The Instigator
Juan_Pablo
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
leonardlewis4
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Global Warming is Happening!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 2 votes the winner is...
Juan_Pablo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/28/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,564 times Debate No: 36070
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (32)
Votes (2)

 

Juan_Pablo

Pro

Global Warming is happening! Over the last decades, Earth scientists around the world have evaluated pools of atmospheric, geographic, and oceanic data to reach the same conclusion: the Earth's surface is getting warmer. Besides registering a constant increase in the Earth's average surface temperature decade after decade, scientists also show that the world's sea levels are rising 3.16 mm per year (and have risen a total of 8 inches over the last century!) as a result, a course which will cause dry land to be lost to the ocean as time passes [1].

The Earth's warming trend is causing artic sea ice to disappear at a rate of 11.5% per decade. In 1996 satellite observations showed that there was 79 million square kilometers of sea ice in the Artic Ocean in the month of September (the warmest month at the Artic pole); in September of 2012, satellite observations recorded the lowest quantity of Artic sea ice on record - a dismal 3.61 million square kilometers, less than half of what was recorded in 1996 [2].

Global warming is also causing dry land ice to disappear. NASA's Grace satellites "show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica and Greenland are losing mass. The continent of Antarctica has been losing more than 100 cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice per year since 2002" [3]. Alarmingly, satellite imagery shows colossal chunks of Antartica falling into the ocean, and monumental glaciers evaporating over the course of a mere decade!

Most shocking of all, Earth scientists warn that the trend is getting worse! From 1870 to 2000, for example, (since scientists have been recording measurements) oceanic sea levels rose on average 1.7 mm per year; from 1993 to present, oceanic sea levels have risen 3.16 mm per year - nearly double the average over the last century [4]!

And what is responsible? What is the culprit in this Earth-transforming trend? Though natural events like erupting volcanoes and biological respiration can be shown to contribute to global warming, scientists are now 90% certain that the increase in atmospheric temperatures is caused by exploding concentrations of green house gases caused by human activity [5]. Volcanoes and biological respiration release green house gas (in the form of carbon dioxide) into the atmosphere. However, concensus in the scientific community is that land and submarine volcanoes release (at maximum) approximately 1% of all the CO2 emitted by humans in the course of a year. The Burning of fossil fuels, such as coal and gasoline, large-scale deforestation, and the emission of methane by ammonia-based fertilizers (used in human agriculture) contribute primarily to the Earth's worsening warming trend. By and large, measurements show that CO2 is the primary culprit in manmade global warming.

Nature uses green house gases to facilitate heat trapping from the sun's rays to warm the Earth and make biological life on the planet possible. But if the concentrations of green house gases in the atmosphere become excessive, this can overheat the planet, alter the Earth's climate system, injure natural ecosystems, and make it harder for biological processes to take place and be maintained. Largely because of the industrial revolution, CO2 levels are at the higest they've ever been in the last 400,000 years - and they continue to climb. Research using ice cores shows that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is now 33% higher today than it has ever been in the last half million years [6]. The concentration is almost double today than the average over the last 400,000 years - and it continues to get worse [7].


Purpose


In this debate I will argue that Global Warming is real and almost certainly manmade. My opponent will argue that global warming is either (1) false, (2) real but not manmade. He will support his position with evidence, reliable sources, and descredit mine.

He should begin his argument in ROUND 1.

Good luck!



[1] [2] [3] [4] [6] [7] http://climate.nasa.gov...

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
leonardlewis4

Con

Accepted.

IPCC is already under severe criticism for violating the requirements of academic peer review and relying on secondary sources.[1]

Climate change itself is already in the process of definitively rebutting climate alarmists who think human use of fossil fuels is causing ultimately catastrophic global warming.[2] That is because natural climate cycles have already turned from warming to cooling, global temperatures have already been declining for more than 10 years, and global temperatures will continue to decline for another two decades or more.

Check out the 20th century temperature record, and you will find that its up and down pattern does not follow the industrial revolution"s upward march of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), which is the supposed central culprit for man caused global warming (and has been much, much higher in the past). It follows instead the up and down pattern of naturally caused climate cycles.

For example, temperatures dropped steadily from the late 1940s to the late 1970s. The popular press was even talking about a coming ice age. Ice ages have cyclically occurred roughly every 10,000 years, with a new one actually due around now.

In the late 1970s, the natural cycles turned warm and temperatures rose until the late 1990s, a trend that political and economic interests have tried to milk mercilessly to their advantage. The incorruptible satellite measured global atmospheric temperatures show less warming during this period than the heavily manipulated land surface temperatures.

Central to these natural cycles is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). Every 25 to 30 years the oceans undergo a natural cycle where the colder water below churns to replace the warmer water at the surface, and that affects global temperatures by the fractions of a degree we have seen. The PDO was cold from the late 1940s to the late 1970s, and it was warm from the late 1970s to the late 1990s, similar to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).

In 2000, the UN"s IPCC predicted that global temperatures would rise by 1 degree Celsius by 2010. Was that based on climate science, or political science to scare the public into accepting costly anti-industrial regulations and taxes?

Don Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University, knew the answer. He publicly predicted in 2000 that global temperatures would decline by 2010. He made that prediction because he knew the PDO had turned cold in 1999, something the political scientists at the UN"s IPCC did not know or did not think significant.

Well, the results are in, and the winner is".Don Easterbrook. Easterbrook also spoke at the Heartland conference, with a presentation entitled "Are Forecasts of a 20-Year Cooling Trend Credible?" Watch that online and you will see how scientists are supposed to talk: cool, rational, logical analysis of the data, and full explanation of it. All I ever see from the global warming alarmists, by contrast, is political public relations, personal attacks, ad hominem arguments, and name calling, combined with admissions that they can"t defend their views in public debate.

Easterbrook shows that by 2010 the 2000 prediction of the IPCC was wrong by well over a degree, and the gap was widening. That"s a big miss for a forecast just 10 years away, when the same folks expect us to take seriously their predictions for 100 years in the future. Howard Hayden, Professor of Physics Emeritus at the University of Connecticut showed in his presentation at the conference that based on the historical record a doubling of CO2 could be expected to produce a 2 degree C temperature increase. Such a doubling would take most of this century, and the temperature impact of increased concentrations of CO2 declines logarithmically. You can see Hayden"s presentation online as well.

Because PDO cycles last 25 to 30 years, Easterbrook expects the cooling trend to continue for another 2 decades or so. Easterbrook, in fact, documents 40 such alternating periods of warming and cooling over the past 500 years, with similar data going back 15,000 years. He further expects the flipping of the ADO to add to the current downward trend.

We are also currently experiencing a surprisingly long period with very low sunspot activity. That is associated in the earth"s history with even lower, colder temperatures.

The IPCC violates many of the rules and procedures required for scientific forecasting, making its projections of little use to policymakers.[3]

[1] http://heartland.org...
[2] http://www.forbes.com...
[3] http://heartland.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Juan_Pablo

Pro

My opponent's position is the following:

"Climate change itself is already in the process of definitively rebutting climate alarmists who think human use of fossil fuels is causing...catastrophic global warming. That is because natural climate cycles have already turned from warming to cooling; global temperatures have already been declining for more than 10 years, and global temperatures will continue to decline for another two decades or more." He goes on to assert (not present) data to justify this view.

My opponent also adds:

"We are also currently experiencing a surprisingly long period with very low sunspot activity. That is associated in the earth"s history with even lower, colder temperatures." He continues to boldly claim that the Earth's surface temperature is cooling - not warming.

To discredit the world's foremost authority on climate change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is made up of 195 member nations and evaluates scientific data to determine the extent and ramifications of climate change [1], my opponent states this: "The IPCC violates many of the rules and procedures required for scientific forecasting, making its projections of little use to policymakers." In other words the IPCC is not to be trusted!

Without presenting any data (except links to the Heartland Instititute, which describes itself as a "free-market promoting" organization skeptical of global climate change [2]), my opponent boldly claims that the Earth's surface is currently cooling (not warming).

This despite graphic data by the IPCC showing that most of the Earth's surface experienced an increase in temperature between 0.2 and 1.0 degree celsius between 1970 and 2004 (some places experienced a greater temperature increase, few places saw a temperature decrease):

IPCC - global temperature changes (1970 -2004)

North America in particular has seen a dramatic increase in temperature (about 1 degree celsius) between 1955 to 2005, as depicted here (with some locations observing a more severe increase):

IPCC - North American temperature change (1955 - 2005)
To affirm the IPCC's data on the global temperature trend, data from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) shows that with comparison to the base year 1945 (taken as the surface temperature average), temperatures have been increasing since 1910, and have been increasing more rapidly over the last 3 decades [3]. This data "agrees with other global temperature records provided by the U.S. National Climatic Data Center, the Japanese Metereological Agency and the Met Office Hadley Center" [4].

Since the base year 1945, the Earth's average surface temperature has risen by 0.56 degrees celsius; since 1910, the Earth's average surface temperature has risen by 1.02 degress celsius [5]. Despite my opponent's claims that temperatures are now plummeting (since the "late 1990s") NASA shows that 2012 was the 9th warmest year on record, with the years 1998, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010 only being hotter - and the hottest years being 2010, 2005, 2007 (in that order) [6]. Data shows no reversal in the Earth's average temperature change, toward the 1945 base year average. My opponent may want to slyly argue that 1998 saw hotter temperatures than six years in the first decade of the 2000s, but 1998 was an outlier (and the hottest of the previous century), but four very recent years were hotter!

Con (my opponent) asserts that the Earth's surface is now cooling, but data I presented in ROUND 1 shows that the effects of global warming are not halting. Satellite data shows that 2012 had the lowest quantity of Artic Sea Ice on record - a shocking 3.62 million square kilometers, or less than 50% of the quantity recorded in 1980 [7]!

NASA's Grace satellites "show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica and Greenland are losing mass. The continent of Antarctica has been losing more than 24 cubic miles of ice per year since 2002" [8]. Nope, the Earth's still getting hotter and Antartica is still losing mass. Huge chunks of it in fact.

Data from NASA missions Jason-1, Jason-2/OSTM shows oceanic sea levels rising on average 3.16 mm per year 9from 1993 to 20130; this is nearly twice the oceanic sea level increase from 1870 to 2000 [9].

In spite of my opponent's declarations, global surface temperatures are increasing and have not halted in this trend over the last decade. The effects of global warming continue to be felt and show no sign of stopping. Sea levels are rising, coastal land is disappearing, polar sea ice is vanishing, land ice is melting.

And the greenhouse gas with the most radiative impact in the atmosphere - CO2 - continues to be churned out at crippling levels [10]. Year after year the concentration only increases and the Earth warms [11].



[1] http://ipcc.ch...

[2] http://heartland.org...

[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] http://climate.nasa.gov...

[11] http://en.wikipedia.org...
leonardlewis4

Con

leonardlewis4 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Juan_Pablo

Pro

My opponent failed to respond to my arguments in ROUND 2. Though I was expecting a lively debate, I totally understand his position. It's difficult to argue with a variety of scientific evidence - collected and evaluated by renown global institutions - that point to the same conclusion: global warming is happening, and it is gradually alterning life on this planet.

In ROUNDS 1 and 2 I presented evidence, collected by various atmospheric-, geographic-, and oceanic-researching institutions, that demonstrates the Earth's surface temperatures are increasing, that ocean sea levels are rising, that land and sea ice are disappearing. Now I will show the human connection to global warming. I will demonstrate that, since the boom of the industrial revolution, humans have increased the concentration of carbon dioxide - a heat-trapping green house gas - in the atmosphere, to levels never reached before on Earth in the last 400,000 years! I will also show that, historically, whenever CO2 levels have risen in the Earth's atmosphere, it has typically been accompanied with a global warming spell - and that this link between warming and elevated CO2 levels is the current model used by climatologists to explain many prehistoric warming ages.

Let's begin.

Scientists that study prehistoric ice ages and warming ages point out that carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by geologic activity or other natural events has consistently led to warming trends in Earth's history. For example, the Ice Age that stretched during most of the Cryogenian Period (840 - 635 million years ago) had the potential to cover the entire globe and would have been a major setback for biological life and evolution in general had it been this severe. Scientists that study the period point out that this extreme condition never occured because, as the Earth froze, atmospheric oxygen was forced into the oceans, which oxidized organic matter and released CO2 into the atmosphere, preventing temperatures from falling any lower [1]. Presently scientists have no other plausible model to explain how the atmosphere was able to maintain warmth while the Earth froze [2]. Scientists also point out that a rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations have led to prehistoric Warming Ages. 55 million years ago, the Earth entered a sudden and rapid global warming event, which scientists call the the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). Analysis firmly demonstrates that the quantity of carbon and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rose significantly at the beginning of this period [3] [4]. The increasing concentration of CO2 is considered the chief reason why the atmosphere warmed so rapidly during PETM [5] [6]. Ice core analysis also attributes the end of the last ice age to an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels[7].

That carbon dioxide is a heat-trapping greenhouse gas is sound; its heat-trapping effects have been studied in laboratories throughout the world [8]. Its contribution to prehistoric global warming has long been understood, even before the concept of man-made global warming entered the imagination [9].

But with the boom of the industrial revolution, which continues to expand into and dominate new countries on a yearly basis, human-induced global warming - through such actions as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation - has led to an unprecendented increase in CO2 concentrations. Never in the last 400,000 years has the CO2 concentration been quite so high. As I reported in ROUND 1, ice core analysis shows that in the last half-million years the peak concentration of CO2 was almost 300 parts per million - and that was 300,000 years ago [10]. Today the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is 396 parts per million! Nearly 33% higher than it has ever been in the last half-million years [11]!

Nine in 10 scientists agree that human activity is responsible for today's global warming trend [12].

Some skeptics claim that erupting land and submarine volcanoes are causing global warming. But reports by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) shows that volcanoes primarily emit gases, like sulfur dioxide, at high enough concentrations so as to encourage global cooling [13]. In fact, the USGS takes the position that erupting volcanoes typically emit gases that are more likely to lead to global cooling[14]! The USGS asserts that CO2 emission by human activity dwarfs the output of CO2 by all volcanoes worldwide [15].


[1] [2] http://news.softpedia.com...
[3] [5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] [6] http://smithsonianscience.org...
[7] http://www.livescience.com...
[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[10] [11] http://climate.nasa.gov...
[12] see Round 1
[13] [14] [15] http://volcanoes.usgs.gov...
leonardlewis4

Con

Satellite measurements of infrared radiation pertaining to sea surface temperature have only been collected since 1967... And BTW, sea surface temperature is not an indicator of man-made warming because of the periodic churning of colder or warmer water to the surface in cycles. Even Global Warming advocates will tell you that... That's one of the causes they credit for the actual cooling that has been happening for over a decade... "Well, we would be measuring warming if the cold water hadn't been churning to the surface".

Since 1978 Microwave sounding units (MSUs) on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration polar orbiting satellites have measured the intensity of upwelling microwave radiation from atmospheric oxygen, which is proportional to the temperature of broad vertical layers of the atmosphere.

Satellites do not measure temperature. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature. The resulting temperature profiles depend on details of the methods that are used to obtain temperatures from radiances. As a result, different groups that have analyzed the satellite data have produced differing temperature datasets... The satellite series is not fully homogeneous - it is constructed from a series of satellites with similar but not identical instrumentation. The sensors deteriorate over time, and corrections are necessary for orbital drift and decay. Particularly large differences between reconstructed temperature series occur at the few times when there is little temporal overlap between successive satellites, making intercalibration difficult. [1]

In other words, you can make the data say whatever you want depending on the scam you're running...

The collection of surface temperature data is more complicated than looking at a thermometer and recording a temperature... Intellectually honest people understand this.


The claims for or against "Global Warming" (or is it "Climate Change"???) each require very complex man-made models of interpretation and forecasting based on data collected from widely disparate sources and simulations of data to fill the gaps where information is lacking.

Again, based on the VERY SELECTIVE inclusion/exclusion of data used by any given model, the data can "say" whatever you want it to "say".

Read for yourself regarding instrument decay, etc... Also, NASA and NOAA admit this when you dig deep enough.

Lastly, your claims that we have been warming in the last decade are false. You pick two years (a relatively cold one from the 70's and a relatively warm one like 2012) and then extrapolate a trend. However, if you take all of the data from all of the years, averaged, you find that there is no upward trend. We are actually cooling! [2]

Moreover, when you take into account urban encroachment upon land-based temperature sensors, you find that focused, local bias of these temperatures (which averaged in with the measurements from the rest of the country) throw the results way off (giving the appearance of higher global temperatures). According to NASA:

"Development produces heat islands by replacing vegetation, particularly forests, with pavement and other urban infrastructure. This limits plant transpiration, an evaporative process that helps cool plant leaves and also cools air temperatures, explained Robert Wolfe of Goddard, one of the scientists who developed the method.

Dark city infrastructure, such as black roofs, also makes urban areas more apt to absorb and retain heat. Heat generated by motor vehicles, factories, and homes also contributes to the development of urban heat islands." [3]

"
As has been well documented, global warming has gone AWOL and in some regions of the world, global cooling trends have materialized, which scientists across the world are starting to express concern with. In the key crop regions of the U.S., there has been an extended cooling trend that persists despite the immense human CO2 emissions released over the last two decades. [The four] NOAA charts (below) depict those cooling trends across the a wide swath of American agricultural production. These charts represent the main American corn, soybean, spring and winter wheat growing areas.

What the huge U.S. breadbasket needs at this point is a few years of some good old fashioned global warming that will reverse the potential devastation a mass cooling would deliver to crop yields." [4]


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://c3headlines.typepad.com...

[3] http://www.nasa.gov...

[4] http://www.c3headlines.com...


According to NOAA:









Inconvenient indeed!

Debate Round No. 3
Juan_Pablo

Pro

My opponent's arguments in ROUND 3 will be criticized on a point by point basis, to demonstrate the the desperation of his position and the futility of his arguments.

Let's begin by evaluating what he argues about land-based temperature readings:

"When you take into account urban encroachment upon land-based temperature sensors, you find that...local temperatures...throw the results way off (giving the appearance of higher global temperatures)." To reinforce this specific point, he then quotes the NASA website: "Development produces heat islands by replacing vegetation, particularly forests, with pavement and other urban infrastructure."

His position here is that land-based temperature readings are unreliable because urban development (concrete and pavement and other components of city-dwelling) traps more heat than the natural, unaltered Earth. The NASA website he uses as his source provides greater detail: "summer land surface temperature of cities in the Northeast [United States] were an average of 7 °C to 9 °C warmer than surrounding rural areas over a three year period...new research shows." The NASA source then goes on to explain that the increasing use of satellite technology has helped researchers to better compare urban heat islands to each other and their surrounding environments, though it has long been known that cities trapped more heat than their surroundings [1].

Here my opponent is implying (which the NASA website does not) that global warming can be entirely attributed to urban heat islands which are throwing off accurate temperature readings, at least on land. Nevermind that the NASA website also has a lengthy EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE page to demonstrate what global warming is doing to Arctic ice levels, land ice quantities, and to sea levels. Unlike my opponent, the NASA website asserts that global warming is a real phenomenon impacting the globe.

And how is global warming impacting the globe?

Data from NASA's Grace satellites show a consistent trend of disappearing land ice on Antartica and Greenland (besides the reduction in glaciers elsewhere) [2]:

Soon the only land ice you'll be seeing is in your refridgerator!

Satellite observations also show Arctic sea ice plummeting. Latest measurements in 2012 show that the quantity of Arctic sea ice is now half of what it was in 1980 [3]:

Disappearing Arctic Sea Ice.

And satellite sea level measurements show oceanic sea levels rising rapidly - with the trend accelerating in the last two decades [4]:


Rising oceanic sea levels.

NASA points out that increasing sea levels is caused by two factors: "the added water coming from the melting of land ice, and the expansion of sea water as [the Earth] warms" [5]. As you can see, NASA takes the issue of global warming seriously, and the impacting effects negate the notion that global warming is only a metropolitan heat Island phenomena.

But of course my opponent was never going to believe the "scam" that the rest of the NASA website is trying to pull on him. As he states in ROUND 3, "Again, based on...VERY SELECTIVE inclusion/exclusion of data used by any given model, the data can 'say' whatever you want it to 'say'". He also reminds us of this fact a little earlier: "in other words, you can make the data say whatever you want depending on the scam you're running."

Conveniently he takes this position with regards to satellite readings and measurements:

"Satellites do not measure temperature. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature...the sensors deteriorate over time." In other words we can't trust satellites because they're complicated and they fall apart.

He also says this:

"The collection of surface temperature data is more complicated than looking at a thermometer and recording a temperature. Intellectually honest people understand this." From this he asserts that if we saw what was really being observed by satellites, we would conclude that global surface temperatures aren't rising. I suppose we would also conclude that the measured EFFECTS of global warming aren't happening, as transmitted by satellites. We wouldn't see data that concludes sea levels are rising, land ice is disappearing, and Artic sea ice is plummeting. No. Everything would be fine. Who needs satellites when they're this unreliable? Someone inform the military.

But of course satellites show that global warming is happening, and not just those run by the IPCC. NASA's GISS show this [6]:


NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies data on global warming.

The Japanese Metereological Agency's global temperature readings show this [7]:

Independent data by the Japanese Metereological Agency confirms NASA's GISS findings on global warming.

Looks like Japan's in on the conspiracy too! Uh oh.

And NASA's GISS reaffirms planet-wide global warming with these [8]:


Global Warming isn't just a Northern Hemisphere thing (it happens in the Southern Hemisphere too!).


Readings over the recent decades - NASA GISS.


In his last daring act in ROUND 3 my opponent provides a data plot allegedly showing temperatures dropping in the US Corn Belt region over the last decade. The graph directly above this paragraph illustrates what's been happening with global surface temperatures world-wide over the last decade. They're still inching up!

[1] opponent's NASA link.
[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [8] http://climate.nasa.gov...
[7] http://ds.data.jma.go.jp...
leonardlewis4

Con

leonardlewis4 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Juan_Pablo 3 years ago
Juan_Pablo
Global warming has hit a plateau in the last ten years (though temperatures HAVE increased slightly since the early 2000s). Where has the extra heat gone? This article aims to provide an answer:

http://news.yahoo.com...
Posted by thg 3 years ago
thg
Well done, gentlemen. I believe each of you was articulate and persuasive. I had to give my nod to PRO, however, as CON forfeited two rounds. While I am not a scientist, I have read quite a bit on this subject, and I believe CON simply didn't produce enough in the way of reliable sources. Or, to put it another way, I believe his sources are in the minority. Of course, being in the minority doesn't automatically make you unreliable, but, in this case, I believe the evidence appears to me to be overwhelmingly on the side of global warming...and that, even if much of it is NOT being caused by humans, we need to do all we can to be better stewards of our environment...for the sake of the environment as well as for our own sake. I grew up in Japan's second largest city, Osaka, and saw stark results of pollution daily. Even if we could prove that our industries had nothing to do with global warming, I still believe we could do much better at cleaning up our air...if only for our own sake.

For either side to be overwhelmingly persuasive, I would figure he'd need to do a better job of discrediting the other's sources. Much of the debate was one side claiming the other side's sources are unreliable...and I'm not sure I, as a layperson, have any way to really evaluate either side's accusations. Looking at all the evidence from this debate alone, I believe I'd still have to give the nod to PRO, as he cited more "officially recognized" sources from around the world.

I did wonder about CON's reliance upon the ocean's churning. Even if such churning caused a warming or cooling trend, that wouldn't (necessarily) prove global warming wasn't occurring.

Anyway, great job on a tough subject. Here's hoping the ice doesn't melt for at least 1000 years.
Posted by leonardlewis4 3 years ago
leonardlewis4
Thanks to you as well... You were very thorough. Apologies for forfeiting the rounds. With a large family and long work hours, it is difficult to find enough time to debate. I signed-in after having to work the first part of the morning, thinking I had a few hours to spare, and I had already missed the round. :(

Good luck!
Posted by Juan_Pablo 3 years ago
Juan_Pablo
Thanks Leonard for debating me on this topic. I hope this was as much a learning experience for you as it was for me. I like to believe that both debaters took something away from this. I also hope the viewing audience learned some important things, too.
Posted by leonardlewis4 3 years ago
leonardlewis4
@Nathan-D,

I hear you loud and clear... There's plenty of evidence that the pro-global warming data is crap--and NOAA, NASA, IPCC et al... will admit it when pressed. From my perspective, it doesn't matter how many crap charts you throw against the wall, if the global data is not credible, the charts and projections are meaningless... BTW: None of these groups have ever given us an accurate prediction. They've been waaay-off on every prediction they've ever made.

It won't matter what data you present to the brain-washed devotees of the First Church of Global Warming...I mean, Climate Change. These guys are the most extreme religious zealots I've ever seen.

Anything you present to Juan_Pablo is either "not credible" or he will mischaracterize your argument, build a straw man, tear it down, and pretend he's won the debate. If you read his last round post, you'll see he rebutted effectively, but only against his inane revisions of a phantom argument.
Posted by Nathan-D 3 years ago
Nathan-D
Interesting argument. I tried sending you a message Leonard, although you appear to have your messages switched off or something. I'm not sure.

Anyone arguing that satellites are highly-reliable (although they probably are better than surface-measurements) may want to reconsider their stance in view of the "Satellitegate" scandal surrounding the NOAA"s temperature-reading satellites. See: http://www.sott.net... Quotes from the article: "NOAA is now fighting a rear-guard legal defence to hold onto some semblance of credibility with growing evidence of systemic global warming data flaws by government climatologists." "(U.S. physicist Dr Charles R. Anderson) agrees there may now be thousands of temperatures in the range of 415-604 degrees Fahrenheit automatically fed into computer climate models and contaminating climate models with a substantial warming bias. This may have gone on for a far longer period than the five years originally identified." "The satellite that first ignited the fury is NOAA-16. But as we have since learned there are now five key satellites that have become either degraded or seriously comprised." And in case you should think it is only the NOAA"s satellite-data that are compromised: "NASA's disgrace was affirmed in March 2010 when they finally conceded that their data was in worse shape than the much-maligned Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the UK's University of East Anglia." "(Dr Anderson) advises it is fair to assume that NOAA were using this temperature anomaly to favourably hype a doom-saying agenda of ever-increasing temperatures that served the misinformation process of government propaganda."
Posted by Juan_Pablo 3 years ago
Juan_Pablo
In Round 3 I made a mistake. Instead of "Nine in 10 scientists agree that human activity is responsible for today's global warming trend", I should have stated "scientists are 90% certain that increasing surface temperatures are caused by increasing levels of atmospheric CO2." The statistic was meant to convey a confidence level, not the proportion of scientists that attribute global warming to human activity.

Everything else looks good.
Posted by Juan_Pablo 3 years ago
Juan_Pablo
Okay. I'm working on my response now!
Posted by Juan_Pablo 3 years ago
Juan_Pablo
I'll post my ROUND 3 argument later today . . . definitely before midnight.

Stay tuned.
Posted by leonardlewis4 3 years ago
leonardlewis4
Again with the straw man...

Actually, no... I'm saying (as I have consistently) that it is more complicated than looking at a thermometer and recording a temperature... Intellectually honest people understand this.

The claims for or against "Global Warming" (or is it "Climate Change"???) each require very complex man-made models of interpretation and forecasting based on data collected from widely disparate sources and simulations of data to fill the gaps where information is lacking.

Again, based on the VERY SELECTIVE inclusion/exclusion of data used by any given model, the data can "say" whatever you want it to "say".

BTW: I included my source. Read for yourself regarding instrument decay, etc... Also, NASA and NAOA admit this when you dig deep enough. Apparently, when you source from Wikipedia, the info is valid, but when I do, you twist the claims to build a straw man. Classic!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by thg 3 years ago
thg
Juan_Pabloleonardlewis4Tied
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: CON was just as articulate and nearly as persuasive as PRO, except CON forfeited two rounds and I believe CON's sources were less reliable (also see my comment in the comment section).
Vote Placed by Nyx999 3 years ago
Nyx999
Juan_Pabloleonardlewis4Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Really good debate, I personally think Pro is right, but there are a lot of different sources and facts on either side. I gave the conduct point to Pro because of Con's forfeits.