The Instigator
missmarysubijano
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
WorldTraveler
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Global Warming

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/30/2010 Category: Science
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,907 times Debate No: 11929
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

missmarysubijano

Pro

Rules:

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
WorldTraveler

Con

First of i read through your rules and i kinda think there stingy 4 a online debate, quotes are very credible and can be used as facts as long as there not from unreliable sources, so i hope u dont have a problem with me accepting them as fact.

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:
http://wattsupwiththat.com......
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
Debate Round No. 1
missmarysubijano

Pro

1)
"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

Con

damn your good
Debate Round No. 2
missmarysubijano

Pro

Merci mon amie! Please continue...
WorldTraveler

Con

WorldTraveler forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
It is really tough to debate something without a resolution. Pro's profile says she is "con" global warming, but here all she seems to be asserting is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. As far as I know, everyone agrees CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

The global warming debate is about whether anthropogenic CO2 is engendering a climate crisis. The physics of CO2 are such that it causes some warming, but not nearly as much as crisis theorists believe. The claim is that CO2 effects are being multiplied so as to make relatively minor warming into a crisis. They point to the warming from 1970 to 1998, in which there was a lot of warming but, they say, no other cause but CO2. The problem is that there has been no warming since 1998, and crisis advocates cannot say why there has been no warming. So the debate is about what is driving climate.
Posted by innomen 6 years ago
innomen
I don't understand, is this an argument of the existence of global warming as the globe has periods of fluxuating temperatures? Or imminent doom that will come about in 10 years if man doesn't change is course?
Posted by tBoonePickens 6 years ago
tBoonePickens
Terrible. If I could vote against both, I would.
Posted by WorldTraveler 6 years ago
WorldTraveler
very nice. i can't agree more
No votes have been placed for this debate.