The Instigator
tahir.imanov
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
blaze8
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Global Warming is Real.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
blaze8
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,135 times Debate No: 43464
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (4)

 

tahir.imanov

Pro

Global warming is the term used to describe a gradual increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and its oceans, a change that is believed to be permanently changing the Earth’s climate.

Is Global Warming (now on GW) real or is it myth?

Rules :

1. The first round is for acceptance. No argument will be posted.

2. We are dealing with facts and evidences, here.

3. The maximum number of videos allowed to be posted per round for each user is 2 (two).

4. The maximum number of images allowed to be posted per round for each user is 5 (five).


blaze8

Con

I'll accept this debate. Good luck to both of us!!
Debate Round No. 1
tahir.imanov

Pro




GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL








Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations
are higher today than at any time in at least the past 650,000 years. They are about 35% higher than before the industrial revolution, and this increase is caused by human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels.

http://www.skeptic.com...; src="../../../photos/albums/1/4/3238/96287-3238-v3vsm-a.jpg" alt="http://www.skeptic.com...; />
http://www.skeptic.com...; src="../../../photos/albums/1/4/3238/96287-3238-38un8-a.jpg" alt="http://www.skeptic.com...; />
Earth has been in radiative imbalance since at least the 1970s, where less energy leaves the athmosphere than enters it. Most of this extra energy has been absorbed by the oceans. It is very likely that human activities substantially contributed to this increase in ocean heat content. The amount of heat stored in the oceans is one of the most important diagnostics for global warming, because about 90% of the additional heat is stored there. The atmosphere stores only about 2% because of its small heat capacity. The surface (including the continental ice masses) can only absorb heat slowly because it is a poor heat conductor. Thus, heat absorbed by the oceans accounts for almost all of the planet’s radiative imbalance.
http://www.realclimate.org...; src="../../../photos/albums/1/4/3238/96287-3238-7g8k4-a.jpg" alt="http://www.realclimate.org...; />
Signs that the Earth is warming are recorded all over the globe. The easiest way to see increasing temperatures is through the thermometer records kept over the past century and a half. Around the world, the Earth's average temperature has risen more than 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.8 degrees Celsius) over the last century, and about twice that in parts of the Arctic.
"The planet is red" in a global map of the change in average surface temperatures, noted Swiss climate scientist Thomas Stocker, co-chair of IPCC Working Group I responsible for this summary at a press conference. "The world is warming."
http://data.giss.nasa.gov...; src="../../../photos/albums/1/4/3238/96287-3238-kw63s-a.jpg" alt="http://data.giss.nasa.gov...; />
The Earth's average surface temperature rose by 0.74±0.18 °C over the period 1906–2005. The rate of warming over the last half of that period was almost double that for the period as a whole (0.13±0.03 °C per decade, versus 0.07±0.02 °C per decade). The urban heat island effect is very small, estimated to account for less than 0.002 °C of warming per decade since 1900. Temperatures in the lower troposphere have increased between 0.13 and 0.22 °C (0.22 and 0.4 °F) per decade since 1979, according to satellite temperature measurements. Climate proxies show the temperature to have been relatively stable over the one or two thousand years before 1850, with regionally varying fluctuations such as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.
The climate system can respond to changes in external forcings. External forcings can "push" the climate in the direction of warming or cooling. Examples of external forcings include changes in atmospheric composition (e.g., increased concentrations of greenhouse gases), solar luminosity, volcanic eruptions, and variations in Earth's orbit around the Sun. Orbital cycles vary slowly over tens of thousands of years and at present are in an overall cooling trend which would be expected to lead towards an ice age, but the 20th century instrumental temperature record shows a sudden rise in global temperatures. For a direct look at the atmosphere of the past, scientists drill cores through the Earth's polar ice sheets. Tiny bubbles trapped in the gas are actually pieces of the Earth's past atmosphere, frozen in time. That's how we know that the concentrations of greenhouse gases since the industrial revolution are higher than they've been for hundreds of thousands of years.
But if Global Warming is real, then why it is cold in US now? First of all US is not whole Earth, second of all may be because it is winter in northern pole. December 2013 was an unusually warm month even though it was colder in the U.S. In past December, North America was colder than the average over the past decade. But Europe and Russia were much hotter than average. India was cooler than average. Australia was warmer than average. Global Temprature is the average temprature of globe, and sorry US is not globe (and who cares about US).



[1] - http://on.natgeo.com/1bNQQJe
[2] - http://bit.ly/1acL5Jh
[3] - http://wapo.st/1idDRX8
[4] - http://bit.ly/1eiNzEA
[5] - http://bit.ly/1bNR6rL
[6] - http://bit.ly/19YXkZi
[7] - http://1.usa.gov/1eEHLWB
[8] - http://bit.ly/1cyoK8s
[9] - http://bit.ly/1cyoLJA
blaze8

Con

Thank you to my opponent for allowing me to participate in this debate! I look forward to an intellectually challenging discussion. Now to my opening arguments.

The key to determining whether or not "Global Warming" as defined by my opponent is a myth or not, is the definition he provided: "Global warming is the term used to describe a gradual increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and its oceans, a change that is believed to be permanently changing the Earth’s climate."

Firstly, the belief that a warming period observed by our scientists and thought to be caused by man is permanent is misguided. The simple reality is, these changes are in no way permanent. We know that the climate millions of years ago was different, more humid and warm, and we also know that we have had ice ages in the past. We know that the climate during the first millenias of earth's existence were exceedingly moist and warm as well. We can, therefore, rightly acknowledge that it is not simply global warming that we see, but climate change.

But is it permanent? The answer, of course, is no. For support, I point to the Great Oxygen Event, which took place nearly 2.4 billion years ago. Cyanobacteria, living organisms on earth, produce oxygen through photosynthesis. The Great Oxygen Event occurred when the cyanobacteria began to produce so much oxygen that the natural consumers of their oxygen could not keep up, and the earth's atmosphere became saturated with free and pure oxygen. Pure oxygen was not seen extensively in that time, and as such, the result of the increase in oxygen's concentration in the atmosphere was a mass extinction event of all organisms who did not require oxygen to live. Furthermore, the oxygen reacted with the methane in the atmosphere to produce the Huronian Glaciation, a 300 million year long period of cold temperatures and formations of glaciers.[1]

And yet, here today we see that life as moved on. The earth has grown, experienced many more changes in climate, from more ice ages to warm humid climates yet again. The changes take place over a long period of time, yes. But the changes that lead to the Great Oxygen Event were extremely rapid in the reckoning of geology. Modern estimates believe that photosynthesis taking place at the rate we see today could have generated the Great Oxygen Event in roughly 2,000 years. [2]

The driving point behind this argument is that Rapid climate change is not new, nor should it be unexpected. It has happened before, and it very well may happen again.

Now, I will move to a key argument against the fears propagated by Climate Change enthusiasts. Humans exist naturally on earth, we evolved to this point of intelligence and biological stability as a species through nature. Our very existence is a natural thing. How then, can anything we do be considered unnatural? We were not plopped down on earth suddenly. It is not as if we use magic to convert these natural materials into fuel and gases. We operate under the confines of nature's laws, being of nature herself. Our use of fossil fuels, then, is not unnatural at all. We are simply utilizing the tools nature gave us to promote our livelihood, much like the Cyanobacteria were doing. And arguably, the cyanobacteria operated at a much faster rate than we do. The warming of oceans by mere fractions of degrees per decade will not spell the end of Earth, nor will it wipe out all life. Just as after the Great Oxygen Event and Huronian Glaciation nature survived and thrived, so too will life on earth survive and thrive even after we are gone, whatever the cause of our disappearance may be.

If, then, the use of fossil fuels is natural, having occurred by a natural process and set in motion by a natural life form, and rapid climate change originates not just from man, but from the rest of nature as well, what is all the fuss about?

The threat posed by climate change is not directed towards the Earth, or even towards Nature itself. It is directed towards us. Humans are the ones who will be in danger if we continue to burn fossil fuels. Not nature. Nature survives, nature has survived more devastating occurrences than man could ever hope to throw at it. Whole continents have crashed together, been torn apart, mountain ranges have been battered down and raised up, violent volcanic eruptions and earthquakes, monstrous meteors and asteroids, and massive extinction events have all occurred during the span of Earth's life. Is it not prideful, arrogant even, to think that Man can possibly compete with such devastating forces? To think that man might be able to destroy nature, when we have barely left a mark with our most powerful weapons of destruction?

To sum up my arguments:

1) It is not Global Warming specifically that we observe, but Climate Change, both warming and cooling. The effects of Global Climate change in one direction or another are not permanent. Nature adapts and moves on after every great event.
2) Global Climate Change, whether rapid or slow, is a natural occurrence, and the example of the Great Oxygen Event shows that organisms on Earth have been altering the climate for hundreds of millions of years. We cannot, therefore, expect to leave the climate completely untouched. Nor is it wrong for us to utilize the intelligence nature gave us to promote our livelihood.
3) Because Global Climate Change is a natural occurrence, whether or not it originates from Man, it is nothing for nature or the Earth to fear, and nor is it our duty to fear for Nature or the Earth. Rather, we are the ones who will be adversely affected.

I now hand the debate back to Pro.


[1]http://www.bbc.co.uk...
[2]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
tahir.imanov

Pro

tahir.imanov forfeited this round.
blaze8

Con

As my opponent has forfeited his portion of this round, I will avoid commenting on anything, to keep the debate fair. I only hope my opponent will return for the fourth round.
Debate Round No. 3
tahir.imanov

Pro

tahir.imanov forfeited this round.
blaze8

Con

My opponent has forfeited the last round, so I'll just end it here, as I believe my arguments speak for themselves. Good luck to my opponent in the voting! Thanks to anyone who read through our arguments!
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by gordonjames 3 years ago
gordonjames
Shoot!
I just realized I voted for the wrong guy.
I'm glad it didn't affect the outcome.
Posted by gordonjames 3 years ago
gordonjames
I would be willing to take on this debate as CON given the title.

I would like to be clear on definitions for global warming as both sides in the history of this debate like to try to move the goalposts.

I would also like to stick to real measured data rather than climate models as the funding for this debate is often linked to a particular position, and models have a habit of saying what the person modeling climate was aiming for.
Posted by tahir.imanov 3 years ago
tahir.imanov
@justthefacts
40% of Americans need brain upgrade.
Posted by justthefacts 3 years ago
justthefacts
Oops. 3 year old CAR I meant.
Posted by justthefacts 3 years ago
justthefacts
I do not think you will find a young earth creationist that believes in Global warming, as a young earth means that the world is less than 10,000 years old, therefore it has not been around long enough to make such a determination. Almost 40% of the USA believe that the world is less than 10,000 years old and that it was made by God. I personally am not interested in this debate, as I am a young earth creationist. To me it would be like arguing whether or not the gas in my 3 year old had been there for 100+ years; it doesn't make sense. Just speaking up for a different side that hasn't been mentioned here. Take care, and God bless.
Also, I think that Al Gore really is MANBEARPIG.
Posted by tahir.imanov 3 years ago
tahir.imanov
For photos please check http://www.debate.org...
I don't know why they have not been posted.
Posted by jamccartney 3 years ago
jamccartney
I would actually be shocked if there is a con to this debate. I can't imaging anyone not believing in global warming (man-made climate change). If there is a con, I will challenge them to a debate of a similar topic.
Posted by blaze8 3 years ago
blaze8
Specifically Man-made global warming, or are you speaking of Global Climate change? Because the Earth has seen both periods of warming and cooling to great extent, over many hundreds of thousands of years too.
Posted by blaze8 3 years ago
blaze8
Specifically Man-made global warming, or are you speaking of Global Climate change? Because the Earth has seen both periods of warming and cooling to great extent, over many hundreds of thousands of years too.
Posted by tahir.imanov 3 years ago
tahir.imanov
Actually I am not going to post any videos, but as fair person, I give an opportunity to Con.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
tahir.imanovblaze8Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Cheetah 3 years ago
Cheetah
tahir.imanovblaze8Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by gordonjames 3 years ago
gordonjames
tahir.imanovblaze8Tied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: FF is no fun for the person who worked to do a good showing
Vote Placed by Merrit 3 years ago
Merrit
tahir.imanovblaze8Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff