Global Warming is Largely Man-Made
The definitions are obvious, and playing with semantics will result in a loss.
1. BoP is split.
2. No semantics or trolling.
3. Follow the format.
4. Only sources may be posted externally.
Any violation of the rules should result in a loss.
R2: Constructive Case
R4: Rebuttals and Conclusion
*Edit* This debate was going to be for the beginners tourney, but we have changed topic. But I'd like to debate this with someone, regardless.
This debate should be impossible to accept. PM or comment if you wish to accept. If you manage to accept without my permission you get a free cookie.
Thanks to lannan for accepting this debate!
I accept and I would like to point out before the debate starts that in order for my opponent to win he must prove that Global Warming is Largely man-made, meaning that more than 50% is to be caused by humans. I now await my opponent's opening arguments.
In this debate I'm going to be arguing that Global Warming is anthropogenic.
C1: Carbon dioxide causes warming
Carbon dioxide has been identified as having 'greenhouse' qualities for over a century. The greenhouse effect occurs when GHGs allow shortwave solar radiation to pass through the atmosphere. This energy is absorbed of the earth, and then radiates this heat as infrared radiation. This is usually referred to as outgoing longwave radiation. This theory is particularly well-explained in this diagram.
This means that a with more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we should observe lower levels of this longwave radiation escaping into space the the wavelengths carbon dioxide is meant to absorb. This was recorded by the IRIS satellite and later confirmed by the IMG satellite over a 26 year period. The paper concluded that the experiment could be considered "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This same experiment has been adapted multiple times in order to measure downward longwave radiation from the ground. This empirical evidence is unequivocal.
Another way line of empirical reasoning that supports carbon dioxide's effect on the climate is through historic instances of climate change. This paper quantified the equilibrium temperature change in response to radiative forcing change, climate sensitivity, of the pre-anthropogenic eras.
The results of this analysis, were consistent with IPCC estimates. A 2 and 4.5°C global surface warming in response to doubled carbon dioxide.
Just to really nail the coffin, I'll raise one further argument that determines a net positive feedback, in regard to climate sensitivity: modelling estimates. These work by calculating numerical data and predictions based on the physical, chemical and biological properties of its components, their interactions and feedback processes, and accounting for all or some of its known properties. A notable 2002 paper used a fingerprinting approach on modern temperature records and found a range of approximately 1.4 to 7.7°C . A later model looked at paleontological data over the past 6 centuries to calculates a range 1.5 to 6.2°C .
This position is quite literally a platitude in any climate researchers books, since it is so well supported. This will be evident within my scientific consensus contention.
C2: Humans are the source of the vast majority of resultant carbon dioxide
This figure shows the estimated balance of carbon dioxide emissions.
Despite man made carbon dioxide emissions being comparatively smaller than natural emissions, the real driving force of climate change is the net quantity of carbon dioxide released, since most natural carbon emissions are absorbed. Because of this, atmospheric carbon dioxide is at the highest levels in approximately 15 to 20 million years. Many skeptics claim that historically, carbon dioxide levels have been much lower, particularly around 500-600 million years ago. But the carbon dioxide level is not the only factor that affect global temperature. Additionally, this position fails to account for the differences in solar activity, that was drastically different from current levels. This position also fails to explain why a comprehensive analysis of carbon dioxide levels over the last 540 millions years concluded that "Periods of low CO2 coincide with periods of geographically widespread ice." This is clearly visible in this graph, where the shaded periods are periods of widespread ice.
Many prominent climate science papers have argued that, if it were not for Natural contributions cooling the climate, we would be, in fact, a little hotter.
Net human and natural percent contributions to the observed global surface warming over the past 50-65 years according to  (T00, dark blue),  (M04, red),  (S07, light green),  (LR08, purple),  (HK11, light blue),  (G12, orange),  (WS12, dark green), and  (J13, pink).
C3: There is a widespread, comprehensive scientific consensus
The contentions I have argued are not unfounded, flawed or bogus. In fact, they are so convincing that there exists a well-established scientific consensus.
A recent survey of 12,000 climate science papers that expressed a position on the cause of global warming found that 97% of them agreed that anthropogenic global warming is occurring.
The same survey found a historic strengthening of the Pro-AGW consensus since 1990.Another survey of 908 randomly selected climate scientists with more than 20 peer-reviewed publications settled upon a similar figure: "≈97% of self-identified actively publishing climate scientists agree with the tenets of anthropogenic climate change". My opponent might argue that the majority of papers expressed no position, therefore leaving room for a much weaker scientific consensus. This would fail to account, however, for the fact that the vast majority of papers included had already accepted AGW as a premise. Oreskes predicts this result, arguing that, "Scientists generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees".
I have shown that the climate is sensitive to increased levels of carbon dioxide, and that humans are the source of it. These positions are so well supported that an establish scientific consensus exists.
Over to you, Con!
Contention 1: No Major/any CO2 Increase.
Many Global Warming advocates state that CO2 levels are skyrocketing, but that is incorrect. I give you the above graph measuring the past 600 million years of CO2 levels are we are actually at an all time low. Now the website I got this from no longer has this page up so I appologize. We can see from observance of this graph that we being at all time CO2 low levles that we are nowhere close to meeting the impact that my opponent brings up. We have been over 5,000 ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere and are now currently around apprx. 350 ppm CO2 levels.
The above graph shows that comparisions of C13 (Carbon isotope) and this shows that there is little to no trend pertrade in many of these as the average is zero while the trend for all of these are zero. (1) This is important as the Carbon isotope is important in measuring this so called "Global Warming."
This chart above shows the CO2 and Earth's temperatures for the past 600 million years. My opponent's claims are incorect as we have had aburd levels of CO2 and temperature on Earth and may I ask how did we survive that? (2)
Now I will move on to how Earth is actually cooling and how it's temperature is cooler than it has been.
Contention 2: Earth is cooling.
If we observe the above graph we can see that Earth has been a whole lot hotter than where we currently are to the point where the Earth's average temperature has been 7.5 degrees Celcuis hotter than it currently it is. You can also see that in the span of the past 10,000 years the temperature has leveld off, but you may ask yourself where does that place us in the lights of modern day?
I am going to site Dr. Done Easterbrook, who is a climate scientist. Back in 2000 he predicted that Earth was entering a cooling phase. He predicts that for the next 20 years Earth will cool by 3/10 degree each year and that we are going to enter another little Ice Age like we did from 1650 and 1790. (3) The funny thing is that many of my opponent's charts are actually from the incorrect IPPC.
How about the "Hockey Stick" graph that many Global Warming supporters , including my opponent, argue about? Well if we observe the fallowing chart taken from Northern Scandenavia we can see that the Global trend over the past 1,000 years that the Global Cooling trend slope is that of -0.31 Degrees Celcuis, give or take 0.03 degrees (for the error room). Professor Dr. Jan Esper has found that the Earth's temperature of Earth actually decreases 0.3 per millenia due to the Earth moving away from the sun. (4)
Here is another graph from 1920 to 2005 and we can see that the graph has a negative temperature slope, thus meaning that the Earth is under a period of cooling. (5)
You can see in terms of more Warming in the evidence in which Scientists use Ice Cores Earth has actually been Cooling the past Mellenium.
Finailly, lets bring up just how much these accused compounds exactly warm the Earth's atmosphere. CO2 for example has the global warming potential of 1. Here are the other numbers.
Carbon Dioxide -- 1
Methane -- 21
Nitrous Oxide -- 298-310
CFC's -- Various
Water Vapor -- 0.25
Now I just want you to keep this in mind for this next part here. We may observe that humans release approximately 35 gigatons of CO2 a year.  This is only 4.3% of the total amount of all Global Warming Gasses, however it is incrediably small when it comes to comparing the rest of the Global Warming gasses. If we observe the chart bellow we can see that Water Vapor is a large Contributor to Global Warming at 95% and CO2 comes in second. But here's the kicker. If we look at the Human contributed part that I'm about to post in the graph bellow we can see that it's very miniscule of 0.117% of all total Warming gasses. Now let's do some quick math here. CO2's increase was from what my opponent is claiming is from 295 ppm to 400ppm, a total of only 105 ppm. 1 Gigaton of CO2 is the equilivent of 2.13 ppm.  This means that increase of 105 ppm means a total of 49.29 gigatons. Since 1 gigaton of CO2 is the equivilance of .004% of the Greenhouse effect that means that 49.29 gigatons means an aditional .21% increase to Global Warming. This would account for a grand total of a 0.15 F increase in global temperature. This is a very measly amount and we can see that with my opponent's claims a simple 0.15 F increase isn't enough to melt glacers and have the effeccts that he is speaking of and it proves that this is NAUTRAL not man-made to fulfil his effects if they were real. Now remind yourself that this debate is about humans creating a LARGE amount of Global Warming, not a miniscule amount.
You can see that in terms of Gasses contribution to the Green House Effect the major contributer is Water Vapor and it's at 95% to CO2's 3.6% and this is the overall contribution including man made and natural. When we look to the chart on the left we can see that Man-Made CO2 does have a higher contribution to the atmosphere than Water Vapor, but that's because we do not create much water vapor as humans. Even with this evidence we can see that CO2 does not have any effect what-so-ever compared to Water Vapor. (6) Where might those CFCs be on this graph you may ask. Why it's under the Misc. gases section.
Contention 3: Artic Ice.
Al Gore stated that the Artic Ice would be completely melted by 2014, but he is incorrect then and now.
Jan. 6, 2012: The Coast Guard Cutter Healy breaks ice around the Russian-flagged tanker Renda 250 miles south of Nome. The Healy is the Coast Guard’s only currently operating polar icebreaker. The vessels are transiting through ice up to five-feet thick in this area. The 370-foot tanker Renda will have to go through more than 300 miles of sea ice to get to Nome, a city of about 3,500 people on the western Alaska coastline that did not get its last pre-winter fuel delivery because of a massive storm. (7)
Let's go back to 2007-2008 and see if his claim was justified in the Artic Ice activity.
Hmmm... It seems that he is incorrect, but let's look further into the near past. How about 2012-2013? (8)
We all remember the Climate Scientists that got stuck in Arctic Ice Earlier last year correct? Then a Russian Ice Breaker tried to free them, but got stuck. Can you guess what they were studying? They had predicted that all the Arctic Ice had melted due to Global Warming and that Earth would get flooded massively. Boy were they wrong. (9)
Dr. Koonin, former head of the Department of Energy under President Obama, has stated that the Global Warming scare is not suttle. This is because that he has found 3 things wrong and highly incorrect about the scare.
1. Shrinking of Artic Sea ice doesn't acount for the gaining of the Antartic ice.
2. The warming of Earth's temps today is the same as it was 30 years ago.
3. The sea levels rose at the same height and rate in the 20th cenury. (11)
Contention 4: Sea Levels
Here is another corralation that must happen. If the Ice Caps are completely melted as many GW advocates claim then the sea level would have risen completely drowning tons of land.
The graph above is raw satellite image data of the sea level rise over an 8 year period showing that there is little to no change in the Sea Levels rising. (12) The sea level rises, on average, about 3 inches per century and it has been found to not even been rising at all.
This graph is the sea levels off the cost of French Guyana which is one of the areas which is predicted to be flooded due to Global Warming, but as you can see by the graph (which goes to 2008) the sea level is currently on a downward trend. (13) The source is the PDF within the link.
Contention 5: The Weather
Many Global Warming Advocates claim that Hurricanes are increasing due to Global Warming, but this claim is indeed false! The hurricanes since the year 1900 to 2008 have actually been decreasing. The slope of this downward slope is .0016. Though it is small the hurricanes are still in a downward trend.
As a matter of fact not only are Hurricanes on a downward trend, but they are at an all time low as in the year 2010, there was only 68 Hurricanes Globally, which is an all time low in the past 40 years.
How about Tornados you may ask?
In the graph above you can see that tornados are at an all time low in the past 60 years! (14) But what about Hurricanes?
Here is a graph showing the number of days between hurricanes and this shows that the number of days between hurricanes is greatest at 76 days between hurricanes.The slope of this line is zero showing no trend of a massive storm increase.
There are some minor issues in conduct with my opponent's constructive case, but I'm not going to dwell on them. Primarily, this argument remains unaltered from when my opponent last debated this issue, which means he has left in irrelevant rebuttals, albeit to the wrong opponent.
R1: No Major/any CO2 Increase.
In the previous round, I preemptively refuted this first claim that historically higher carbon dioxide are relevant. In fact, as you will see, they are, if anything, evidence in favour of carbon dioxide's effect on temperature, which Con later attempts to refute.
"Many skeptics claim that historically, carbon dioxide levels have been much lower, particularly around 500-600 million years ago. But the carbon dioxide level is not the only factor that affect global temperature. Additionally, this position fails to account for the differences in solar activity, that was drastically different from current levels. This position also fails to explain why a comprehensive analysis of carbon dioxide levels over the last 540 millions years concluded that "Periods of low CO2 coincide with periods of geographically widespread ice." This is clearly visible in this graph, where the shaded periods are periods of widespread ice."
I shall also strengthen this argument and adapt it to Con's specific contention.
Firstly Con cites data, which no longer exists. This is bad practice. He should seek alternative data that supports his contention that, even if one assumes the data is reliable, I have unequivocally refuted.
R2: [sic] Earth is cooling.
This is patently not true and in most instances of my opponents argument, a bare assertion. In the others, he has cherry picked unsupported evidence. Of course the Earth has been hotter historically (due to solar activity), but this is irrelevant. In this debate we are referring to Global Warming, which is the consistent rise in temperature since the 20th century up till this point, which is clearly occurring. This figure shows the change in the earth's total heat content since 1960.
This more advanced graph is the average of 5 different data sets, adjusted for the short-term effects of the El Nino Southern Oscillation, solar variability, and volcanic aerosols.
Con then proceeds to [sic]site Don Easterbrook, who claims his model predicted the temperature more accurately than the IPCC. This is an outright falsehood. In fact, Easterbrook had to distort the IPCC projection figures to make his graph compelling. Here is the actual data:We see that the IPCC's projections were much more accurate. Shall we zoom in a bit more?
Con then cites his first actual study, despite it being relatively insignificant, as it is a single study and has a largely negligent effect on the hockey stick graph. I'm now going to provide some consistent and substantiated data regarding the hockey stick graph.
The hockey stick is describes a sharp increase in temperature visible within a reconstruction of temperatures in the last 1000 years. The original paper describing this trend appeared in 1998,but since then there has been a number of notable proxy studies that have confirmed its findings. In 2007 an independent study reconstructed largely similar results, and evaluated the statistical techniques employed to create it:
Con's own graph was constructed from unknown data sets, presumably by NewsBusters, a questionable source (given their clear bias in documenting the issue). His next graph is also cited the same source, despite that graph not existing anywhere on the source page. I have no obligation to rebut something that has been pulled from thin air and not substantiated with fact, especially in supposedly scientific debates like this one.
In his next argument, pertaining to water vapour, Con shows elementary misunderstanding of climate sensitivity and feedback. His argument can be summed up in the following format:
P1: Water vapor makes up 95% of greenhouse gases and CO2 only . (Bare assertion)
P2: The climate sensitivity of water vapour is around 0.25%. The climate sensitivity of CO2 is around 1%. (Disputable and unsourced, my Constructive Case hinted at a slightly higher figure between 2 and 4.5 degrees)
P3: Global warming is occurring. (A sudden change of heart)
C1: Water vapour is responsible for global warming,
Before I begin tearing this nonsense apart I'd like to urge voters to hold Con accountable for changing advocacy half way through his case (in the same contention!). He first contends that there is no warming, and then holds that there is warming, only that water vapour is responsible. We aren't going to have quality discourse if Con does not hold a stable position.
Con fails to understand that weak warming caused by more carbon dioxide will lead to more water vapor in the atmosphere, which will then amplify the weak warming through water vapor’s role as the atmosphere’s primary greenhouse gas. Water vapour is responsible for much of the greenhouse effect, but only because warmer air masses, on average, contain more water vapor. In short, water vapour acts a feedback, not a forcing. Much of his further case was also preemptively rebutted in my initial constructive case: "Despite man made carbon dioxide emissions being comparatively smaller than natural emissions, the real driving force of climate change is the net quantity of carbon dioxide released, since most natural carbon emissions are absorbed. Because of this, atmospheric carbon dioxide is at the highest levels in approximately 15 to 20 million years."
A single, self-described proponent of climate change being wrong, on a single instance, has no relevance to the ultimate scientific validity of climate change. This is hardly worth rebutting. Can we move discussion to the science, rather than people, and badly reported news stories?
Con argues that sea level rise has not occurred and cites Mörner, whose work has consistently been discredited by the organisations that he claims to represent:
"Mörner claims that the "true experts" think this data is wrong (emphasis added):
This is quite different from the INQUA official position on climate change, which opens by saying (emphasis added):
Unfortunately ounces up and down slightly from year to year so it's possible to cherry-pick data falsely suggesting the overall trend is flat, falling or linear. Credible sources will all display sea level averages over the long term. Here is a study done by the University of Colorado :
It shows a clear trend in sea level movement since 1995. Another study, analysing global mean sea level from 1870 through 2006 determined another clear trend:
Con has not provided a single relevant source, which, quite frankly, in an entirely statistical and scientific argument, is unacceptable. I cannot rebut imaginary data. Next round, please provide valid sources and explain their relevance, and I will take delight in rebutting them,
Much of Con's argument has been founded on bare assertions and comprehensive misinterpretations of climate science. I have rebutted all his sourced claims, and hopefully cleared up much of his misunderstanding in regard to climate feedback.
Onto the next round. Good luck, Con.
Contention 1: No major/any CO2 Increase
Firstly I would like to point out a huge drop from my last round. This was my just how much of each of the Green House Gasses actually contribute and how much of them actually are from man made. Let's run those percentages one more time.
Misc. (including CFCs)---0.047%
We can see here that these percentages are indeed quite low and this was dropped by my opponent so I extend them across the board.
Let us observe the above graph. Here I would like to point out the that the increase from Pre-Inustrial to Industrial era and the doubling of the CO2 leveling lead to a decrease in it's temperature. Also we can see that the 10 mile "hot-spot" above the tropics is actually absent. "The computer models show that greenhouse warming will cause a hot-spot at an altitude between 8 and 12 km over the tropics between 30 N and 30 S. The temperature at this hot-spot is projected to increase at a rate of two to three times faster than at the surface. However, the Hadley Centre's real-world plot of radiosonde temperature observations shown below does not show the projected CO2 induced global warming hot-spot at all. The predicted hot-spot is entirely absent from the observational record. This shows that atmosphere warming theory programmed into climate models are wrong." 
If we observe the above Greenland Ice Core we can see that though it's been heating up we can swee that on average it's a whole lot colder than what it is on a normal basis. This is also acknowledging that humans have only been around in the past 10,000 years or so we can see that this Ice Core is still colder than normal even with the emmission that are produced today.
Now if we observe the above graph of the past 400,000 yeasrs we can see that the CO2 rates in our atmosphere has flutated the exact same way in this cycle both before and during the existance of human beings. We can see that the temperatures and CO2 levels have been going up and down randomly for the past 100 thousands years and it is observed that this occured before the industrial revolution. We can also see that right now we are in a warming period so that arguing that humans are because of this is post hoc. Not to mention that we are in the coldest of the warming periods in Earth's history! Hence this reveals that this whole Global Warming is just a cycle that Earth is expierencing.
We can see that once again despite contrary to belief we can see that though there may be warming the fact is simply that there is no human warming.
I also appologize for using evidence that has expired. Could you tell me which one and I'll post it in the comments section. Thanks.
Contention 2: Earth is Cooling
You're probably asking yourself, why am I seeing this graph again? This is because the more CO2 we get the less warming there is. If we observe this graph we can see that the Warming has decreased with more CO2 that we've recieved. This shows that CO2 doesn't have that much of an impact on the tempterature like the math that I've proved it in my last contention. 
Now I will agree that Eastbrook isn't good with predicting temperature change, but the IPCC is even worse, but whatever is causing the change it is highly unlikely that it's man made.My opponent tries to claim that I am a hypocrate, but he is yet twisting my own words. I'm showing that there's none if not barely little warming and that Water Vapor is a key part of it. He fails to see that I showed that how much water vapor is when I showed the equation in my last round in Contention 1, so my opponent's tangent is irrelivant here.
Once again we can see that the IPCC and Al Gore are inccorect as the hocky stick graph is a bust. As I've shown in earlier rounds and they have been dropped in showing that the Earth's temperature has indeed been way hotter then current and on an average basis at that. My opponent has also dropped my opening graph in C1 r2 That also showed that CO2 levels are at an all time low! Thus once again disproving my opponent's theory.
Here we can see that even though CO2 levels are increaseing that the temperature in recent years has actually decreased on the linear scale.
Also the US Senate Committe on Envirnment and public works also took a stab at this issue. They found that the Hocky Stick graph was also bogus in 2006.
“Today’s NAS report reaffirms what I have been saying all along, that Mann's ‘hockey stick’ is broken,”Senator Inhofe said.“Today’s report refutes Mann's prior assertions that there was no Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age.”
“This report shows that the planet warmed for about 200 years prior to the industrial age, when we were coming out of the depths of the Little Ice Age where harsh winters froze the Thames and caused untold deaths.
“Trying to prove man-made global warming by comparing the well-known fact that today's temperatures are warmer than during the Little Ice Age is akin to comparing summer to winter to show a catastrophic temperature trend.” 
Contention 3: Artic Ice and Sea Level.
I do appologize. Let me bring up other evidence since my last round apparently wasn't good enough though I sited NASA of all organizations.
THough my opponent likes to blow things out of perportion we can see that these sea levels rise and fall on their own. It's a natural cycle as I showed last round. The trend shows only a mere +/- 0.30 mm per year. "The Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory estimates the rate of sea level rise at 1.42 plus or minus 0.14 mm/year for the period 1954 to 2003. This is less than the estimate of 1.91 plus or minus 0.14 mm/year for the period 1902 to 1953, indicating a slowing of the rate."  We can see that 2.8 inches per 50 years isn't that much of an appocolyptic threat.
Here is a graph from NOAA which shows that the sea level rise is very small and that the IPCC is way off as well as many other Warming "experts". 
In the above graph we can see that despit Artic Ice slightly decreasing we can see that it follows the same patern throughout the year as the Ice melts in the summer and freezes in the winter. We can see that my opponents' sea ice level predictions are incorrect.  Which if sea ice is decreasing then explain the great sea ice exspansion of Antartica in 2012 shown bellow. It had a total of 20,000 miles more ice than average.
The graph bellow is proof of the cycle of what I'm talking about. Plus even if it was caused by Global Warming my opponent still has to prove that it was caused by HUMANS in order to take the win here not to show that it exists.
According studies done by Ola Johannessen we can see that the Greenland Ice Sheet is growing! Also we can see from the same study is that the Artic was actually warmer in the 1930's than today! 
I also extend across all of my previous arguments for this Contention.
Contention 4: Storms
The NOAA has shown that Tornados are less frequent and occur less and less.  I continue to extend across my NOAA Hurricane graph from last round.
If we observe the above graph we can see that there is no net increase in violent Hurricanes nor their wind speed. We can see that my includes more years and hence more data which disproves my opponents. Plus when you add in my R2 graph, which was unrefuted, you can see that there is zero if not a decreasing trend when it comes to hurricanes. My graphs are just some imaginary data and I shall extend them all across the board.
8. (In comments due to URL length)
GHG Ratios: This was not a huge drop. I had previously explained that that 'weak warming caused by more carbon dioxide will lead to more water vapor in the atmosphere, which will then amplify the weak warming through water vapor’s role as the atmosphere’s primary greenhouse gas. Water vapour is responsible for much of the greenhouse effect, but only because warmer air masses, on average, contain more water vapor. In short, water vapour acts a feedback, not a forcing' The quantities are irrelevant of water vapour are irrelevant when my contention regarding climate sensitivity remains unchallenged. Climate sensitivity is the crux of this debate, and if my opponent cannot refute my claims, he has essentially lost.
Industrial CO2 Doubling: This next contention is unfounded and a bare assertion, so I'm not going to waste character space rebutting it.
Tropospheric Hot Spots: Con then claims that AGW models are invalidated by the lack of a tropospheric hot spot. There is a tropospheric hot spot.  Yet even if there were not, it would not disprove AGW because tropospheric occur regardless of heat source, as they are caused by lapse rates.  I.E. If the warming was caused by a brightening sun or reduced sulphate pollution, you'd still see a hot spot. All that the IPCC temperature signature in your source predicted was a greater forcing of temperature.
Ice Core Cooling: Once again an unfounded and bare assertion, without any statistical backing. I've shown in my previous contentions that warming is undoubtedly occurring, and those contentions have been dropped.
Historic CO2 Fluctuations: It's upsetting that you don't cite any sources, because this could be a good argument.
R2: None of this is especially relevant, Con is arguing about how good the IPCC are at forecasting temperature and long term climate sensitivity. I have proven that warming is occurring, and Con has not even touched by arguments. Con concedes Easterbrook was falsified, but then goes on to claim CO2 is at an all time low. As I've previously mentioned: 'Because of this, atmospheric carbon dioxide is at the highest levels in approximately 15 to 20 million years. Many skeptics claim that historically, carbon dioxide levels have been much lower, particularly around 500-600 million years ago. But the carbon dioxide level is not the only factor that affect global temperature. Additionally, this position fails to account for the differences in solar activity, that was drastically different from current levels. This position also fails to explain why a comprehensive analysis of carbon dioxide levels over the last 540 millions years concluded that "Periods of low CO2 coincide with periods of geographically widespread ice." This is clearly visible in this graph, where the shaded periods are periods of widespread ice."
Because of this, atmospheric carbon dioxide is at the highest levels in approximately 15 to 20 million years. Many skeptics claim that historically, carbon dioxide levels have been much lower, particularly around 500-600 million years ago. But the carbon dioxide level is not the only factor that affect global temperature. Additionally, this position fails to account for the differences in solar activity, that was drastically different from current levels. This position also fails to explain why a comprehensive analysis of carbon dioxide levels over the last 540 millions years concluded that "Periods of low CO2 coincide with periods of geographically widespread ice." This is clearly visible in this graph, where the shaded periods are periods of widespread ice.
Arctic Ice: Arctic ice has increased but this is down to ozone levels over Antarctica having dropped causing stratospheric cooling and increasing winds which lead to more areas of open water that can be frozen.
Sea Level: Con essentially ignores all my substantial evidence of record mean global sea levels, and just repeats his old statistics, and after that concedes sea levels are rising, but once again states without any modicum of objectivity, that the evil IPCC were off. This is not relevant. You have conceded my rebuttals - sea levels are rising.
The general consensus on this topic is inconclusive. I really don't see it's relevance.
To win this debate, Con should have refuted my claims about and climate sensitivity, that is the crux of debate, and he has failed to do so. Con has consistently struggle to provide coherent positions and reliable evidence throughout the debate. Ultimately, the science is conclusive and much of my initial contentions have been dropped.
Give my opponent all 7 points.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||7||0|