Debate Rounds (3)
1. This debate will be on science:
Were leaving out politics and scientific consensus. No Al Gore or Oregon Petition please.
2. Understand the mechanics of Global Warming
Have a basic understanding of the science before accepting this challenge. Like I said before, quotes won't cut it here. We need good scientific arguments.
3. Prove me wrong, not my credibility
Don't ignore my arguments and say 'You don't have enough evidence, therefore I don't have to respond' Whether or not you believe I don't have enough evidence doesn't matter. This is a debate on the science of global warming and often I will explain the science behind my arguments, rather then just quote random reports.
Let's make this a debate between you and I, and not our sources.
4. Quotes aren't fact
I'm not looking for quotes from reports. You can use them, but they aren't fact. Many reports lie and explaining your logic and science, behind a scientific debate, is far more important then using sources that are probably biased and incorrect.
Skeleton of this debate:
Sources, logic, and evidence will come later. This is just the basic argument of global warming that I would like my opponent to refute:
1. The green house gases are ranked by their contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:
* water vapor, which contributes 36–70%
* carbon dioxide, which contributes 9–26%
* methane, which contributes 4–9%
* ozone, which contributes 3–7%
2. The green house gases cause the Greenhouse effect, which is:
An atmospheric heating phenomenon, caused by short-wave solar radiation being readily transmitted inward through the earth's atmosphere but longer-wavelength heat radiation less readily transmitted outward.
3. Humans have and are increasing the levels of carbon in the atmosphere
4. This is causing the greenhouse effect to 'block in' more long-wave radiation, causing the earth to warm
Now I understand the bases of global warming, so im not gonna waste time repeating it.
So, the title of this debate is that, "Global Warming--real enough to do something about it" So im just gonna start of (1) why its not real first of all and (2) why we should do nothing about it
(1)It has been a oh so great debate over the last 5+ years of global warming and the effects on our world that it has made, from the Arctic regions melting being the biggest and most exagerrated evidence for the presence of global warming. Now granted this is one of the most overly used defenses to that but i feel its impact is just as real...ITS A GLOBAL CYCLE...over thousands of years, and this cycle explains other extreme temerature cycles through out the past, the big one being the Ice Age. The Ice Age happened THOUSANDS of years ago, in this time (who'd a thunk it) the world got really icy...and there were there humans there to cause that??? Well thanl you wikipedia but here is an exerpt from wikipedia explaining the causes of the ice ages:
"The causes of ice ages remain controversial for both the large-scale ice age periods and the smaller ebb and flow of glacial–interglacial periods within an ice age. The consensus is that several factors are important: atmospheric composition (the concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane); changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun known as Milankovitch cycles (and possibly the Sun's orbit around the galaxy); the motion of tectonic plates resulting in changes in the relative location and amount of continental and oceanic crust on the Earth's surface, which could affect wind and ocean currents; variations in solar output; the orbital dynamics of the Earth-Moon system; and the impact of relatively large meteorites, and volcanism including eruptions of supervolcanoes."
Now all of those thing happened naturally, there were no humans to cause them but more importantly no humans around to cause the world to heat up and come out of it. The whole world cooled....and heated up....on its own, which leaves me at this, that if we let the earth do its thing and we just adapt by, o idk opening a window...lol...and just dealing with a that extra degree of heat (that extra degree of heat is all the earth has heated up by the way over the last hundred years) then we wil be OK.
(2) Now the second part of it why we should do nothing. Firstly i do believe its a worldly cycle but to play along i will answer, Now AlGore and others claim that over the last hundred years the tempatures have risen up to a degree. Well from January 2007 to January 2008 the average tempatures have fallen from .588 of a degree to .750 of a degree on the some thermometers that have taken the temps, that have claimed the "1 degree" increase. thank you:
so if over the past year the world has dropped a almost all the degrees that it gained why do anything allow the world to keep doing wat its doing and well be fine
Thankyou for your time an i await your response
"Now all of those thing happened naturally, there were no humans to cause them but more importantly no humans around to cause the world to heat up and come out of it. The whole world cooled....and heated up....on its own,"
Just because humans haven't been the cause of past warming and cooling trends it does not mean they can not be responsible for this one. Let me give you an example: Your driving your car, and it stops running. Never before has your car stopped working because you ran out of gas, so you check the engine. The engine seems to be in working order and yet you refuse to except the possibility of running out of fuel, even though the gas meter reads low.
This is the same thing as what your doing with global warming.
Too prove your case that this is simply 'natural' you must provide what is causing the change. It doesn't just happen randomly, something has to be the cause. Without a cause, you can not prove anything. And simply saying it is 'natural' doesn't really count. Why is it natural? What else could be causing it?
In other words, the climate science community has provided a well developed, internally consistent theory that predicts the effects we are observing. It provides explanations and makes predictions. Where is the skeptic community's model, or theory whereby CO2 does not affect the temperature? Where is the evidence of some other natural forcing?
Secondly, to prove that this warming trend is apart of the natural cycle, you must come up with some explanation for how a 35% increase in the second most important greenhouse gas does not itself affect the global temperature. Theory predicts that the temperature will rise given an enhanced greenhouse effect, how is it possible this is not happening?
"which leaves me at this, that if we let the earth do its thing and we just adapt by, o idk opening a window...lol...and just dealing with a that extra degree of heat (that extra degree of heat is all the earth has heated up by the way over the last hundred years) then we wil be OK."
The thing about global warming, isn't just the negative effects of the warming, it is the destabilization that comes from it. You see, all the government systems, eco-systems, and economic systems are dependent on the climate we currently have. If we use Idaho mainly for agriculture and crops, and 20% of our food comes from there, and then suddenly the climate shifts and Idaho is so dry you can no longer farm there, but you could farm somewhere like New York, it would be too much of a change for us to easily adapt without facing a lot of harm. Feed backs like this would cause economic, environmental, and political collapse and cause severely reduced public health, famine, etc.
A climate change is not something easily handled, it is dangerous and should be treated as such.
(2) "Firstly i do believe its a worldly cycle but to play along i will answer, Now AlGore and others claim that over the last hundred years the tempatures have risen up to a degree. Well from January 2007 to January 2008 the average tempatures have fallen from .588 of a degree to .750 of a degree on the some thermometers that have taken the temps, that have claimed the "1 degree" increase.... so if over the past year the world has dropped a almost all the degrees that it gained why do anything allow the world to keep doing wat its doing and well be fine"
This year in an outliner in a trend. When your looking at averages and trends, you never say a single year out of 100 can call off a warming trend, that is ridiculous. It is like saying one day out of January was warm, therefore it is spring. Or one test out of 100 got an A, therefore the class is genius.
So to end this response, I would like to review the questions I have raised in my response:
1. What in this 'natural cycle' is causing the current warming trend?
2. Why wouldn't such a large rise in the percentages of CO2 not effect the climate?
3. Why is a warmer world not dangerous?
4. How does a small change in one year out of the past hundred constitute that the trend is not in fact warming still?
WorldTraveler forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.