The Instigator
shelbih
Pro (for)
Losing
27 Points
The Contender
Curtispov11
Con (against)
Winning
33 Points

Global Warming Was NOT Caused By Humans

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/22/2007 Category: Science
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,490 times Debate No: 842
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (24)
Votes (20)

 

shelbih

Pro

Global warming is a natural phase of the Earth. Back in the Ice Age, the Earth melted the ice on its own. All of these scientists out there in this world are saying that humans caused global warming and we are all going to die some day because of it.

so are they saying that millions of years ago when cavemen were dominant, that they emitted harmful things into the enviroment? The Ice Age wasn't started because of them. And I can tell you that it didn't melt because of people either.

No, of course I am not saying that our car emissions and our factory emissions don't hurt the Earth at all; because they do. Of course the harmful emissions are not good for our planet. Yes, they are accelerating global warming and are speeding it up, but we as human beings did not cause this. This state that Earth is in is natural right now. The Earth goes through phases and we as humanity need to realize that.
Curtispov11

Con

it is acknowledged by the global warming theory that man is accelerating the process of the warming of the earth and that it is not ONLY due to human activity

so pretty much, by what you are saying in your statement, you agree with the global warming theory

so is this a debate?
Debate Round No. 1
shelbih

Pro

Yes, this is a debate.
You are just the wrong person to debate this topic with.
I was wanting to debate with someone who went against my theory.
Not someone who tried to correct me.
Curtispov11

Con

but you are confusing me...you agree that global warming is being sped up due to human actvity but you don't think that it is only because of human activity...which is called the global warming theory...so why would you say you disagree with it when you agree with it?
Debate Round No. 2
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
where your off is that Biofuels or EtOH both require photosynthesis and land, which is 1% efficient

keep doing research and you will learn

I applaud your efforts

solarman
Posted by HempforVictory 9 years ago
HempforVictory
"biofuels are OK at best , but very insignificant VERY"

Well, they may be insignificant now, but they are set for a rapid increase in usage. Actually, biodiesel consumption is already rising exponentially, and I would imagine than ethanol consumption is as well. Did you see the new energy bill Bush signed? It calls for an increase in ethanol six times by 2022, and most of it has to come from sources other than corn. When waste cellulose becomes a viable process for ethanol production(which I am currently doing research on, just started), it has the potential to replace 40% of gasoline.

However, biofuels from algae are going to make the biggest impact, at least in the short term. They are capable of fully replacing petroleum while requiring only a modest amount of non-arable land, and since they are producing biofuels like ethanol biodiesel, the infrastructure can remain pretty much the same.
Posted by HempforVictory 9 years ago
HempforVictory
No, I guess I didn't know what a fuel cell was. I thought it was simply a way of containing hydrogen, which would than be used in a combustion process.

As for uranium, it seems that the link you posted is simply speculating on the fact that there probably is more uranium, we just haven't found it yet because we haven't been actively exploring for it. But the fact still remains that there isn't enough uranium to power the plants we currently have, so until some massive deposit of uranium is discovered, there's no use in talking about increasing reliance on it. Besides, it's really no better than oil because it exists in limited a limited amount, we need renewable, sustainable energy! How do you mean "with fast breeders, you recycle it"? Is it actually possible to recycle uranium after using it?

You say the water thing is irrelevant, but you didn't answer my question. Water is certainly an issue if the process is going to require large amounts of fresh, clean water. Are the pollutants in Lake Michigan going to interfere with the rate at which you produce hydrogen?

How could I forget to address the PV argument? Well, the materials to build the batteries are very expensive, and there is a shortage in silicon production worldwide to meet the demand for PVs. The goal is to figure out the cheapest method of energy production that does not require non-renewable resources(like fossil fuels and uranium), and I don't think that PVs are the answer. There have been some recent experiments with using mirrors to focus sunlight onto a boiler and generate electricity using good old-fashioned steam turbines. I like this idea mainly because it doesn't rely on expensive materials.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
do you know what a fuel cell is?

the carnot efficiency, is Th-Tc/Th (in K) for combustion processes, fuel cells are electrochemical in nature

and no there is no shortage of Uranium, and with fast breeders, you recycle it

http://www.americanenergyindependence.com...

also you didnt address my PV argument (I am solarman after all)

and as far as the water thing goes- it is COMPLETELY irrelevant (water is 2/3 of the planet) and we would only need about 1/100 of lake michigan to make all the hydrogen for a year andit is returned as water vapor (or can be drunk as liquid)

biofuels are OK at best , but very insignificant VERY

cheers
Posted by HempforVictory 9 years ago
HempforVictory
Have you read my response to your debate on The Hydrogen Economy, you never responded to it.

"With Nukes, it is a piece of cake"

From what I've read, there is a global shortage of uranium. "Worldwide, uranium production meets only about 65 percent of current reactor requirements."

http://web.mit.edu...

No point in building more reactors if there's nothing to fuel them with.

"furthermore fuel cells are not limited by carnot"

really? how does that work? Carnot cycle means that the processes are internally reversible, correct? If they're not limited by the Carnot cycle than they'd be breaking the second law of thermodynamics.

"finally , water is not limited at all in this way,"
Well, you would likely need to use freshwater for the process, correct? And since you wouldn't be able to capture the water produced in an efficient manner(because that would require high pressure or cooling of the steam), the water emissions will dissipate into the atmosphere. It may be theorized then that the amount of rainfall with increase, and this is how the water would be returned to us. If all of that rain were to go right into the reservoirs, that would be great...but unfortunately it will mostly go into the sewers and runoff into rivers after mixing with surface pollutants - oils from the streets and fertilizers from the land. Ultimately, you are increasing the strain on water treatment plants and using up a large amount of freshwater, which there also happen to be global shortages of.

and there is NO other option that is renewable "

Just because ethanol from corn is a retarded idea only driven by politics and farm subsidies, doesn't mean that all biofuel is a bad idea. As I said in my other post, read into biodiesel from algae. I'll link you to some Journal articles on the subject if you like, I recently did a presentation on it for one of my classes.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
BTW, hemp man

read my previous debates oin this subject

EtOH is a unmitigated disaster!

take care

soalrman
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
Very good! another engineer!

Well, basically soalr energy and nuclear energy alone can meet your criteria

Photovoltaics make about 1 kW / m2 or about 10W / sf

Nuke plants are typically 1000 MW per reactor or more

Wind Generators are also typically 500 kW- 1 MW apiece

14.5 QUAD = quadrillion BTUs are 14.5 x 10 >15 BTU

1 Btu = 0.000 293 071 083 kilowatt hour

14.5 * 10 15 BTU = 4.25 * 10 > 12 kWh = 4.25 * 10> 9 MWh

OK so we only need 4.25 Billion megawatt hours

With SOLAR ALONE

there are about 1500 average sun hours

that would be 2.83 million MW of PV

100000 sf per MW or 0.1 M sf per MW

that is about 283,000 M sf of solar panels- easily done

With Nukes, it is a piece of cake

With Nukes for a base plant, PV and wind for peak , and the assorted other means, no problem

In terms of NG reformation, efficiencies can be higher than 75% , as can electrolysis, with catalyzed medium temp processes , if I remember correctly

furthermore fuel cells are not limited by carnot

finally , water is not limited at all in this way, and there is NO other option that is renewable

so lets get GOING!
Posted by HempforVictory 9 years ago
HempforVictory
Well aren't you lucky solarman, because I'm an engineer...

"it can be made of ANY source of electricity and water"

I'm aware of that, so I will rephrase my question for you. How do we produce enough electricity to produce all this hydrogen?

Let me put some things into perspective for you:

we use 320.5 million gallons of gasoline per day.
at an energy content of 124000 BTU/gallon, that's 14.5 quadrillion BTUs of energy/year contained in the gasoline that we use.

Total electricity usage is 80 quads/year, and about 50% of that comes from coal.

The most efficient method of producing hydrogen is with natural gas, with a production efficiency of 58%. The highest efficiency achieved through water electrolysis is 42%(and that's "unprecedented"). However, the vehichle efficiency is much better than gasoline, 38% compared to 16%. This results in a well-to-wheel efficiency of 22% for hydrogen(straight from thermodynamics text book, based on using natural gas). If we use electrolysis, it's actually a little bit less than the efficiency of gasoline, although that might just be rounding errors.

Thus, it would take 14.5 quads of electricity to produce enough hydrogen to fully replace gasoline(notice this doesn't include diesel). So where do we get all that, more than 18% of current consumption, extra electricity? Once that problem is solved, than we can start thinking about using hydrogen.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
hydrogen is the only answer

It can power cars, trucks, planes , anything

what do you think powers the space shuttle- liquid H2

it can be made of ANY source of electricity and water

it is inexhastible

it is a closed loop with water

thats why

feel free to look at a couple of my past debates- I can only encounter children for the most part who arent quailified to even begin to undersntand energy poilicy and engineering, but I am trying anyway

sooner or later we will get some adults, scientists, engineers and scholars on this site

take care

solarman
Posted by HempforVictory 9 years ago
HempforVictory
I think the best way to create incentives for sustainable energies is to place taxes on widely used nonrenewable energy sources. (i.e. fossil fuels) What is your suggestion for creating incentives for alternative energies?

Also, what is your infatuation with hydrogen? How do you suppose we produce all this hydrogen?
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Arnaud 8 years ago
Arnaud
shelbihCurtispov11Tied
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 
Vote Placed by HempforVictory 9 years ago
HempforVictory
shelbihCurtispov11Tied
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 
Vote Placed by dorobo 9 years ago
dorobo
shelbihCurtispov11Tied
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 
Vote Placed by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
shelbihCurtispov11Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by miraquesuave 9 years ago
miraquesuave
shelbihCurtispov11Tied
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 
Vote Placed by NSG 9 years ago
NSG
shelbihCurtispov11Tied
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 
Vote Placed by chugg 9 years ago
chugg
shelbihCurtispov11Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by shelbih 9 years ago
shelbih
shelbihCurtispov11Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by hark 9 years ago
hark
shelbihCurtispov11Tied
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 
Vote Placed by dairygirl4u2c 9 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
shelbihCurtispov11Tied
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:30