The Instigator
jh1234l
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Rollbearandtide
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Global Warming Exists (2)

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 1 vote the winner is...
jh1234l
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/20/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,895 times Debate No: 26419
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

jh1234l

Pro

I am doing this topic again, for a longer voting period and to try some features of the site.

Global Warming: the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century[1]

The graph at [2] shows that the Earth is warming.

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the burning of fossil fuels has contributed to the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to 397 ppm. [3]

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Also, some other greenhouse gases are increasing too.

The major source of methane is extraction from geological deposits known as natural gas fields, with coal seam gas extraction becoming a major source. In 2010, methane levels in the Arctic were measured at 1850 nmol/mol, a level over twice as high as at any time in the 400,000 years prior to the industrial revolution. [4]

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Rollbearandtide

Con

I would first like to start with the science community. A large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that global warming is occurring and we do not need to change anything to prevent it. Nobel Prize winning physicist Ivar Giaever publicly resigned from the American Physical Society with a letter stating that he could not live with the APS policy that "global warming is occurring." Much of the funding for the study of the climate comes from pro-warming sources. So much of the publicity and funding of environmental science community makes it seems like global warming is real and hurting everyone everywhere every day.

Now I would like to address greenhouse gases. In an article by the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, they talked to Dr. Jim Renwick and Dr. David Wratt who are lead authors for the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) who say that "the earth has not warmed for about 10 years. Yet the government still say that man-made global warming is real and dangerous... But the temperature records say it isn't happening. CO2 is a harmless gas that promotes plant growth and reduces desertification. Ian Plimer, Professor of Geology at the University of Adelaide, says "During the Earth's history, there have been six great ice ages and each of these ice ages started when the atmospheric CO2 content was higher than now, showing that CO2 in the past has not driven global warming. Ice cores show that temperature increases some 800 years before CO2 increases, hence temperature drives the release of CO2 from the oceans into the atmosphere. This is the inverse of the current populist view that CO2 drives global warming.

Next, I would like to talk about indicators of the environment. People claim that glaciers are melting and raising sea levels above normal rates extremely. Well, glaciers around the world are continuously advancing and retreating with a general pattern of retreat since the end of the Little Ice Age. There is no evidence of a increased rate of melting overall since CO2 levels rose above their pre-industrial levels, suggesting CO2 is not responsible for glaciers melting. Sea ice area and extent have continued to increase around Antarctica over the past few decades. The mean rate of global sea level has not accelerated over the recent past. Sea levels has been rising for thousands of years and continues at about one inch per decade. Various non-thermometer sources such as tree rings, ocean and lake sediments, ice cores, stalagmites, support an absence of warming. Coral data also show no pronounced warming trend of the sea surface. In fact, according to 30,000 measuring stations around the world confirm a trend that temperatures have not risen since 1997. In a study by Berkeley, it confirmed that marine atmosphere shows no warming.

People may talk about the recent extreme weather patterns as examples of global warming. That is wrong. Meteorologists can easily explain these occurrences. The tornadoes and strong rain storms are formed when cold Northern air and warm tropic arm meet, it sets off strong storms that can lead to tornadoes and floods. It has been like this for many years. Hurricanes are also shown to be decreasing. In data taken from 1930s to the 1960s and the 1960s to the 1990s. The data from the 1960s to the 1990s show that there is less hurricane activity than the 1930s to the 1960s data. Any increase in the number of hurricanes can simply by a naturally occurring cycle.

So from the information and data we have recieved, it proves that global warming is not occurring. That is why I urge for a Con ballot.
Debate Round No. 1
jh1234l

Pro

"But the temperature records say it isn't happening."
False. Look at the graph at [1].

"CO2 is a harmless gas that promotes plant growth and reduces desertification. "
Co2 is a part of photosynthesis. Plants gather CO2 and turns it into oxygen. [2]

It has been estimated that about half of the Earth's mature tropical forests"between 7.5 million and 8 million km2 (2.9 million to 3 million sq mi) of the original 15 million to 16 million km2 (5.8 million to 6.2 million sq mi) that until 1947 covered the planet"have now been destroyed. Deforestation is a contributor to global warming. [3]

Now that plants have been reduced, less CO2 is being removed. Plus, CO2 levels are going up and methane is going up too.

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the burning of fossil fuels has contributed to the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to 397 ppm. [4]

The major source of methane is extraction from geological deposits known as natural gas fields, with coal seam gas extraction becoming a major source. In 2010, methane levels in the Arctic were measured at 1850 nmol/mol, a level over twice as high as at any time in the 400,000 years prior to the industrial revolution. [5]

Plus, you cited Ian Plimer, who is not an accurate source.

"Ian R. Plimer (born February 12, 1946), a mining geologist, mining company director and anthropogenic global warming denier with no evident expertise in climate science

In 2011 he wrote the 'anti-warmist manual' which reviewers found to be full of scientific errors, containing flawed and undocumented diagrams, and sloppily edited

Plimer's denialist book on global warming was published in 2009 and sold about 20,000 copies in Australia and a similar amount in the USA. The book was universally panned by scientists as full of errors and even accused of plagiarism." [6]

"There is no evidence of a increased rate of melting overall since CO2 levels rose above their pre-industrial levels"

Well, see this: (if you can't see this go to youtube.com/watch?v=-8bHufxbxc8)

"In fact, according to 30,000 measuring stations around the world confirm a trend that temperatures have not risen since 1997. In a study by Berkeley, it confirmed that marine atmosphere shows no warming."

This has no citation, no links to any proof, etc. See [1]

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org...
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6]http://www.sourcewatch.org...
Rollbearandtide

Con

To your point on deforestation, Douglas Southgate and Brent Sohngen with the Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economies at Ohio State University said in an article, "higher temperatures will promote tree growth, certainly in places which continue to receive adequate precipitation." They also said,"higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere can fertilize trees, provided that other nutrients and water are available. It is hardly surprising that a recent survey of available studies points to a recent acceleration of tree growth globally.

Now to plants, The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change said that "when the atmosphere's temperature and CO2 concentration rise together, the vast majority of earth's plants would likely not feel a need to migrate towards cooler regions of the globe... the rising atmospheric CO2 concentration would work its biological wonders, significantly increasing the temperatures at which most of the earth's C3 plants - which comprise about 95% of the planet's vegetation - function best, creating a situation where earth's plant life would actually prefer warmer conditions. Steven Running of the University of Montana and Ramakrishna Nemani of NASA found that "over a period of almost two decades, the Earth as a whole became more bountiful by a whopping 6.2%. About 25% of the Earth's vegetated landmass - almost 110 million square kilometres enjoyed significant increases. When satellite data zooms in, it finds that each square metre of land, on average, now produces almost 500 grams of greenery per year." Dr. William Happer of the George C. Marshall Institute said "As far as green plants are concerned, CO2 is not a pollutant, but part of their daily bread - like water, sunlight, nitrogen, and other essential elements. Most green plants evolved at CO2 levels of several thousand ppm, many times higher than now. Plants grow better and have better flowers and fruit at higher levels."

As you can see I have clearly provided information by experts that show that CO2 levels that are high actually help plants and trees grow and produces more greenery and prevents desertification. This is why I urge for a Con ballot.
Debate Round No. 2
jh1234l

Pro

"higher temperatures will promote tree growth, certainly in places which continue to receive adequate precipitation. Higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere can fertilize trees, provided that other nutrients and water are available. "

As I said on the last debate, co2 sure is needed for plants, which is called "photosynthesis", which produces oxygen. [1]
How ever, now that deforestation is happening (Global deforestation sharply accelerated around 1852)[2], less co2 is being removed by plants, while more and more co2 is produced. So less plants+more pollution=more co2=warmer Earth.

"Most green plants evolved at CO2 levels of several thousand ppm, higher than now."

After the plants got here, they turned most of co2 into oxygen using photosynthesis.

"the rising atmospheric CO2 concentration would work its biological wonders, significantly increasing the temperatures at which most of the earth's C3 plants - which comprise about 95% of the planet's vegetation - function best, creating a situation where earth's plant life would actually prefer warmer conditions."

You are admitting that temperatures are rising! "CO2 significantly increasing the temperatures" now you are just trying to say global warming is good and no longer trying to disprove global warming.

"over a period of almost two decades, the Earth as a whole became more bountiful by a whopping 6.2%. About 25% of the Earth's vegetated landmass - almost 110 million square kilometres enjoyed significant increases. When satellite data zooms in, it finds that each square metre of land, on average, now produces almost 500 grams of greenery per year." Dr. William Happer of the George C. Marshall Institute said "As far as green plants are concerned, CO2 is not a pollutant, but part of their daily bread - like water, sunlight, nitrogen, and other essential elements. , many times higher than now. Plants grow better and have better flowers and fruit at higher levels."

Again, plants get co2 and make it oxygen. [1] We then breathe the oxygen and turn it into co2. This is a balanced system. Now with the co2 levels increasing due to use of fossil fuels, this system is now unbalanced and dangerous.

So now, con is trying to say that global warming exists, (He said "CO2 concentration would work its biological wonders, significantly increasing the temperatures") but is good, however, he is supposed to DISprove global warming, so I urge a pro vote as he is off topic.

[1]http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Rollbearandtide

Con

Rollbearandtide forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
jh1234l

Pro

Con forfeited, so I extend all of my arguments.
Rollbearandtide

Con

Let us be reasonable here. Global Warming is not real and is just the Earth and its various weather patterns. I gave you evidence that countered the pro's evidence. Therefore I urge a Con ballot. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Rayze 4 years ago
Rayze
Looks good so far. Can't wait to see how the tide'll shift.
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
It exists but isn't man made I don't care what Al Gore says.

Watch The Global Warming Swindle and all will be clear.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Rayze 4 years ago
Rayze
jh1234lRollbearandtideTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited and failed to successfully refute pro's contentions