The Instigator
Atheist-Independent
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Global Warming Exists

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...
lannan13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/29/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,497 times Debate No: 62381
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (29)
Votes (1)

 

Atheist-Independent

Pro

Round 1

This debate is about global warming, and whether or not is a real phenomenon. I will take the Pro side of the premise that global warming is real and that it is a result of human beings.


This debate will have 3 rounds with 10,000 characters per round. Each debater will have 72 hours to post their arguments.

I have made this debate impossible to accept, if you wish to debate this subject I ask you to leave a comment or PM me.

The debate structure will be generic with the first round for acceptance.


I hope this turns out to be a civil, yet interesting debate. Good luck!
lannan13

Con

I accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Atheist-Independent

Pro

Round 2

Introduction
First off, I would like to thank my opponent for displaying interest in this debate. I am eager to debate such an experienced member of this site.

For my argument I would first off like to define a few terms as it is likely that they will be used several times by both debaters.

Global warming: a gradual increase in the overall temperature of the earth's atmosphere.

Greenhouse effect: the trapping of the sun's warmth in a planet's lower atmosphere.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2): a colorless, odorless gas produced by burning carbon and organic compounds and by respiration.

Fossil Fuels: a natural fuel such as coal or gas, formed in the geological past from the remains of living organisms.

With the definitions aside, let the debating begin!

How does the greenhouse effect work?
Before I begin defending the premise defined in the first round, I would like to clarify how the process called the greenhouse effect works. This is essential to the topic of global warming, as the greenhouse effect is the process which warms the planet, especially during the nigh time. When sunlight reaches the earths atmosphere it changes into thermal radiation. Most of this thermal radiation is reflected off back into space due to the earth's atmosphere, however some manages to enter the planet. Once it reaches the atmosphere, it comes down to the surface, still as light, and is converted into energy through the process of photosynthesis. Eventually this energy is transferred from the plant to a primary or secondary consumer when the plant/producer is eaten by the consumer. Due to a concept called the 10% rule, almost all of the energy (90%) is lost during the transfer from producer to consumer and is radiated back into the atmosphere as heat [1]. Some of this heat manages to leave the atmosphere and goes off to space where it becomes essentially useless. A small percent of the heat, however, is trapped by the greenhouse gases (such as CO2, CH4, N2O, etc) and is kept in the atmosphere [2]. This is important because during the nigh time when the sun is not providing heat, the heat preserved by the greenhouse gases keep the planets surface warm [3].

This generally should be considered a good thing, however in this case there can be to much of a good thing. Due to the fact that there is now an abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, especially carbon dioxide, too much heat is being trapped in the atmosphere and as a result global temperatures have risen. I will attempt to prove that the reason for this abundance of greenhouse gases and as a result increased global temperatures is a result of human actions, and it is not a "natural" occurrence.

Graph A shows the basic process of the greenhouse effect.

Graph A:


Argument structure
My argument will follow this basic format:

P1) The increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a result of human actions.
P2) Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes an increase in global temperatures.
P3) Therefore human beings are responsible for global warming.

P1) The increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a result of human actions.
This is not a very difficult subject to defend and consequently it is not a very controversial subject, therefore I will be brief. Since the industrial revolution in the mid 1800's more and more carbon dioxide has been released into the atmosphere. Graph B shows the rapid increase in carbon emmisions starting in 1850.

Graph B:
The reason for this is obvious, due to rapid increasing of industry and technology, burning of fossil fuels has become more and more frequent. Due to the fact that the burning of fossil fuels emits carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, it is also obvious that the increased amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a result of human activity.

P2) Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes an increase in global temperatures.
This is a much more controversial subject, and therefore I will spend the majority of my argument in this section.

Given that the greenhouse effect states that greenhouse gases trap heat, and re radiate it in all directions, as shown in Graph A, it would be easy to make the assumption that if there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere there would be less long wave radiation (the type of heat that CO2 absorbs) being emitted into space and more infrared radiation being emitted back to the earth. This, as a result, would heat up the world and cause global warming. To prove this hypothesis, NASA launched the IRIS satellite in 1970 to record the amount of long wave radiation being emitted into space over a 26 year period [4]. What they found supported the hypothesis that less long wave radiation was being emitted into space and as result their was more infrared being contained in the earth. Graph C displays the results of the experiment.

Graph C:


This graph is an infrared spectrum and it shows the frequencies of infrared light (800 to 1600 cm-1). The graph has multiple greenhouse gases (such as CO2 and CH4) and based on their position on the graph, it determines the frequency of infrared light that they absorb. For example CO2 is at the far end of the spectrum because it absorbs lower frequency light than CH4 (methane), which is at the far end of the spectrum. The graph shows the difference of the amount of infrared radiation that is being absorbed by the various greenhouse gases between 1970 and 1996. Due to the fact that there is a greater variation in both CO2 and CH4 it shows that there is more radiation being absorbed by those two gases. In simpler terms, this shows that there is more heat being trapped by carbon dioxide and methane then there used to in the past, and therefore as a result global warming is a result of the carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere. If these gases are the cause of global warming than it can also be determined that human beings are the cause of global warming because they are the ones that are emitting the CO2 and CH4 into the atmosphere.

Moving on to the next graph, Graph D is representing the amount of infrared radiation at the earth's surface.

Graph D:


This graph is somewhat less complex than Graph C (thankfully). What it is representing is once again the infrared radiation spectrum (600-1800 cm-1) and the greenhouse gases that trap the radiation at certain spectrums. CO2 is found and approximately 800 cm-1 and consequently there is a much higher amount of infrared radiation at 800 cm-1 at the earths surface than there is of any other wave frequency. What this means is that carbon dioxide is responsible for the majority of the heat being contained in the earth. By extension, this means that carbon dioxide is causing global warming and that it is once again human beings fault due to the fact that we are the ones emitting the CO2 into the atmosphere.

Now moving on to the final graph. Graph E is showing both the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and also the global temperatures.

Graph E:

What Graph E is conveying is that there is a huge amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere currently, much higher than there has ever been in the past. Now there are three important things to note in this graph. One is that throughout the course of history, whenever global temperatures increased, the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere had increased as well. This allows us to reach the conclusion that the more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the higher temperatures will be. The second thing to note is that in none of the historical situations did global temperatures increase at the exact same time that the carbon dioxide levels. In every situation the temperatures took several years to rise following an increase in carbon dioxide levels. This is important because it shows global warming skeptics, like my opponent, that global temperatures will not increase right away. This is why temperatures have not increased so rapidly yet, however given the trend of this graph they are certain to increase in the near future. The final thing to note is the huge amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today. In no situation in history has their been such a high amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and the only explanation for why this is is human activity. Global warming skeptics claim that we cannot know that it is human being fault for global warming, however this chart shows the contrary.

P3) Therefore humans are responsible for global warming
I have proved that carbon dioxide is the primary reason for why their has been increases in global temperatures as of late. This negates skeptics major arguments about why global warming is not human beings fault because it is clear that carbon dioxide emittions are due to human beings, and therefore it can be concluded that human beings are the cause of global warming.

Sources
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.epa.gov...
[3] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
[4] http://www.skepticalscience.com...
lannan13

Con

I thank my opponent for giving me this chance to debate this with him. I will leave you a funny political cartoon about Global Warming before we get started.
Contention 1: Increased CO2 levels are from Human Action
Here I shall actually be arguing that a great amount of CO2 levels are actually anthro, thus meaning that his increase in CO2 is natural.
Fig. 3. Yearly changes in atmospheric CO2 in observations versus a simple statistical model trained with detrended anthropogenic emissions and temperature data.
In a recent study done by Dr. Roy Spencer, he has found that the atmospheric temperature is more likely coming from anthropogenic CO2 rising up from sinks. He found that the above model is consitant of 61% anthropogenic, 22% ocean temperature, and finially 17% land temperature which accounts for the CO2 emmissions from Fossil Fuels. (http://www.drroyspencer.com...)
Fig. 2. C13 fraction variations contained in seasonal versus, interannual versus decadal variability, compared to known geophysical sources.
The above graph shows that comparisions of C13 (Carbon isotope) and this shows that there is little to no trend pertrade in many of these as the average is zero while the trend for all of these are zero. (http://www.drroyspencer.com...)

Contention 2: C02 in the atmosphere causes Increased Temperatures.

I agree that CO2 can absorb heat, but I shall be arguing that there is no corralation here between increased CO2 and Increased Temperatures.

If we observe the above graph we can see that Earth has been a whole lot hotter than where we currently are to the point where the Earth's average temperature has been 7.5 degrees Celcuis hotter than it currently it is. You can also see that in the span of the past 10,000 years the temperature has leveld off, but you may ask yourself where does that place us in the lights of modern day?
I am going to site Dr. Done Easterbrook, who is a climate scientist. Back in 2000 he predicted that Earth was entering a cooling phase. He predicts that for the next 20 years Earth will cool by 3/10 degree each year and that we are going to enter another little Ice Age like we did from 1650 and 1790. (http://www.cnsnews.com...)
How about the "Hockey Stick" graph that many Global Warming supporters argue about? Well if we observe the fallowing chart taken from Northern Scandenavia we can see that the Global trend over the past 1,000 years that the Global Cooling trend slope is that of -0.31 Degrees Celcuis, give or take 0.03 degrees (for the error room). Professor Dr. Jan Esper has found that the Earth's temperature of Earth actually decreases 0.3 per millenia due to the Earth moving away from the sun. (http://newsbusters.org...)
We all remember the Climate Scientists that got stuck in Arctic Ice Earlier this year correct? Then a Russian Ice Breaker tried to free them, but got stuck. Can you guess what they were studying? They had predicted that all the Arctic Ice had melted due to Global Warming and that Earth would get flooded massively. Boy were they wrong. (http://www.nytimes.com...) Heck even the Artic ice is growing. (http://ginacobb.typepad.com...)
Arctic_ice_comparison_8aug
The Artic ice also increased from 2012-2013 as well. (http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com...)
GLOBAL WARMING HOAX

How about Al Gore. The man who brought Global Warming to our attention? In 2009, the man breaks down in tears stating how it's nothing, but hot air and how he fabricated everything just for the money! He said the arctic sheets are not melting and CO2 is not responsible for depletion of the Ozone. (http://www.thomaspeep.com...)
Dr. Koonin, former head of the Department of Energy under President Obama, has stated that the Global Warming scare is not suttle. This is because that he has found 3 things wrong and highly incorrect about the scare.
1. Shrinking of Artic Sea ice doesn't acount for the gaining of the Antartic ice.
2. The warming of Earth's temps today is the same as it was 30 years ago.
3. The sea levels rose at the same height and rate in the 20th cenury. (http://www.newsmax.com...)
Contention 3: Therefore humans are not responsable for Global Warming.
I have shown that there is no trend between CO2 and tempterature rising. I have show that the Earth is actually cooling and that the current supposed rise that my opponent is talking about is actually from anthropogenics. Thus this resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 2
Atheist-Independent

Pro

Round 3

Contention 1: Increased CO2 levels are from human action
There are two issues regarding my opponents argument, which I will address.

1) How can anthro account for such a rapid spike in carbon dioxide levels?
The primary argument that global warming skeptics present for the increase in carbon dioxide levels is that it is a natural occurrence. The issue with this argument is that throughout the 4.5 billion years in which the earth has existed the carbon dioxide levels have never spiked so rapidly [1]. It is unlikely that such a drastic change in the earth's atmosphere would only occur one in 4.5 billion years. Graph F displays the rapid increase of carbon dioxide levels.

Graph F:
2) Industrial Revolution correlation
Using Graph B from the first round as reference, it is shown that the spike of carbon dioxide levels correlates flawlessly with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the mid 1800's. I would like to ask my opponent, is it simply a coincidence that this is the case? In my opinion, find this incredibly unlikely.

Dr. Roy Spencer has not addressed either of these issues with his hypothesis, and therefore I conclude that we should not consider Dr. Spencer's research as legitimate.

Contention 2: CO2 in the atmosphere causes increased temperatures.
Acknowledging that carbon dioxide traps heat, and yet it has no correlation with increased global temperatures is both illogical and not scientific. Noting that global temperatures have always increased when carbon dioxide levels increase, how does my opponent explain the increase of global temperatures this time?

Also, arguing that global temperatures have been hotter in the past makes no sense. This is due to the fact that the earth was once essentially a ball of fire. For the case of the graph, however, the global temperatures that are 7.5 degrees Celsius higher than the present were during a time of natural warming. Modern days, we are technically in an ice age. This makes it even more impressive that are temperatures are increasing, and while it is possible that it is simply a natural interglacial period, however I will disprove this using Graph G.

Graph G:


This graph shows the global temperatures for the past 400,000 years. In every single interglacial period, the temperatures drop nearly instantly after the spike. However in the modern "interglacial period" the high temperatures have remained high and have not dropped following a spike. This implies that this is not a natural interglacial period and therefore must be considered that it is occurring due to human influence.

As for Dr. Don Eastbrook, I don't understand how he can claim that the earth is cooling while every graph suggests the contrary. For Dr. Jan Esper, does this not support global warming? If the earth is supposed to naturally cool, then how can it be explained that the earth is warming? It suggests that the earth is warming due to human actions as opposed to natural reasons.

For the graph presented, it is a generic graph which global warming skeptics often present. The problem with this graph is that the information is skewed to support the claim that the earth is cooling. Graph H represents how skeptics skew the data while Graph I presents how global warming believers view the data.

Graph H:


Graph I:


In Graph H, it is clear that the temperature pattern is increasing, however skeptics take a very small portion of the graph to "prove" that temperatures are decreasing. Graph I shows a more accurate representation of how global temperatures should be graphed.

The arctic ice increase is a far more controversial subject, however. There are two theories for why the sea ice is increasing, despite global warming. One theory involves an increase in wind due to the hole in the ozone layer. The theory states that with increased wind, the wind pushes more ice out into the ocean. Due to the ice being farther out in the ocean then the surrounding water cools and therefore freezes. This theory relies on global warming due to the fact that the increased winds are a result of ozone depletion, which is a result of increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere [2].

The second theory also relies on global warming, more specifically, increased sea levels. With an increased amount of warm water, the ice in the poles melts faster. This adds cool, fresh water into the ocean, which while does not lower temperatures to a freezing point, does create conditions suitable for freezing. Therefore, if temperatures decrease enough, the ocean will freeze over rapidly and farther out than in most situations [3].

In both of these situations, the increase in arctic ice relies on global warming, therefore disproving my opponents hypothesis that global warming cannot exist.

As for Al Gore, he obviously doesn't know what he is talking about, based on my and other scientists arguments.

Sources

[1] http://nineplanets.org...
[2] http://environment.nationalgeographic.com...
[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
lannan13

Con

Contention 1: CO2 increase from humans


My opponent states that CO2 levels have never been this high, but that is incorrect. I give you the above graph measuring the past 600 million years of CO2 levels are we are actually at an all time low. Now the website I got this from no longer has this page up so I appologize. We can see from observance of this graph that we being at all time CO2 low levles that we are nowhere close to meeting the impact that my opponent brings up. We have been over 5,000 ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere and are now currently around apprx. 350 ppm CO2 levels.



This chart above shows the CO2 and Earth's temperatures for the past 600 million years. My opponent's claims are incorect as we have had aburd levels of CO2 and temperature on Earth and may I ask how did we survive that? (http://www.sustainableoregon.com...)


My opponent tries to discard Dr. Spencer's evidence, because he doesn't appear to have a hypothesis, but that is not grounds to disqualify evidense as his findings were clear, so I extend them across the board.



Contention 2: CO2 in atmosphere = increased temperatures.


My opponent is under a great misconceptions as I acknowledge that CO2 traps heat, but I am simply arguing that Earth's temperature is not increasing, but is actually decreasing.


To counter my opponent's first graph I'll reitterate my first graph of C2 in my last round. To see what my opponent does not show you is that the span between 0 AD- Present and you'll see an almost constant temperature. Humans have been on Earth for millions of years and the fact that it's nearly constant from a non-industrial era where there were no machines what-so-ever to present shows that there is no major change that my opponent change.


My opponent question Dr. Eastbrock, but brings up no valid counterevidence other than Dr. Esper. Dr. Eastbrook naturally cools and ever since 2000 we have been in a cooling range. We have also seen how the IPP projections are incorrect.


My opponent then tries to blatantly claim that Global Warming evidence that I have provided is skewed, but if that is true let's look at a graph from 1975 to 2010 it appears to have a positive slope, but let's back track a little back and make it a 1920-2005 graph since it would seem that it would only make the graph appear to have a steeper positive slope, right? Well that is where we are wrong.

graph-Feb209_06_063302307128.gif

Here we see that the graph protrays a negative slope. (http://blog.chron.com...)

My opponent now brings up one theory relying on the Ozone hole and southern winds, but this is incorrect as the World Health Organization (WHO) has found that the Ozone is actually getting thicker and is expected to make a great recovery by 2025 due to the banning of Hydrocarbons. (http://www.express.co.uk...)

ozone


The graph above is raw satellite image data of the sea level rise over an 8 year period showing that there is little to no change in the Sea Levels rising. http://joannenova.com.au...) (The sea level rises, on average, about 3 inches per century and it has been found to not even been rising at all.


This graph is the sea levels off the cost of French Guyana which is one of the areas which is predicted to be flooded due to Global Warming, but as you can see by the graph (which goes to 2008) the sea level is currently on a downward trend. (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org...) The source is the PDF within the link.

I have disproved both situations.

Gore is one of the many who spread great awareness for Global Warming and he won the Nobel Peace Prize for it, but hen admitted that it's a scam to get money. That's a same.

THank you for a great debate and please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Double_R 2 years ago
Double_R
"How about Al Gore. The man who brought Global Warming to our attention? In 2009, the man breaks down in tears stating how it's nothing, but hot air and how he fabricated everything just for the money!"

Strange how no one else in the world seems to know about Al Gores stunning reversal, including Al Gore...
http://blog.algore.com...
Posted by Atheist-Independent 2 years ago
Atheist-Independent
Thanks for the detailed RFD, Spaceking.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
oh....wait...that's all of the debate. I didn't need a part five. Anyways, Lannan wins as I said before. Impressive achievement.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
RFD part 4
Lannan instantly starts out his round with a graph. He points out that there has been times where the CO2 in our atmosphere has been much, MUCH higher. He also tells us that, indeed, Dr. Spencer offered much evidence for his theory, and logically points out that we couldn't have survived in such "Absurd levels of CO2 and temp. on earth", as he says in his own words. He also points out AI's own errors within the IPP projections and goes all the way back to the 1920's (not just the 1975's!) and actually shows how on average there is a slight negative slope! This is excellent and justifies his position, as well as showing how AI was wrong. (seriously, he's just looking at 1975-2014, which is indeed increasing--but not at the bigger picture. The industrial revolution is obviously much longer than just 30 years.) Now, he goes on to how the WHO has found that the Ozone argument presented by AI is very incorrect, with the thickening of Ozone layer. He then concludes with the declination of the sea level, and even pointed out Gore's errors. (AI obviously didn't read the article or research about Al Gore, it shows how Al Gore cheated by trying to spread the "lie" of global warming while in reality he was just lying to get a Nobel Prize, as Al admitted)
Thus we have Lannan gaining a massive upper-hand right now with the coverage of overall global temperatures rather than pro's texas sharpshooters.
Just how does AI handle this problem? We shall see, in Part 5 of my RFD.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
RFD part 3
Back to Mr. Serious Independent. He shows with a graph the gradual and sudden increases within CO2 levels, then quickly goes back to graph b, talking about how Dr. Spencer failed to address this could-be-insanely-unlikely-coincidence, and rebuts back to lannan by referring back to the increase of global temperatures, and talks about how we're supposed to be in an ice age (explaining the overall decrease) while still managing to talk about the overall increase within modern age (explaining how much humans have contributed to the CO2 increase, especially how we influenced the inter-glacial period so much that there is no longer an instant drop, but rather staying at that same temperature. He then talks about how the graphs Lannan made were skewed and that in reality the temperatures are actually increasing (note how, Lannan is talking about over many many millinea while AI points out only the very recent times--Lannan clearly made a very obvious error and AI spotted it). He then talks about how the ozone layer could counter the effects of global warming and make it seem like G.W. has no effect on the arctic circle. He also elaborates on how the melting of the poles actually does still create situations good for freezing, and concludes with an accusation that Al Gore had no idea what he was talking about.
How does Lannan reply? Hold onto your seats, RFD part 4 is coming to answer that question for you.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
RFD part 2
The funny comic truly is funny. It's snowing and the global warming rally is postponed "due to cold weather". Lol. Now, he shows a research that hints at the fact that human really didn't contribute that much to the Co2 release due to the fossil fuels. He even shows that about 542 million years ago, it was 7.5 Celsius degrees HOTTER than we are now (huh, what a surprise!) And then goes on to talk about how even in recent years it's uncertain whether we are really warming or cooling, and even goes forth to talking about how over the loads of millenia, overall there is actually a COOLING TREND, with no warming involved. That's quite a surprise! In fact, he even showed that Antarctica INCREASED in size rather than melting and decreasing in size. He finally concludes with the facts that: Antarctic ice didn't melt, the temperatures are the same, and the sea level risings are the same. Excellent, excellent, this is exactly what Roy did in his debate (only in a more complex, higher level).
Don't go away, we'll be going back to AI in our 3rd part of our RFD soon.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
RFD Part 1
I've seen Roy do this debate on the con side as well. We'll see how lannan does. So, AI starts out with the greenhouse effect and shows what he has to do in the debate. He shows that indeed, fossil fuels are burned due to human activity and have a negative effect on CO2 emissions. Next, he goes to show us that indeed, CO2 does effect the temperature very clearly, and is the major reason for the rising temperature in the air. He then goes forth to give us yet another graph clearly showing us the relation of temperature to CO2 within the air. He concludes, confidently, that human beings are definitely the main cause of global warming, because they burn fossil fuel, releasing major Co2 into the air, causing the temperature to truly rise.

Let's see how Lannan is doing in part 2 of my RFD.
Posted by funnycn 2 years ago
funnycn
Con actually convinced me that Global warming doesn't exist. I used to think perhaps it did but we weren't causing it.
Posted by Soldier_of_Speech 2 years ago
Soldier_of_Speech
I agree global warming exsists. I also belive Al Gore should have became president against Bush. He is an enviromental scientist who understood the potential dangers of global warming. Just had to throw that out there😂
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
I would have done it tonight, but I had PT on top of a 10 page essay on politics.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Atheist-Independentlannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Voting in the comments. I gotta say, Con took a near-impossible side!