The Instigator
jh1234l
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
Rayze
Con (against)
Losing
11 Points

Global Warming Exists

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 4 votes the winner is...
jh1234l
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/13/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,775 times Debate No: 26207
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

jh1234l

Pro

I'll define some words to avoid semantics.

Global warming: The rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century and its projected continuation. [1]

Greenhouse gas: A gas in an atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range.[2]

This is my actual argument:
"However, 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, despite the uptake of a large portion of the emissions through various natural "sinks" involved in the carbon cycle."[2]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which has been increasing. Greenhouse gases cause the greenhouse effect, which heats our planet up. CO2 exists naturally in our atmosphere and keeps the planet warm. Now that it is increasing, our planet will get warmer.

"The greenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all directions."[3]

And this chart shows the temperature is increasing: http://upload.wikimedia.org...

REFERENCES:
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Rayze

Con

I accept your challenge.

To also avoid semantics I will also define some terms

The Little Ice Age is a period between about 1300 and 1870 during which Europe and North America were subjected to much colder winters than during the 20th century. The period and can be divided in two phases, the first beginning around 1300 and continuing until the late 1400s. There was a slightly warmer period in the 1500s, after which the climate deteriorated substantially. -http://www.eh-resources.org...

Climate change: a significant and lasting change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns over periods ranging from decades to millions of years. It may be a change in average weather conditions, or in the distribution of weather around the average conditions. Climate change is caused by factors that include oceanic processes, variations in solar radiation received by Earth, plate tectonics and volcanic eruptions, and human-induced alterations of the natural world; these latter effects are currently causing global warming, and "climate change" is often used to describe human-specific impacts.

My argument;
While the phenomena of Climate change does occur in reality, to label the effect of said climate change as global warming would be false as climate change is not limited to merely human induced climate change.
A minority of scientists have spoken out against the existence of global warming such as Dr. Tim Ball a climatology Ph.D who was also skeptical of the so called Global Cooling in the 1970s. In addition the Earth is currently warming from a Little Ice Age (LIA), which would in turn refute claims that the Earth is heating up at an increasingly unnatural rate, as solar radiation will also influence the amount of heat trapped in the ozone layer. Also on a side note if the Little Ice Age had occurred during the 20th and 21st centuries, it would have been referred to as Global Cooling as the projections shown in http://www.eh-resources.org... would have shown a dramatic decrease during the final stages of the little ice age. This in turn also refutes the existence of global warming as the evidence cited in increasing temperatures are similar to the downward trend shown in the little ice age.
Debate Round No. 1
jh1234l

Pro

You also said that the little ice age was from 1300 and 1870 .
Here is your argument:
"While the phenomena of Climate change does occur in reality, to label the effect of said climate change as global warming would be false as climate change is not limited to merely human induced climate change.
A minority of scientists have spoken out against the existence of global warming such as Dr. Tim Ball a climatology Ph.D who was also skeptical of the so called Global Cooling in the 1970s. In addition the Earth is currently warming from a Little Ice Age (LIA), which would in turn refute claims that the Earth is heating up at an increasingly unnatural rate, as solar radiation will also influence the amount of heat trapped in the ozone layer. Also on a side note if the Little Ice Age had occurred during the 20th and 21st centuries, it would have been referred to as Global Cooling as the projections shown in http://www.eh-resources.org...... would have shown a dramatic decrease during the final stages of the little ice age. This in turn also refutes the existence of global warming as the evidence cited in increasing temperatures are similar to the downward trend shown in the little ice age."

Well, according to the chart from[1], there were still colder than normal years before 1976, however, the temperatures skyrocketed after that. You said that the little ice age was from 1300-1870, however the chart starts from after the little ice age!(1950)

You think that global warming is false because humans are not the only factors of climate change.
Climate change is just the climate changing, it could be warming or cooling, and it will still count as climate change. You are basically saying that "ham sandwich" is not a correct name because there are many other kinds of sandwiches.

Plus, on my first round I stated "Global warming: The rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century and its projected continuation." Where did you see it has to be man made in there?

Plus, the rate of the rise of the temperature is actually speeding up. "The linear warming trend over the last 50 years (0.13"C per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years."[2]

"The decade of 1998-2007 is the warmest on record, according to data sources obtained by the WMO."[2]

"An increasing rate of warming has taken place over the last 25 years. " [3]

Plus, the co2 levels and the temperature are rising at the same time, according to http://chartsgraphs.files.wordpress.com....

[1]upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Enso-global-temp-anomalies.png
[2]http://www.sciencedaily.com...
[3]http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com...
Rayze

Con

Basically my opponent's rebuttal is,
"You think that global warming is false because humans are not the only factors of climate change.
Climate change is just the climate changing, it could be warming or cooling, and it will still count as climate change. You are basically saying that "ham sandwich" is not a correct name because there are many other kinds of sandwiches." and "Plus, on my first round I stated "Global warming: The rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century and its projected continuation." Where did you see it has to be man made in there?"

My opponent is committing an informal fallacy called Onus probandi.
"Onus probandi " from Latin "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat" the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion." -http://en.wikipedia.org...

"The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law."-Tim Ball

The controversy surrounding the existence of global warming is denoted from the effects of human induced climate change, such as the green house effect in my opponent's evidence from Wikipedia, "... Strengthening of the greenhouse effect through human activities is known as the enhanced (or anthropogenic) greenhouse effect.[20] This increase in radiation forcing from human activity is attributable mainly to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels..."

In addition my opponent is deliberately ignoring the other green house gases of ozone, methane, and water vapor. This deliberate omission of the other gases would imply that the existence of global warming would be man made as CO2 is a byproduct of consuming fossil fuels in cars, and . Also when these gases are ranked by their direct contribution to the greenhouse effect, Water vapor is ranked first contributing 36-76% to the green house effect whereas CO2 is ranked second contributing 9-26% to the green house effect.

My opponent is also misinterpreting the data of the final stages of the Little Ice Age, though that is expected because the extreme drop occurred in a span of approximately 200 years and the graph does not go to a smaller set.

Therefore my opponent's rebuttals are false, and connote the existence of human induced climate change instead of the existence of a natural climate change that may or may not be accelerated by human activity.
Debate Round No. 2
jh1234l

Pro

1. "In addition my opponent is deliberately ignoring the other green house gases of ozone, methane, and water vapor."
This does not prove that global warming is false. CO2 levels are rising [1], while the others are not changed. And co2 is a greenhouse gas, which means that the globe still warms.
For example, if person A did a project with 2 others though they didn't help person A, you will say that person A's project is nonexistent.

2."The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law."-Tim Ball

Just because someone questions a theory means that the theory is wrong. This is flawed logic. Plus, CO2 is not just assumed that it is greenhouse gas, it is one. " In the earth's atmosphere, it acts as a greenhouse gas which plays a major role in global warming and anthropogenic climate change. " [2]

And you "deliberately ignored" this part of my last claim:
"The decade of 1998-2007 is the warmest on record, according to data sources obtained by the WMO. An increasing rate of warming has taken place over the last 25 years. Plus, the co2 levels and the temperature are rising at the same time"

Plus, Tim Ball, which is someone you cite, is actually backed by oil companies!

"Ball is a Canadian climate change skeptic and was previously a "scientific advisor" to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science."
"On January 10, 2011, Canada Free Press began publishing on this website an article by Dr. Tim Ball entitled Corruption of Climate Change Has Created 30 Lost Years which contained untrue and disparaging statements about Dr. Andrew Weaver, who is a professor in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, British Columbia. Ten days later, Canada Free Press issued a full apology to Dr. Weaver and retracted Ball's article."[3]

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://www.sourcewatch.org...
Rayze

Con

It seems that my opponent is also rather gullible in these debates. While I apologise for setting up the quote by Tim Ball to distract my opponent, I am rather pleased by the result of his vehement response which underlies the logical fallacy Post hoc ergo propter hoc Latin for "after this, therefore because of this" (false cause, coincidental correlation, correlation without causation) " X happened then Y happened; therefore X caused Y. In other words because he used to advise oil companies then his credibility is false because he used to advise oil companies. Which is flawed logic. In addition "On January 10, 2011, Canada Free Press began publishing on this website an article by Dr. Tim Ball entitled Corruption of Climate Change Has Created 30 Lost Years which contained untrue and disparaging statements about Dr. Andrew Weaver, who is a professor in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, British Columbia. Ten days later, Canada Free Press issued a full apology to Dr. Weaver and retracted Ball's article." would be the perfect example of hubris over one's own ideals as Tim Ball over stepped his boundaries as have. One that often happens to many idealists and skeptics who are passionate about their ideals.

My opponents contention, "The decade of 1998-2007 is the warmest on record, according to data sources obtained by the WMO. An increasing rate of warming has taken place over the last 25 years. Plus, the co2 levels and the temperature are rising at the same time" can not be used due to a variety of lurking variables within the data, such as the amount of consumption of fossil fuels, population increase, the amount of heat that enters the Earth via solar radiation, and other variables. In addition the studies do not prove nor disprove the phenomena of global warming as the phenomena of a world scale would have to be complex rather than simple as my opponent contends.
In addition the general consensus is also following that of the previously mentioned global cooling controversy which was replaced by the current global warming controversy.

In addition my opponent's rebuttal "if person A did a project with 2 others though they didn't help person A, you will say that person A's project is nonexistent." is a straw man fallacy. My opponent could have answered that other green house gases such as methane have also increased yet not at a significant rate, or could have stated something between the lines of CO2 may exceed water vapor in terms of contribution to the green house effect. Therefore my opponents rebuttal is void.
Debate Round No. 3
jh1234l

Pro

"In addition my opponent is deliberately ignoring the other green house gases of ozone, methane, and water vapor. This deliberate omission of the other gases would imply that the existence of global warming would be man made as CO2 is a byproduct of consuming fossil fuels in cars, and . Also when these gases are ranked by their direct contribution to the greenhouse effect, Water vapor is ranked first contributing 36-76% to the green house effect whereas CO2 is ranked second contributing 9-26% to the green house effect."

Well, according to [1], water vapor is increasing too.

The Earth's atmospheric methane concentration has increased by about 150% since 1750. The major source of methane is extraction from geological deposits known as natural gas fields, with coal seam gas extraction becoming a major source.[2]

The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere has reached 395 ppm (parts per million) by volume as of June 2012 and rose by 2.0 ppm/yr during 2000"2009.[3]

So all those gases are increasing!

"My opponents contention, 'The decade of 1998-2007 is the warmest on record, according to data sources obtained by the WMO. An increasing rate of warming has taken place over the last 25 years. Plus, the co2 levels and the temperature are rising at the same time' can not be used due to a variety of lurking variables within the data."

No sources, no citations, not much other than "because it is so complex". So this rebuttal is void.

"It seems that my opponent is also rather gullible in these debates. "

Well, this is my first time debating a topic this serious. (my last topic was about tap water vs. bottled water) So I am not so experienced.

[1]http://upload.wikimedia.org...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Rayze

Con

Before I conclude and refute my opponent, I would first like to thank my opponent for an excellent debate after 2 dreary debates that led to no contest. My opponent has allowed me to experiment with my arguments such as the misleading quote by Tim Ball, and allow me to argue against an issue which I believe in. (No this does not mean I am conceding, I am showing that I am trying to argue both sides of the issue)

While the increase of gases is true the cause of the gas increases are often what is debated.
My opponent cites Wikipedia.org for scientific evidence, while convenient and resourceful at times can not address the possible lurking variables I have listed when taking such a massive study such as monitoring increase of carbon dioxide. My opponents statistics do not address the possibility of such lurking variables when normally when such studies are conducted they provide evidence satisfying skeptics of the validity of the results. Such as for example the study of sitting too long, "The data was collected as part of Australia's 45 and Up Study, a large, ongoing study of healthy aging. Strikingly, the elevated risks for dying from all causes remained even after taking into account participants' physical activity, weight and health status." -http://news.yahoo.com...

But I digress, my opponent's arguments are well written and well searched, but they are essentially lacking the crucial evidence needed to show that the data found in my opponent's source addresses the confounding variable of these studies.

Therefore I urge a con vote on the debate.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by nextobama21 4 years ago
nextobama21
ture the earth is warming. is it 100% due to human facts? some contribution has been made by humans. is a drastic climate change or warming or cooling of the earth normal or been seen in the past? of course!!!!!!! the sharah desert one of the hottest places on earth at the moment was once a lush and extremely wet jungle!!!!!!!!! also explain the ice age????? i due believe that the earth is warming? i do think we should stop polluting. do i think we should start rioting in the streets blaming the climate change on humans? absolutly not and i would GLADLY GRAB ARMS AND STOP THOSE RIOTING
Posted by jh1234l 4 years ago
jh1234l
It was a fun debate! I think that it looks like not much people want to vote though. (Only TWO votes so far!)
Posted by Rayze 4 years ago
Rayze
It was great debating against you, jh1234l!
Hope the better debater wins.
Posted by dlgodbout 4 years ago
dlgodbout
There are two things in this debate, human caused global warming and natural periodical global warming.
Posted by bencbartlett 4 years ago
bencbartlett
A better definition of global warming would be the steady increase in global temperature due to human activity. I don't think anyone is going to debate the actual temperature readings with you, only the cause of said readings.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
jh1234lRayzeTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither party made highly convincing arguments, nor really got much of anywhere. In fact, I would have awarded none but reliable sources, which I gave the Pro for listing 3.5 times the number of sources. However, Con urged for a Con-vote, which is an instant contrary on Conduct, in my book.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 4 years ago
Ore_Ele
jh1234lRayzeTied
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:34 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering Ashley Perez until an RFD is provided. If one is, or if her vote is removed, please PM me to remove the counter.
Vote Placed by martianshark 4 years ago
martianshark
jh1234lRayzeTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was far more logical, and I believe he deserves the conduct and arguments points. Pro seems to have used more sources to prove his point, so I will award him with that. S/G was tied.
Vote Placed by ashleyperez123 4 years ago
ashleyperez123
jh1234lRayzeTied
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:43