The Instigator
jh1234l
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ron-Paul
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Humans are the main cause of global warming

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Ron-Paul
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/9/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,660 times Debate No: 27000
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)

 

jh1234l

Pro

The CON must prove humans do not play a significant role in global warming. I recommend a experienced debater that opposes global warming to debate with me.

EDIT: Per Ron-Paul's request, the resolution is changed and the voting period is now 1 month.

My Starting Arguments:

Yes, the Earth is warming. Since the early 20th century, Earth's mean surface temperature has increased by about 0.8 "C (1.4 "F), with about two-thirds of the increase occurring since 1980.[1]

Is it caused mainly by humans? Humans have increased the amount of Co2, a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases increase the Earth's temperature.

"Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the burning of fossil fuels has contributed to the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to 397 ppm, despite the uptake of a large portion of the emissions through various natural "sinks" involved in the carbon cycle."[2]

Plus, global warming could cause ice cap melting. Dan Miller said that the ice caps can be gone by 2020. (From video)

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Ron-Paul

Con

I would like to thank jh1234l for challenging me to this debate. I will assume that the first round is for acceptance since my opponent put forth minimal arguments and the BoP is on him.
Debate Round No. 1
jh1234l

Pro

What is a greenhouse gas? Wikipedia says:

A greenhouse gas is a gas in an atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range. This process is the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect. The primary greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. [1]

1. CO2 is increasing.

The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere has reached 395 ppm (parts per million) as of June 2012 and rose by 2.0 ppm/yr during 2000"2009. This current concentration is substantially higher than the 280 ppm concentration present before industrial times, with the increase largely attributed to anthropogenic sources. [2]
The burning of fossil fuels has caused CO2 levels in the atmosphere to rise from 280 ppm to 397 ppm. [1]

2. Methane is increasing, too.

In 2010, methane levels in the Arctic was at 1850 nmol/mol, which is over twice as high as at any time in the 400,000 years before the industrial revolution. The Earth's atmospheric methane concentration has increased by about 150% since 1750, and it accounts for 20% of the total radiative forcing from all of the long-lived and globally mixed greenhouse gases (Excluding water vapour). [3]

3. Did the temperature rise? Statics say yes. The graph at [4] shows that it has risen by roughly 0.6 Degrees C.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4]http://data.giss.nasa.gov...
Ron-Paul

Con

I would like to thank jh12341 for presenting his arguments.

I. The Universe and Global Warming

The current state of the Galaxy and our Sun is affecting our temperatures.

I.i. The Rest of the Solar System

The Sun clearly is in a warmer phase, because all of the other planets have increasing temperatures as well.

"In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun."[1]

"'Global warming on Neptune's moon Triton as well as Jupiter and Pluto, and now Mars has some [scientists] scratching their heads over what could possibly be in common with the warming of all these planets … Could there be something in common with all the planets in our solar system that might cause them all to warm at the same time?'"[2]

Two things can be drawn from this. One, that if other planets are warming, that it is only natural for the Earth to be warming as well. And second, that even if all these planets did have natural causes, then that is a sign of Earth's natural climatic change, instead of man-made.

I.ii. The Position of the Milky Way Galaxy

Every approximately 135 million years, Earth enters a more populated area of the Milky Way, and as a result, more cosmic rays hit the Earth, which causes cooling. Currently, we are in a less populated area of the Milky Way, which means that less of these cosmic rays will be hitting the Earth, which means less cloud formation, and of course, warming.

[3] for the source on this hypothesis. The sun can also cause this through evaporation.

II. Earthly Causes

There are many internal causes of Global Warming as well.

II.i. Ocean Current Anomalies

Ocean temperature anomalies seem to be rising-along with the temperature.

"...one can model past temperatures as a linear trend (that started well before CO2 was added in any substantial quantity) and periodic bumps... ...temperatures over the last 100+ years look a lot like a linear trend plus ocean cycle-driven bumps"[4]

What is causing all the bumps?:

Overall temperatures are tied directly to ocean current cycles.
[4]

As shown in the graph, the PDO, or ocean currents, temperature has affected the average Earth's temperature.

II.ii. Clouds: A Continuation of Point I.ii.

I mentioned about the position of the Milky Way Galaxy and the Sun in regards to these "cosmic rays". Here is a more in depth look at the effects of position.

"The implications, if true, had potentially enormous implications for the debate about natural causes of warming. When the sun is very active, it can be thought of as pushing away cosmic rays from the Earth, reducing their incidence. When the sun is less active, we see more cosmic rays. This is fairly well understood. But if Svensmark was correct, it would mean that periods of high solar output should coincide with reduced cloud formation (due to reduced cosmic race incidence), which in turn would have a warming effect on the Earth, since less sunlight would be reflected back into space before hitting the Earth.

Here was a theory, then, that would increase the theoretical impact on climate of an active sun, and better explain why solar irradiance changes might be underestimating the effect of solar output changes on climate and temperatures."[4]

"Since he first suggested his hypothesis over a decade and a half ago, Svensmark and other researchers have slowly been putting together research to test it." The results were: "Scientists found that when shielding was removed and natural cosmic rays allowed to hit the chamber, cloud seeding increased dramatically, and it increased substantially again when additional artificial cosmic rays were added. Svensmark appears to have gotten it right."[5] Proof here is in the next points.

III. The 1500-Year Cycle

This has to do with a cycle of the climate that can explain the warming.

"Through at least the last million years, a moderate 1500-year warm-cold cycle has been superimposed over the longer, stronger Ice Ages and warm interglacials."[6]

Here is a graph related to this:
The 1500-year cycle exists and the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today.
[7]

There are two things we can conclude from this graph. First, that up-and-down cycles are normal for the long-term climate. This century's global warming is nothing new. The second thing we can conclude, is that today's global warming is not as bad as the Medieval Warm Period's peak yet, and the Medieval Warm Period was less than the Holocene Maximum Period.

"Even more important, the earth is not "the warmest it has ever been." In fact, the earth was much warmer during the Medieval Warm Period when human agriculture flourished!"[7]

"The scientists found evidence that on average, every 1,470 years, plus or minus 500 years, cold, ice-bearing waters, which today circulate around southern Greenland, pushed as far south as Great Britain."[8]

There seems to be a full cycle of up-down-up temperatures of the climate every 1470 years. And this goes as far back as at least 1 million years ago. Currently, we are in an upswing of temperatures, just coming off of the Little Ice Age, the peak to be in a few hundred years, making the peak-to-peak difference between today's global warming and the Medieval Warm Period a little less than 1500 years. So today's Global Warming is a natural, cyclical occurence.

IV. The Sun: The Proof of Theories I.ii and II.ii

The sun's cycles have a lot to do with temperatures also.

"In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and thus cooler it will be. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth."[9]

"Svensmark matched the data on cosmic rays from the neutron monitor in Climax, Colorado, with the satellite measurements of solar irradiance from 1970 to 1990. Over the period between 1975 and 1989, he found cosmic rays decreased by 1.2 percent annually, amplifying the sun's change in irradiance about four-fold"[6]

So, as the sun's activity increases, so does the temperature.

This below graph shows the correlation:

Temperature correlates with solar activity.
[10]

This graph clearly shows that temperature goes up and down with solar activity, because an increase in solar activity directly correlates with an increase in average temperature 1-2 years later.

And as a final side note, I would like to present this graph that helps disprove the anthropogenic cause theory, regarding again, natural cycles:

There is no evidence for an anthropogenic cause to global warming.
[4]

So "nature" created the same temperature trend as "humans" did. Hmmm.

Sources:

[1]: http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
[2]: http://www.livescience.com...
[3]: MacRae, Paul: Alarm: Global Warming-- Facts versus Fears.
[4]: http://www.climate-skeptic.com...
[5]: http://www.forbes.com...
[6]: Singer, S. Fred, and Dennis T. Avery: Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years.
[7]: http://www.isil.org...
[8]: http://www.sciencedaily.com...
[9]: http://www.eutimes.net...
[10]: http://www.petitionproject.org...;
Debate Round No. 2
jh1234l

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for a well written response.

I.i. The rest of the solar system

While fluctuations in solar activity can affect Earth's climate, the majority of climate scientists and astrophysicists agree that the sun is not to blame for the current and historically sudden uptick in global temperatures on Earth, which seems to be mostly created by humans. [1]

Abdussamatov blamed solar fluctuations for the attenuation of ice caps on Mars. However, these changes were likely not due to the Sun, but rather increases in atmospheric clouds or aerosols that reflected solar radiation back into space.[1]

Charles Long, a climate physicist at Pacific Northwest National Laboratories in Washington, says that Abdussamatov's idea is nonsense. [1]

I.ii. The Position of the Milky Way Galaxy

"Every approximately 135 million years, Earth enters a more populated area of the Milky Way, and as a result, more cosmic rays hit the Earth, which causes cooling."

135 million years.

Wikipedia says:
"Global warming is the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century and its projected continuation. Since the early 20th century, Earth's mean surface temperature has increased by about 0.8 "C (1.4 "F)."[2]

This was nowhere near 135 million years. How could this suddenly happen?

II. Earthly causes

I.i. Ocean Current Anomalies

"Ocean temperature anomalies seem to be rising-along with the temperature."

The temperature of the ocean can also be affected by the CO2 and Methane levels, (Which I proved that were going up in the last round. ) as those warm the surface and air, won't it be plausible that the air is warming the oceans and not the other way around?

Plus, In the picture you posted, it DID affect the temperature, but it still was going up, which I proved was man made.

II.ii. Clouds: A Continuation of Point I.ii.

See my refutation on Point I.ii.

III. The 1500-Year Cycle

I.S.I.L. is not even a scientific organization at all. " The International Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL) is an association of individuals and organizations dedicated to building a free and peaceful world, respect for individual rights and liberties, and an open and competitive economic system based on voluntary exchange and free trade. ISIL currently has members and representatives in over 100 countries."3]

I.S.I.L. even said
"To combat global warming, militants say we must all accept drastic reductions in our standard of living starting now, steadily increasing year-after-year, until much of industrial society is swept away. Only thus can the earth, and perhaps mankind, be saved.
Cars, jet travel for the public, air conditioning, refrigeration, and indeed many if not most of the conveniences of modern life will simply have to be abolished, as quickly as politically feasible. "

Even though that is not true.
"Industrialized countries commit to reduce their emissions by 40% by 2020, compared to 1990 levels.
Emissions from forest destruction are reduced by three quarters (75%)Emissions from forest destruction are reduced by three quarters (75%)" [4]

IV. The Sun: The Proof of Theories I.ii and II.ii

Refuted in I.i.

[1]http://www.livescience.com...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://www.isil.org...
[4]http://wwf.panda.org...
Ron-Paul

Con

I would like to thank jh1234l for his response.

First, I will refute my opponent's arguments, and then I will defend my own.

My opponent hasn't given any proof to his arguments. He shows that temperatures have increased, that CO2 concentrations have increased, and that the latter is caused by humans. However, he has failed to provide any correlation between CO2 and temperature; meaning that he has not proven how CO2 causes temperature increases. I will respond in more detail when my opponent posts fuller arguments, but I will make a small comment here:

"In the last decade, there has been no clear warming trend (as the UK Met Office and IPCC’s own figures demonstrate). In the last century, much of the warming occurred prior to 1940, when human emissions of CO2 were relatively small compared to today. During the post-war economic boom (when one would have expected the temperature to rise) the world cooled, from the 1940s till the mid-70s (again, this is evident from accepted data used by the IPCC)."[1]

Temperatures do not correlate with CO2.

[2]

As shown, CO2 does not correlate with temperatures that well. I will now wait for my opponent to respond to his fallacy and my small argument.

Now on to defending my arguments.

I. The Universe and Global Warming

I.i. The rest of the Solar System

I'll get to cosmic rays later for the Mars part, but my opponent has failed to respond to my second source on this. I'll post more:

"...it was noted the planet [Mars] was experiencing rapid warming, similar to what the Earth is currently undergoing.... The Martian icecaps are melting at a perilous pace.... ...and that both [warmings on Earth and Mars] can be explained by changes in solar irradiance."[3]

"Global warming was detected on Jupiter last year, and the warming is apparently behind the formation of a second red spot. Global warming on Neptune's moon Triton has also been noted, with severe atmospheric changes as a result. And even tiny Pluto has experienced moderate warming in recent years, with temperatures rising a full 3.5 degrees.
The common denominator in all these cases, the Earth included, is of course the Sun, which is in the middle of an extremely active period at present."[3]

So yes, all of these bodies are indeed warming, and it can all be attributed to increases in solar irradiance.

I.ii. The Position of the Milky Way Galaxy

My opponent has also failed to adequately respond to this. Again, I will cover this in more detail when I get to cosmic rays.

II. Earthly Causes

II.i. Ocean Current Anomalies

When examining the temperature and CO2 data, the correlation is striking. CO2 only correlates on a .44 scale (r = .44). This means the correlation rates from “fair” to “poor”, which is bad news for an alarmist. It shows the correlation is not very strong.

The correlation between the two main ocean currents, PDO and AMO, is particularly striking. The correlation is .83, the paper argues the correlation is in the “good” range, showing promise for this factor in the modern warming. It also shows its R2 is stronger then the CO2 correlation by a factor of almost two.

The scientific paper then examines data within the last ten years, the results? A CO2 correlation is no match at all. The correlation is only 0.02. (r = 0.02). If CO2 was the main driver of climate, then why isn’t the correlation higher in the past century, and so low within the last decade?[4][5]

This can show the real correlation:

Ocean currents correlate with temperature.
[4]

II.ii. Clouds

My opponent has not responded to this argument.

So, on cosmic rays, my opponent has not refuted the correlation between them, the fact that cosmic rays cause more cloud formation, or the fact that cosmic rays mean less solar radiation. He has dropped the whole argument.

You can easily see the direct correlation between cosmic rays and temperature: "The graph below shows a correlation between the cosmic ray counts and the global troposphere temperature radiosonde data. The cosmic ray scale is inverted to correspond to increasing temperatures. High solar activity corresponds to low cosmic ray counts, reduced low cloud cover, and higher temperatures. The upper panel shows the troposphere temperatures in blue and the cosmic ray count in red. The lower panel shows the match achieved by removing El Nino, the North Atlantic Oscillation, volcanic aerosols and a linear trend of 0.14 Celsius/decade."[2]. And the graph:



[2]

III. The 1500-Year Cycle

My opponent has also failed to respond to this argument adequately. He first attacks the ISIL, even though they are a respectable organization, then he proceeds to take a quote from it out of context, and finally concludes with an irrelevant quote. If my opponent wants more information:

"These are the Medieval Warm Period, which is well known, but also a period during the toga-wearing Roman times when temperatures were apparently 1 deg C warmer than now."[6] This is backed up by tree ring research.

"Indirect evidence suggests that the average temperature was as much as 1.5 degrees Celsius warmer than today."[7]

And another graph:

Move evidence for the 1500-year cycle and that the Holocene Maximum and the Medieval Warm Period were warmer than today.

[8]

IV. The Sun

My opponent yet again fails to respond to my argument. It is not refuted in his I.ii.

Some more info on the topic:

"Changes in the Sun can account for major climate changes on Earth for the past 300 years, including part of the recent surge of global warming, 300 years, including part of the recent surge of global warming"[9]

And another graph showing sunspot count (the higher the sunspot count, the greater the solar activity) versus climate. Pretty good correlation:

There is a small lag between temperature and solar activity. Solar activity will affect temperatures 15-20 years later.
[8]

I encourage my opponent to actually try and counter my arguments instead of committing logical fallacies and red herrings. I look forward to the next round with a sense of hope.

Sources:

[1]: http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com...
[2]: http://members.shaw.ca...
[3]: http://www.dailytech.com...
[4]: http://wattsupwiththat.com...
[5]: D'Aleo, Joseph: US Temperatures and Climate factors since 1895.
[6]: http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
[7]: http://www.thefreemanonline.org...
[8]: MacRae, Paul: Alarm: Global Warming - Facts versus Fears.
[9]: http://www.news.harvard.edu...
Debate Round No. 3
jh1234l

Pro

Thanks to Ron-Paul for a well written response.

Correlation between CO2 and Temperature

The records have shown strong correlations between climate and CO2 levels, as seen in the graph at [1].

"The world cooled from 1940-1970."

Your source for this is not accurate, and is shown to be a misrepresentation of temperature records.[2]
As shown, CO2 does correlate to the temperature records, so this argument is refuted.

I.i The Rest of The Solar System

The warming on Mars can be caused by reasons other than the Sun. Jeffery Plaut, a scientist from NASA, said "It"s believed that what drives climate change on Mars are orbital variations, the Earth also goes through orbital variations similar to that of Mars."[3]
The warming on Triton, could be the result of an extreme southern summer on the moon, a season that occurs every few hundred years, as well as possible changes in the makeup of surface ice that caused it to absorb more of the Sun"s heat. [3]
As you can see, there are other possible explanations for this, not just the sun.

Earthly Causes

"When examining the temperature and CO2 data, the correlation is striking. CO2 only correlates on a .44 scale (r = .44). This means the correlation rates from "fair" to "poor", which is bad news for an alarmist. It shows the correlation is not very strong."

The cosmic rays only correlate at an 0.31-0.47, as stated by you, but anyways I'll go on.

"The correlation between the two main ocean currents, PDO and AMO, is particularly striking. The correlation is .83, the paper argues the correlation is in the "good" range, showing promise for this factor in the modern warming. It also shows its R2 is stronger then the CO2 correlation by a factor of almost two. The scientific paper then examines data within the last ten years, the results? A CO2 correlation is no match at all. The correlation is only 0.02. (r = 0.02). If CO2 was the main driver of climate, then why isn"t the correlation higher in the past century, and so low within the last decade?"

The paper, however, did not give a 10 years for PDO and AMO, so there is no comparison. We need the 10-year for PDO and AMO for actual comparison.

The Position In Galaxy & Cosmic Rays

First, I have not taken the quote out of context, only shortened it for the word limit. Anyways, I'll continue.
If you look at my edited version at [4], you will see that it doesn't correlate much. Plus, the lower chart removed the linear trend (Caused by CO2 increases, possibly, as CO2 does correlate to the climate [1] and it increased by 2 ppm/yr from 2000-2009[5]), causing it to look more "correlated", which is just a result of editing.

Medieval Warm Period

This period has very little temperature records, and the temperature may be below the temperature now. Wikipedia said that despite substantial uncertainties, the warmest period of the last 2,000 years prior to the 20th century very likely occurred between 950 and 1100, but temperatures were probably between 0.1 "C and 0.2 "C below the 1961 to 1990 mean and significantly below the level shown by instrumental data after 1980. [6]

Sunspots

An international panel of experts led by NOAA and sponsored by NASA has released a new prediction for the next solar cycle. Solar Cycle 24 will peak, they say, in May 2013 with a below-average number of sunspots.[7]
While there is not yet a definitive link between solar sunspot activity and global temperatures, the scientists conducting the solar activity study believe that global greenhouse gas emissions would prevent any possible cold snap.[8]

From this information, the globe should be cold now, but 2011 was the warmest La Ni"a year in the period from 1950 to 2011. [8]

[1]http://www.grida.no...
[2]http://www.durangobill.com...
[3]http://www.livescience.com...
[4]http://jh1234l.weebly.com...
[5]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[7]http://science.nasa.gov...
[8]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Ron-Paul

Con

I would like to thank jh12341 for presenting his arguments.

My opponent posts a very convincing graph to his argument, until you look at it closer, you find that there is about a 1000-year lag that shows CO2 pratically a millenium behind temperature.

"...the CO2 changes have lagged about 800 years behind the temperuatre changes. Global warming has produced more CO2, rather than more CO2 producing global warming."[1]

My opponent uses an extremely zoomed out graph, making it hard to see this. However, I will make it easier for everyone and show the last 11000 years of CO2 history:




[2]

"In fact, the air's CO2 content did not begin to rise until 400 to 1,000 years after the planet began to warm. Ice cores provide a detailed record of local temperature and CO2 concentrations. A study finds that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 +/- 200 years. CO2 does not seem to be following that well."[3]

Then, my opponent claims that there has been warming from 1940-1970. However, two simple things will counter this.

One, "In spite of rhetoric to the contrary, the majority of this warming took place naturally before 1940. This warming trend was interrupted by a 35-year cooling period from 1940 to 1975."[4]

And a graph:



[5]

As can be easily seen from the graph, there was a 0.2 C degree drop in global temperature anomalies from 1942 till 1977.

The Rest of the Solar System

I can happily post more evidence of this.

Here are some solar system wide effects:
  • Sun - "Recent Activity Highest in 8000 Years [meaning it's not just the 11-year cycle] and"magnetic field has decreased in size by 25%
  • 300% increase in galactic dust entering solar system
  • Mercury - magnetosphere experiencing significant increases
  • Venus - 2500% Increase in Green Glow
  • Mars - Rapid Appearance of Clouds, Ozone and"Up to 50% Erosion of Ice Features in one year alone
  • Jupiter - Plasma Torus increasing and"Jupiter"s Disappearance of White Ovals since 1997 " recent increase in storms
  • Io - "observing same changes -" 200% Increase in Density of Plasma Torus
  • and Ionosphere 1000% Higher
  • Europa - Much Brighter Than Expected
  • Ganymede - 200% brighter
  • Saturn's - Plasma Torus 1000% Denser and"Aurora First Seen in polar regions in recent years
  • Uranus - featureless in 1996, now exhibiting huge storms since 1999 and markedly brighter in 2004 than in 1999
  • Neptune - 40% Brighter, Near Infrared Range " 1996 " 2002
  • Triton - Severe atmospheric changes, warming
  • Pluto - 300% increase in atmospheric pressure.
You can't be telling me all of this is a coincidence. Also, by the way, since CO2 does not correlate with temperatures, your Pluto-to-Earth claim is fallacious."[6]

So, there are also many other bodies being affected.

Earthly Causes

For my cosmic ray quote, you have to understand that there are many factors affecting the Earth's climate: ocean currents, climatic cycles, etc... However, it is easy to spot the correlation, isn't it?

Cosmic rays inversely correlate with temperature.

[3]

There is a very good fit. Cosmic rays inversly correlate with temperature.

In addition to this,

Cosmic rays inversely correlate with cloud cover and with sunspot number (which correlates with solar activity).

[7]

Cosmic rays inversly correlate with sunspots and low clouds (which both produce warming).

Low clouds means warmer temperatures: "Cloud cover has decreased over the past 39 years globally, and temperatures have risen during that time. This global decrease in cloud cover alone could account for all surface warming observed since the 1970s."[8]

Putting this all together, "For example, the authors of a paper by NASA's JPL remark '...has compared the minimum aa [index of geomagnetic activity] values with the Earth's surface temperature record and found a correlation of 0.95 between the two data sets starting in 1885. The solar irradiance [solar activity] proxy developed from the aa minima continues to track the Earth's surface temperature until the present.'"[9]

There. Cosmic rays, the sun, and all the Earth's natural cycles have a .95 correlation.

For my PDO/AMO quote, I'm not sure what my opponent is trying to say and ask him to clarify.

The Position In Galaxy and Cosmic Rays

First, my opponent could have posted the entire quote. He only used ~3500 characters for his whole R3 argument with a 8000 character limit. Please post the whole thing and I will evaluate it in R5.

Second, my opponent misinterprets my graph. I said earlier that the top chart was, "The lower panel shows the match achieved by removing El Nino, the North Atlantic Oscillation, volcanic aerosols and a linear trend of 0.14 Celsius/decade." The bottom chart is the more useful (and more accurate) way to isolate cosmic rays, and lo and behold, there is a correlation for that time.

As if I haven't posted enough to convince you of cosmic ray's effect on temperature, I will post one more graph:



[10]

Finally, I already refuted my opponent's last point.

Medieval Warm Period

There is ample evidence that the Medieval Warm Period and Holocene Climate Maximum were hotter than today:

"Chinese temperatures were 2 to 3 degrees C higher than present during China's climate optimum."
"...during the Medieval Warming... . Temperatures may have been as much as 2.5 degrees C warmer [than today] due to a southward shift of the climate belts."
"...the central Argentinean area had more precipitation during the Medieval Warming than today. Temperatures may have been as much as 2.5 degrees C warmer due to a southward shift of the tropical rainbelts."
"The largest anomaly was a rapid warming-4 degrees C-between 350 B.C and A.D 450, reflecting a warmer climate in equatorial East Africa."
"On Signy Island, halfway between Antarctica and the southern tip of South America, there clearly shows the Roman Warming..., the Dark Ages [cooling]..., the Medieval Warming, the Little Ice Age, and the 20th century warming-which is cooler to date than the Medieval Warming."[1]

I will keep coming with more. There is a clear correlation.

"Indirect evidence suggests that the average temperature was as much as 1.5 degrees Celsius warmer [during the Medieval Warm Period] than today."[11]

Also, a graph:

The previous warm periods were all warmer than today.

[12]

Clearly, there were many times warmer than today.

The Sun

First, solar activity is still increasing, even with the sunspots. It is a general trend up.

Second, I already refuted the CO2 connection.

I will post a some graphs to help visualize this:

Temperatures correlate with solar activity, not CO2.

[13] Which one correlates better?



[3] Longer term, here is a correlation of a solar proxy to a temperature proxy for a period of 3000 years. Values of carbon-14 (produced by cosmic rays, hence a proxy for solar activity) correlate extremely well with oxygen-18 (temperature proxy). The lower graph shows a particularly well-resolved time interval from 8,350 to 7,900 years BP. The above graph summarizes data obtained
from a stalagmite from a cave in Oman.



[3] Good correspondence between temperature and solar irradiance proxy reconstructions as shown on the graph above.

Sources:

[1]: Unstoppable Global Warming: Every1,500 Years.
[2]: http://wattsupwiththat.com...
[3]: http://members.shaw.ca...
[4]: http://www.thefreemanonline.org...
[5]: http://en.wikipedia.org...(NASA).svg
[6]: http://prof77.wordpress.com...
[7]: http://climatereview.net...
[8]: http://wattsupwiththat.com...
[9]: http://wattsupwiththat.com...
[10]: http://www.peakprosperity.com...
[11]: Source 4.
[12]: http://tucsoncitizen.com...
[13]: http://www.outersite.org...




Debate Round No. 4
jh1234l

Pro

Thanks to Ron-Paul for the response.

CO2 Correlation

The sunspots actually rose after the temperature in 1960, according to the chart from [A]. If my opponent's claim is right, then global warming causes sunspots to rise, which is not the case. The chart from [A] shows a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature, in the short term without apparent lag.

Sun

"Sun - Recent Activity Highest in 8000 Years and magnetic field has decreased in size by 25%"

Again, my sun argument still stands. Predictions say that Solar Cycle 24 will have a peak sunspot number of 90, the lowest of any cycle since 1928 when Solar Cycle 16 peaked at 78. Right now, the solar cycle is in a valley--the deepest of the past century. In 2008 and 2009, the sun set Space Age records for low sunspot counts, weak solar wind, and low solar irradiance. The sun has gone more than two years without a significant solar flare. [B] The sun is not in a period of high activity.

"Also, by the way, since CO2 does not correlate with temperatures, your Pluto-to-Earth claim is fallacious."

I have proven this wrong with [A].

Cosmic Rays

The most recent IPCC studies disputed the mechanism. The 2007 IPCC reports, however, strongly attribute a major role of anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the ongoing global warming, but as "different climate changes in the past had different causes" a driving role of carbon dioxide in the geological past is neither focus of the IPCC nor purported. [C]

PDO/AMO

The 10-year correlation record of CO2 is on there, but the 10 year correlation record of PDO/AMO is not on there, therefore this does not prove that CO2 has less influence.

"There. Cosmic rays, the sun, and all the Earth's natural cycles have a .95 correlation. "

The PDO/AMO does not have a 10 year chart to compare with CO2, the sun is refuted in earlier rounds.
The sunspots are lagging behind the temperature. IPCC disputes the cosmic rays and instead attribute the warming to CO2.

Position in galaxy (Only a chart given by opponent)

Per Ron-Paul's request, this is the full quote: (formatting changed for character count, no changes in content, words taken out in R3 are marked)
" To combat global warming, militants say we must all accept drastic reductions in our standard of living starting now, steadily increasing year-after-year, until much of industrial society is swept away. Only thus can the earth, and perhaps mankind, be saved. [[To achieve this radical restructuring of human society, global warming proponents demand that we give virtually unlimited power to government to control what we eat, how we travel, and how our industries operate, with no dissent or resistance permitted.]] Cars, jet travel for the public, air conditioning, refrigeration, and indeed many if not most of the conveniences of modern life will simply have to be abolished, as quickly as politically feasible. As one environmental activist puts it, Everything modern has to go!" -ISIL

Medieval Warm Period

"I will keep coming with more. There is a clear correlation."
There is no correlation if you give nothing to compare.

The data before 1600 was scarce [D], which means that the temperatures can be colder or warmer than now, but the chart at [E] shows that the MWP is colder than the temperature at 2004.

The Sun

Back in 2008, the solar cycle plunged into the deepest minimum in nearly a century. Sunspots all but vanished, solar flares subsided, and the sun was eerily quiet. As 2011 unfolds, sunspots have returned and they are crackling with activity. On February 15th and again on March 9th, Earth orbiting satellites detected a pair of "X-class" solar flares--the most powerful kind of x-ray flare. The last such eruption occurred back in December 2006. [F]

As you can see, the solar activity was unstable. Then we should see many huge dips and rises in the chart at http://ossfoundation.us... , but the sun spots dipped down in 2000, while the temperature still rose with the CO2 with little to none delays on the CO2 part. CO2 correlates more than sun spots on [A]. And [A] is a short term graph from 1860 to 2000, so the CO2 should be delayed like crazy, right? Nope, that is not the case.

In Conclusion, my opponent's claims have been refuted.

[A]http://ossfoundation.us...
[B]http://science.nasa.gov...
[C]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[D]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[E]http://upload.wikimedia.org...
[F]http://science.nasa.gov...
Ron-Paul

Con

I would like to thank jh1234l for this great debate.

CO2 Correlation

First, what my opponent seems to fail to take into account, is that the Earth is in the middle of a 30-year cooling trend.

"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."[1]

Then why was 2010 the hottest year ever?

"The "hottest year" claims confirm the case for political science overtaking climate science. The “hottest year” claim depends on minute fractions of a degree difference between years. Even NASA's James Hansen, the leading proponent of man-made global warming in the U.S., conceded the "hottest year" rankings are essentially meaningless. Hansen explained that 2010 differed from 2005 by less than 2 hundredths of a degree F (that's 0.018F)."[2]

"There has now been no net warming since 1997 -15 years with CO2 rising with no global temperature increase. Since 2003, the trend is negative."[3]

And a graph:


[4]

Second, my opponent provides this way out of whack graph, even though I have posted many graphs accurately showing the correlation between solar activity and temperature.

I'm not to be mean and provide a new argument, so I will simply leave the audience with something to consider: Remember the laws of thermodynamics. Even if the sun's activity has leveled off, there will still be increases in temperature for a short while because the sun is still producing more energy.

Sun

For my opponent's first point, I would like to thank him for conceding that the sun's activity is decreasing also, further supporting the conclusion that the Earth is cooling, which I mentioned above. Also, this further disproves the idea of CO2 causing global warming becuase CO2 concentrations are continuing to go up exponentially. (Also, I realize this might be in contradiction with my earlier point, but I encourage readers to look at overall levels, and the fact that the MWP was longer than this time's warming).

As for my opponent's second point, he hasn't proven anything wrong because your graph doesn't show correlation at all.

In addition, he drops ALL the other stellar data I provided in the last round.

Cosmic Rays

My opponent has provided no rebuttal to my cosmic ray point; all he has done is make another claim about CO2's causation of the current warming.

I will simply provide a short rebuttal and a graph.



[5]

There is clearly not that much correlation, especially today when temperatures are decreasing.

Now on to a research paper on the topic:

The highlights of the paper are:

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature, and 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

► Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.[6]

Once more, my opponent has failed to respond to my arguments on cosmic rays.

PDO/AMO

My opponent is claiming that I have not provided a "10 year correlation record of PDO/AMO", although I'm sure I have in the numerous graphs and quotes I've made on this topic.

I'll provide another graph:

Perfect correlation. Pattern found.
[7]

As we can see, there is extremely large correlation, and that the sun spot number and climate is extremely correlated. And when broken into the last century, has a stronger correlation then CO2.

PDO is also considered a large factor in the current warming, and its statistical correlation is extremely high and should never be considered unworthy as a component in warming [8].

The facts where presented, the current correlation since 1880 was not strong enough to mean CO2 was a large factor, as it was under a .5 R correlation. The PDO (a natural forcing) had higher correlations by factors of two.

Position in Galaxy

I would like to thank my opponent for presenting the whole quote, but it does not help his case one bit. My opponent can obviously not see that this was a point agreed upon by the creators of that article. Notice that "militants" say, not ISIL.

What ISIL says is: "To put it another way, the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is the result of changes in solar activity, not the cause of it. Climate change is natural, continuous, and caused by changes in solar emissions."[9]

Obviously, my opponent misread my quote.

Now I will post the very last thing on cosmic rays:

The following table sets out a comparison of the predictions of two climate theories - the CO2 warming theory and the Sun/Cosmic Ray theory - and actual real world data.


Issue Prediction - CO2 Theory Prediction - Sun/Cosmic Ray Theory Actual Data Which Theory Wins
Antarctic and Arctic Temperatures Temperatures in the Arctic and Antarctic will rise
symmetrically
Temperatures will initially move in opposite directions Temperatures move in opposite directions Sun/Cosmic Ray
Troposphere Temperature Fastest warming will be in the troposphere over the
tropics
The troposphere warming will be uniform The surface warming is similar or greater than troposphere
warming
Sun/Cosmic Ray
Timing of CO2 and Temperature Changes at End of Ice Age CO2 increases then temperature increases Temperature increases then CO2 increases CO2 concentrations increase about 800 years after temperature
increases
Sun/Cosmic Ray
Temperature correlate with the driver over last 400 year na na Cosmic ray flux and Sun activity correlates with temperature, CO2
does not
Sun/Cosmic Ray
Temperatures during Ordovician period Very hot due to CO2 levels > 10X present Very cold due to high cosmic ray flux Very cold ice age Sun/Cosmic Ray
Other Planets' Climate No change Other planets will warm Warming has been detected on several other planets Sun/Cosmic Ray


[10]

Medieval Warm Period

[10]

This comes from ocean sediment studies. In other words, very reliable. I also provided ice core and tree ring data which are also very reliable. These are certainly worthy statistics and my opponent has dropped them.

The Sun

I already countered all of this earlier. Also, "Temperatures have been increasing since 1980 faster than can be explained by the
sunspot cycle length, indicating a possible human CO2 contribution. The recent increase of the cycle lengths explains why there has been no warming since 2002. Temperature changes are expected to follow Sun activity changes due to a time lag resulting from the large heat capacity of the oceans."[10]

Conclusion

"Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%. [11]


Thanks again to my opponent for the debate.

Sources:

[1]: http://www.forbes.com...
[2]: http://www.climatedepot.com...
[3]: http://wattsupwiththat.com...
[4]: http://www.drroyspencer.com...
[5]: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...
[6]: http://www.sciencedirect.com...
[7]: http://www.climate-skeptic.com...
[8]: S. Fred Singer et al., “Climate Change Reconsidered. 2011 interim report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change” The Heartland Institute, (2011)
[9]: The ISIL Source
[10]: http://members.shaw.ca...;
[11]: http://geocraft.com...
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
I have never seen more charts in my entire life.
Posted by TheElderScroll 4 years ago
TheElderScroll
@Defool
You can also check out RealCliamte. It offers some very basic information.
Mars argument, for example, can be found at http://www.realclimate.org...
It does present a different picture, however.
Posted by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
Thank you, Ron Paul. I am certain that I will need some clarifications; this is a very technical discussion.
Posted by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
@DeFool:

The chart is simply a little off.

As for your second point, the LIA, as shown in all of my graphs, was between that timeframe.

If you have any other questions, shoot.
Posted by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
I have been reading this contest, but I cannot evaluate it without spending much more time studying the presentations.

I did not see the "appeal to authority" that has been mentioned, however. Perhaps this could be shown to me.

In Ron Paul's arguments, a chart is presented with the title "Little Ice Age" that charts climate data that seems to record average temperatures through the year 2100 (?). It is very possible that I am simply unable to interpret the chart, but I am certain that no data for 2100 exists. The Little Ice Age, according to Wiki, ran from "a period extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries." I see the chart, but I do not feel confident that the two agree.

This type of data is making this a very challenging debate to properly evaluate. (Unless one's mind is already made up before the evaluation begins.) I hope that the participants can answer a few questions...
Posted by baggins 4 years ago
baggins
For those interested http://berkeleyearth.org...
Posted by baggins 4 years ago
baggins
RFD

The biggest problem with Pro's case was, he does not have a case.

Everyone would agree that mean global temperature is depends on many factors. What Pro needed was a proper statistical study through which he could analyze the contribution of each factor.

Con did present a strong case. Most of Pro's argument were weak response often relying on appeal to authorities. (This arguments are wrong because xyz says so...).
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
We have a small part, sure, not the main cause though.
Posted by Luggs 4 years ago
Luggs
Uh, you can't prove something doesn't exist: that would be trying to prove a negative. You need to shift the BoP, Con's job would be to prove your arguments false, rather than prove the concept is false.
Posted by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
I would love to debate this (and I am very experienced), but I have a few requests.

1. Please change the resolution to something like "Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming". I'm not going to argue that humans have played absolutely no part.
2. Please change the voting period to 1 month or less.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by utahjoker 4 years ago
utahjoker
jh1234lRon-PaulTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con just kept on throwing graphs and using great sources.
Vote Placed by baggins 4 years ago
baggins
jh1234lRon-PaulTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments...