, "Global Warming--real enough to do something about it" So im just gonna start of (1) why its not real first of all and (2) why we should do nothing about it

(1)It has been a oh so great debate over the last 5+ years of global warming and the effects on our world that it has made, from the Arctic regions melting being the biggest and most exagerrated evidence for the presence of global warming. Now granted this is one of the most overly used defenses to that but i feel its impact is just as real...ITS A GLOBAL CYCLE...over thousands of years, and this cycle explains other extreme temerature cycles through out the past, the big one being the Ice Age. The Ice Age happened THOUSANDS of years ago, in this time (who'd a thunk it) the world got really icy...and there were there humans there to cause that??? Well thanl you wikipedia but here is an exerpt from wikipedia explaining the causes of the ice ages:

"The causes of ice ages remain controversial for both the large-scale ice age periods and the smaller ebb and flow of glacial–interglacial periods within an ice age. The consensus is that several factors are important: atmospheric composition (the concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane); changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun known as Milankovitch cycles (and possibly the Sun's orbit around the galaxy); the motion of tectonic plates resulting in changes in the relative location and amount of continental and oceanic crust on the Earth's surface, which could affect wind and ocean currents; variations in solar output; the orbital dynamics of the Earth-Moon system; and the impact of relatively large meteorites, and volcanism including eruptions of supervolcanoes."

Now all of those thing happened naturally, there were no humans to cause them but more importantly no humans around to cause the world to heat up and come out of it. The whole world cooled....and heated up....on its own, which leaves me at this, that if we let the earth do its thing and we just adapt by, o idk opening a window...lol...and just dealing with a that extra degree of heat (that extra degree of heat is all the earth has heated up by the way over the last hundred years) then we wil be OK.

(2) Now the second part of it why we should do nothing. Firstly i do believe its a worldly cycle but to play along i will answer, Now AlGore and others claim that over the last hundred years the tempatures have risen up to a degree. Well from January 2007 to January 2008 the average tempatures have fallen from .588 of a degree to .750 of a degree on the some thermometers that have taken the temps, that have claimed the "1 degree" increase. thank you:
http://wattsupwiththat.com...
so if over the past year the world has dropped a almost all the degrees that it gained why do anything allow the world to keep doing wat its doing and well be fine

Thankyou for your time an i await your response
Debate Round No. 1
Bricheze

Pro

1)
"Now all of those thing happened naturally, there were no humans to cause them but more importantly no humans around to cause the world to heat up and come out of it. The whole world cooled....and heated up....on its own,"

Just because humans haven't been the cause of past warming and cooling trends it does not mean they can not be responsible for this one. Let me give you an example: Your driving your car, and it stops running. Never before has your car stopped working because you ran out of gas, so you check the engine. The engine seems to be in working order and yet you refuse to except the possibility of running out of fuel, even though the gas meter reads low.

This is the same thing as what your doing with global warming.

Too prove your case that this is simply 'natural' you must provide what is causing the change. It doesn't just happen randomly, something has to be the cause. Without a cause, you can not prove anything. And simply saying it is 'natural' doesn't really count. Why is it natural? What else could be causing it?

In other words, the climate science community has provided a well developed, internally consistent theory that predicts the effects we are observing. It provides explanations and makes predictions. Where is the skeptic community's model, or theory whereby CO2 does not affect the temperature? Where is the evidence of some other natural forcing?

Secondly, to prove that this warming trend is apart of the natural cycle, you must come up with some explanation for how a 35% increase in the second most important greenhouse gas does not itself affect the global temperature. Theory predicts that the temperature will rise given an enhanced greenhouse effect, how is it possible this is not happening?

"which leaves me at this, that if we let the earth do its thing and we just adapt by, o idk opening a window...lol...and just dealing with a that extra degree of heat (that extra degree of heat is all the earth has heated up by the way over the last hundred years) then we wil be OK."

The thing about global warming, isn't just the negative effects of the warming, it is the destabilization that comes from it. You see, all the government systems, eco-systems, and economic systems are dependent on the climate we currently have. If we use Idaho mainly for agriculture and crops, and 20% of our food comes from there, and then suddenly the climate shifts and Idaho is so dry you can no longer farm there, but you could farm somewhere like New York, it would be too much of a change for us to easily adapt without facing a lot of harm. Feed backs like this would cause economic, environmental, and political collapse and cause severely reduced public health, famine, etc.

A climate change is not something easily handled, it is dangerous and should be treated as such.

(2) "Firstly i do believe its a worldly cycle but to play along i will answer, Now AlGore and others claim that over the last hundred years the tempatures have risen up to a degree. Well from January 2007 to January 2008 the average tempatures have fallen from .588 of a degree to .750 of a degree on the some thermometers that have taken the temps, that have claimed the "1 degree" increase.... so if over the past year the world has dropped a almost all the degrees that it gained why do anything allow the world to keep doing wat its doing and well be fine"

This year in an outliner in a trend. When your looking at averages and trends, you never say a single year out of 100 can call off a warming trend, that is ridiculous. It is like saying one day out of January was warm, therefore it is spring. Or one test out of 100 got an A, therefore the class is genius.

So to end this response, I would like to review the questions I have raised in my response:

1. What in this 'natural cycle' is causing the current warming trend?

2. Why wouldn't such a large rise in the percentages of CO2 not effect the climate?

3. Why is a warmer world not dangerous?

4. How does a small change in one year out of the past hundred constitute that the trend is not in fact warming still?
RepublicanView333

Con

RepublicanView333 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Bricheze

Pro

There was no response from my contender. I have nothing new to add.
RepublicanView333

Con

RepublicanView333 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Bricheze

Pro

Bricheze forfeited this round.
RepublicanView333

Con

RepublicanView333 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Bricheze

Pro

My opponent never responded to the first argument. I ask you, if he responds to it in this next argument, please disregard any new arguments, as I will never have a chance to respond.

It's to bad my opponent never did respond, this could have been an interesting debate.
RepublicanView333

Con

RepublicanView333 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Bricheze 7 years ago
Bricheze
I don't remember it ended a month ago. Did you look at the debate? My opponent forfeited 3 rounds! He certainly didn't deserve to win.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
"A debate on SCIENCE."
I negate.

"...after 1 vote the winner is..."
That's not a win. That's a one way and undeserved win.
A debate with one vote is unworthy of being given a winner.

How long was the voting period?
Posted by Bricheze 8 years ago
Bricheze
Con, btw, I know the rules seem strict, but don't worry I'm not going to be some annoying rule natzi. If you 'break' the rules I'm not planning on making a big deal about it. I just wanted to give you an idea of how I expected you to debate scientifically.
Posted by fo-shizzle 8 years ago
fo-shizzle
this is going to be a good debate......
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Bricheze 8 years ago
Bricheze
BrichezeRepublicanView333Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70