The Instigator
eltigrey
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
DanT
Con (against)
Winning
14 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 5 votes the winner is...
DanT
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/6/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,745 times Debate No: 18650
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (5)

 

eltigrey

Pro

I believe that Global Warming Exists

Rules:

Round 1 Acceptance

Round 2 Debate-No rebuttals, just your debate

Round 3 Rebuttal-You Can expand your debate, as well as countering your opponents

Round 4 Conclusion-Any Last words for voters, any last rebuttals

Good Luck

Debate Round No. 1
eltigrey

Pro

Global Warming (N.) an increase in the earth's average atmospheric temperature that causes corresponding
changes in climate and that may result from the greenhouse effect.

Studies show that in the last 100 years the earths average surface temperature has increased by 0.8 C (1.4 F). Most of this temperature rise is from the greenhouse gases produced by humans, such as burning fossil fuels. This warming is not only affecting land it is affecting the ocean also. Sea levels will slowly rise as the temperature increases, and if this isn't considered "warming" I don't know what is.

This temperature increase is also causing climate change.

Climate Change (N.) a long term change in the earth's climate, especially a
change due to an increase in the average atmospheric temperature

Climate change has greatly impinged our world today, and is continuing to do so. Climate change is one of the main causes for extreme weather. Extreme weather (heat waves, heavy rain, and droughts) is affecting species/animals that rely on there climate and ecosystem to survive. Taken from this article I read,


At least 70 species of frogs, mostly mountain-dwellers that had nowhere to go to escape the creeping heat, have gone extinct because of climate change the analysis says. It also reports that between 100 and 200 other cold-dependent animal species, such as penguins and polar bears are in deep trouble.


A lot of this hot temperature is issued from the hole in the ozone layer directly above this region.

Ozone (N.) a form of oxygen, O 3 , with a peculiar odor suggesting that ofweak chlorine,
produced when an electric spark or ultraviolet light is passed through air or oxygen. Itis found in the atmosphere in
minute quantities, especially after a thunderstorm,is a powerful oxidizing agent,
and is thus biologically corrosive.In the upper atmosphere,
it absorbs ultraviolet rays, there by preventing them from reaching the surface of the earth.
It is used for bleaching, sterilizing water, etc.


The immense amount of green house gases and fossil fuels are being produced are destroying the ozone layer, the only thing that is protecting us from the suns harmful rays, such as UV rays. The reason why this is so important is UV rays can do an immense amount of damage to human skin, causing skin damage, and cancer. The biggest hole in the ozone layer that has been recorded is 27.5 million sq Km, and is located in Antarctica. This backs up why most of the cold-dependant animals are dying, and it is because Antarctica is getting hit the worst by global warming.



Sources:

http://www.universetoday.com...

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

http://www.msnbc.msn.com...

http://dictionary.reference.com...



DanT

Con

One of the biggest Issues I have with "Global Warming" is that it is based on a CO2 model, which is highly contradictory to the nature of CO2. The second main problem, is that it ignores historical fact. The third problem is the oxymoron idea of a scientific consensus, used to silence the opposition.

The Toba Eruption changed the global climate, by blocking out the Earth's sun with CO2, and for 1,000 years after the eruption the Earth's climate became colder than the last glacier period.


The super volcano in Yellow Stone National Park is due to erupt and the effects would cause a new ice age greater than the Toba Eruption.


Ice core studies show that approximately 89,000 years ago the Earth's climate changed from a warmer climate to a cold climate, which scientist believe is due to volcanic eruptions.

Ice ages are not only caused by CO2, they are also caused by lack of sun spot activity, and Earth's orbit around the sun.

According to sea core studies in the last 700,000 years we have had 8 ice ages, caused by Earth's orbit around the sun. According to the sea cores, we are due for another ice age.


The moon also plays an active role in Earth's climate. The moon has been gradually drifting away from the Earth, weakening it's gravitational pull. The moon's drift away from Earth can cause weather pattern changes in Earth's climate.




There is no one reason for Earth's climate changes, and it has been changing for hundreds of billions of years. Out of those hundreds of billions of years, it has only been in recent decades that man has claimed responsibility for this natural cycle.

CO2 in the atmosphere does not cause the earth to heat up, but rather it causes the earth to cool down; even that requires allot more CO2 than what humans are contributing.

The whole idea of "Global Warming", or even "man made climate change" is nothing more than a show.

The fact that scientist are ridiculed by the public, the politicians, and the media, for not supporting this circus of an act, is within it's self unscientific.

One thing that bugs me the most about the whole global warming sham, is the idea of a scientific consensus. A scientific consensus is an oxymoron, because in science there is never an end to the question; other scientists are constantly challenging the theory, and the status quo.

At one point most scientist believed the sun traveled around the Earth. At another point in history they believed the Earth's orbit around the sun was a perfect circle. Both ideas was proved wrong, by a scientist questioning the status quo, and astronomy to this day is making breakthroughs about the nature of the universe. In fact now scientist believe we are actually living in one of many multiverses.

This is a great example, of the farce that is a scientific consensus, and how such a claim is opposite to that of the scientific process.
Debate Round No. 2
eltigrey

Pro


Rebuttals


" (Con) The super volcano in Yellow Stone National Park is due to erupt and the effects would cause a new ice age greater than the Toba Eruption."

There is no denying that there will be some sort of period in which the earth will get very cold, but that will not stop it from getting warmer. And, if the weather is harsh enough, to the point where it is not fit to walk, let say outside, down the street to the local supermarket, there is no doubt that us humans will have to resort to using more automated vehicles, or some sort of transportation mechanism, such as trains, and cars, that will release even more CO2 into our atmosphere.

" (Con) The whole idea of "Global Warming", or even "man made climate change" is nothing more than a show"

The burning of fossil fuels, and the immense amount of C02 that is being realised into our atmosphere that is destroying the Ozone layer, is one of the reasons for our global climate warming. We are the reason that the Ozone layer is being destroyed. We are the reason that the polar ice caps are melting, and the reason that animals that rely on the cold are dying.

" (Con) CO2 in the atmosphere does not cause the earth to heat up, but rather it causes the earth to cool down; even that requires allot more CO2 than what humans are contributing."

CO2 is defiantly not "cooling" down the atmosphere. The carbon dioxide that is released in the atmosphere stays there for about 100 to 200 years. This leads to an increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, which causes the Earths temperature to rise. If it is cooling the earth, tell me why are the polar ice caps melting.

" (Con) One thing that bugs me the most about the whole global warming sham, is the idea of a scientific consensus. A scientific consensus is an oxymoron, because in science there is never an end to the question; other scientists are constantly challenging the theory, and the status quo........At one point most scientist believed the sun traveled around the Earth. At another point in history they believed the Earth's orbit around the sun was a perfect circle. Both ideas was proved wrong, by a scientist questioning the status quo"

"Most scientists" believed the sun traveled around the earth because it was the 1600's and they lacked the instruments to interpretably observe the sky. Technology today has allowed for a huge jump in scientific fields, allowing for more accurate predictions, and a brighter look on the world today. When a topic, such as global warming, or climate change, is brought to the table, with a surplus amount of reasoning and proof, it is evident that such a thing could exist and not be disproved.


(Note: 4th round should be for conclusions, and any last words/rebuttals)

Sources: http://environmentalchemistry.com...


DanT

Con

My opponent claims, “and the immense amount of C02 that is being realised into our atmosphere that is destroying the Ozone layer” however the green house effect, and the ozone depletion are two separate theories. The so called, green house effect is supposedly caused by CO2, while the ozone depletion is supposedly caused by CFCs. The Ozone (O3) is made up of Green House Gasses.

According to a 4 year study by the UNEP and WMO, which ended in 2010, the hole in the Ozone Layer has stopped depleting.




My opponent claims, “We are the reason that the Ozone layer is being destroyed.”

This is false.

One issue that has never been explained is why the hole is in the wrong hemisphere. The hole is in Antarctica, but the northern Hemisphere pumps out the most CFCs, because it is far more industrial compared to the mostly uninhabited southern hemisphere.

Another issue is that CFC molecules, which are much heavier than air, are chemically stable, nontoxic, non-flammable, and nonexplosive. The ozone depletion theory contradicts the nature of CFCs, just as the green house effect contradicts the nature of CO2.

Well the claim about CFCs is that they break down in the atmosphere, causing the chlorine molecules to wreck havoc on the ozone. Of course CFCs are chemically stable, and heavier than air.

Air weighs 28.9645 g/mol

Oxygen weighs 15.9994 g/mol

CFCs weighs 43.0200 g/mol

CO2weighs 44.0096 g/mol

Volcanoes on the other hand pump millions of tons of chlorine into the atmosphere each year. In fact Mt. Erebus (the largest active volcano on earth), which is located in Antarctica, pumps more than 1,000 tons of chlorine a day into the atmosphere.

If chlorine is even responsible for the ozone depletion, it would more likely be caused by Mt. Erebus, rather than CFCs.

Elf Atochem (now Arkema) is one of the leading suppliers of CFC substitutes in the world. The company president said, “It is my understanding that the current theories are developed from modeling a series of chemical reactions that can neither be scientifically proven as occurring in the real world nor reproduced in a laboratory.”

Arkema makes money on green alternatives to CFCs and they don’t even believe in the ozone scare.

According to some Antarctic researchers the supposed hole was “most probably in existence at the time of the Shackleton expedition in 1909”, and that, “most probably, it is a natural phenomenon.”

My opponent asked, “tell me why are the polar ice caps melting

Between 1960 and 1980, Fred Wood found through studying about 400 to 450 mountain glaciers worldwide, that “advancing glaciers are shown to have increased from about 6 percent of observed glaciers to 55 percent.” This contradicts the idea of the industrial revolution causing glaciers to retreat.

The Greenland ice sheet (the largest glacier in the Northern Hemisphere) is actually growing in size rather than shrinking.

Now back to CO2; Gas bubbles trapped in Antarctic ice tell us that the temperature dropped before the CO2 concentration changed, not after. Therefore CO2 is not the cause of the temperature flux.

CO2 is not a pollutant, but rather a natural substance which is needed for life on earth.

It is common knowledge that CO2 is essential for plant growth. Plants take in CO2, and fix it in the form of carbohydrates in their roots, stems, and leaves. CO2 in current concentrations is what is known as a "limiting nutrient": there is currently so little of it in the atmosphere that plants cannot get enough.

Increasing the concentration of CO2 increases the growth of almost all plant species, and both laboratory and field experiments have demonstrated that plants flourish as CO2 concentration goes up. In reality oil companies could be considered “Green” because they help induce plant growth.

My opponent said, “Studies show that in the last 100 years the earth’s average surface temperature has increased by 0.8 C (1.4 F)”

However surface temperature is unreliable for tracking a global temperature fluxes; weather balloons or satellites are used for global readings, because surface readings are unreliable due to the heat island effect.

The heat island effect is when things in the local environment have an impact on the temperature, such as asphalt, concrete, and steal. The heat island effect is why cities are hotter than the surrounding urban neighborhoods.

This is also why atmospheric temperature readings from weather balloons and weather satellites both say that the earth is warming at a slow rate, while surface temperatures say it’s at a fast rate.

In the medieval warming period the temperature was around 1.5 °F warmer than it is today, so assuming the highly inaccurate surface temperatures was right, we would have another 100 years till we would be as warm as we were during the medieval warming period.

After the medieval warming period, we had what was known as a little ice age. According to NASA the little ice age lasted from 1550 AD to 1850 AD.

NASA also mentioned that there were 3 particularly cold intervals: one beginning around 1650 AD, another around 1770 AD, and the last in 1850 AD, each cold period was separated by intervals of slight warming.

One of the proposed causes of the little ice age was volcanic activity, which of course would contradict global warming theorist’s beliefs regarding CO2 and CFCs.

Debate Round No. 3
eltigrey

Pro

Magnificent job on your debate and rebuttals!

A quick question, How did you get images in your rebuttal?

I have been trying to do that for a while, but it has never seemed to work

Thanks for the great debate
DanT

Con

Thank you for a chance to debate this subject.

Here is a link to a thread I made on how to insert images into a debate; http://www.debate.org...;
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by DanT 5 years ago
DanT
WTF my pictures help illustrate the argument; not 1 picture is irrelevant.
The molecules show that CO2 is different than CFCs
Posted by DanT 5 years ago
DanT
I thought I coppied the sources from word, but I guess I didn't >.< Some of the sources are in the videos.
Posted by eltigrey 5 years ago
eltigrey
Did you have any sources you were supposed to post on round 3?

Seemed like an awful lot of information
Posted by DanT 5 years ago
DanT
look forward to your rebuttal.
Posted by DanT 5 years ago
DanT
OK thank, you. It's been cold lately where I live, and I was worried that it might frost tonight. I didn't want to lose power, before round 2.
Posted by eltigrey 5 years ago
eltigrey
My argumument is done to, Im just correcting and patching some areas
Posted by DanT 5 years ago
DanT
Anytime now. My 1st argument is typed out and ready.
Posted by Godsconvervativegirl 5 years ago
Godsconvervativegirl
oh, I guess not, lol! :)
Posted by Godsconvervativegirl 5 years ago
Godsconvervativegirl
I might accept your challenge, if I'm not too busy, lol
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by kkjnay 5 years ago
kkjnay
eltigreyDanTTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: argumentum verbosum fallacy by Con. Two page argument taken up by hour long videos and irrelevant pictures. If you look at Con's actual argument, it's about a paragraph long. Pro doesn't really refute it in the last round. Due to Con's fallacious argument, and the vote bomb below this, I will give Pro the 5 points. Pro already had better conduct and grammar.
Vote Placed by GaryBacon 5 years ago
GaryBacon
eltigreyDanTTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Although I still believe that global warming exists, Pro essentially gave up. Con gets the vote.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
eltigreyDanTTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: It is unclear what Pro meant by "conclusion." It seemed as though he wanted to summarize but no summary was given. With that Con's well-structured round 3 went unanswered. SG because Con had excellent presentation with all the pictures and graphs though personally I have no idea how the molecular structure of carbon contributed to his argument.
Vote Placed by dappleshade 5 years ago
dappleshade
eltigreyDanTTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: Despite personal disagreement, these were good arguments :)
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
eltigreyDanTTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Con concedes that there is global warming, but disputes how much and what is the cause. I think it's reasonable to equate "global warming" with "human-caused global warming crisis" but that understandng has to be spelled out, and Con gave no interpretation. Pro should have linked his references to claims; Con needed to link relevant references. With an indefinite resolution and poor use of evidence by both sides, I'll call it a draw.