The Instigator
jh1234l
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Pheidippies
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

Humans are the main cause of global warming

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 1 vote the winner is...
jh1234l
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/17/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,104 times Debate No: 29144
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

jh1234l

Pro

I will be arguing that humans are the main cause of global warming. Theefore, the burden of proof lies on me. There are no rules other than no trolling and try not to forfeit. My arguments: (copied from one of my previous debates): http://debate.org... , does not count as plagirism because it is my own work.

Carbon Dioxide

a. Correlation to temperature

CO2 is increasing. In fact, the level of it in our atmosphere now is higher than any point in the past 800 thousand years. [1] Temperature records show that the temperature is increasing, [2] and that CO2 does have a strong correlation to the temperature,[3][2] without any apparent lag, as shown in the short term chart at [2].

b. Source of CO2

For the global warming to be caused by man, the CO2 has to be man made or have some kind of relationship to human activities. Generating electricity using fossil fuels is the largest single source of CO2 emissions in the United States, accounting for about 40% of the total CO2 emissions in 2009,[4] followed by transportation at 31% in 2010[4], and industry at 14% in 2010. [4] As you can see, humans do emit lots of CO2.

Another Greenhouse Gas: Methane

Methane has 25 times the effect on the atmosphere than CO2 over 100 years, [5] and it is increasing.[5] In the year 2010, methane levels in the Arctic were measured at 1850 nmol/mol, a level over twice as high as at any time in the 400,000 years prior to the industrial revolution. [5] For this to be a part of human induced global warming, it has to have a human based source, and it is. Rice fields generate large amounts of methane during plant growth. [6] Municipal solid waste also produce Methane. [6]

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org......
[2]http://ossfoundation.us......
[3]http://www.grida.no......
[4]http://www.epa.gov......
[5]http://en.wikipedia.org......
[6]http://en.wikipedia.org......
Pheidippies

Con

Temperature
Humans did not start taking records of temperature until 1792 [2]. Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old [1]. Humans have been recording data for Earth for less than .001% of the time that this planet has been around. This is equal to 1 out 1000 grapes. If that one grape is bad in bag are you going to throw the whole bag away? No, you are going to test few others to see if they are bad. There is no evidence out there that proofs that temperature and CO2 are statistically significant to each other. I am talking within 5% of each other. Please provide scholar articles here if they exist. Former Vice President Al Gore does not count on scholarly.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Methane in the Oceans
There are also large amounts of methane gas below the ocean floors. Many kilometers underwater " where light never reaches " there are large stores of methane called clathrates frozen into the sediments along ocean margins. It has been estimated as much as 2000 to 4000 gigatons (Gt) of carbon are stored in these sediments.gas [3]. How do we know that the ocean is not release more methane gas than humans?
[3] http://oceanlink.island.net...
Debate Round No. 1
jh1234l

Pro

Note: The sources did not show up in the last round. They are in the first round of: http://debate.org...

There is no evidence out there that proofs that temperature and CO2 are statistically significant to each other. I am talking within 5% of each other.


Of course evidence cannot proof anything! Proof is a noun, not a verb, something cannot do a noun, period.

Plus, temperature is statistically significant to CO2. In fact, it correlates almost perfectly. [1][2]

Humans have been recording data for Earth for less than .001% of the time that this planet has been around. This is equal to 1 out 1000 grapes. If that one grape is bad in bag are you going to throw the whole bag away? No, you are going to test few others to see if they are bad.

However, we CAN indirectly know the temperature back then. Ice cores provide a way to do so. [3]

Please provide scholar articles here if they exist. Former Vice President Al Gore does not count on scholarly.

1. I nowhere did quote Al Gore in my last round.
2. I did post articles in the last round, the sources did not show up, so you should check this link (Where I copied my argument from) for the sources: http://debate.org...

There are also large amounts of methane gas below the ocean floors. Many kilometers underwater " where light never reaches " there are large stores of methane called clathrates frozen into the sediments along ocean margins. It has been estimated as much as 2000 to 4000 gigatons (Gt) of carbon are stored in these sediments.gas [3]. How do we know that the ocean is not release more methane gas than humans?

It is estimated that more than 50 percent of global methane emissions are related to human-related activities, according to the EPA. [4]

[1]http://ossfoundation.us...
[2]http://www.grida.no...
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4]http://www.epa.gov...
Pheidippies

Con

Changes in the temperature or direction of the Gulf Stream, which carries warm water north from the Gulf of Mexico, have heated sediments in a strip along the North Atlantic seafloor by 8 degrees Celsius, unlocking 2.5 billion metric tons of methane from deep-sea caches, scientists report in the Oct. 25 [1] Understanding these processes is important to global climate studies because the Gulf Stream plays a major role in the distribution of heat in the northern hemisphere.[4]

This shows that evidence that humans are not the main cause of global warming. You are telling me that humans produces CO2 can move Gulf Stream. Can human drilling with machines move the seven continents on earth or even the fault lines that are in earth surfaces?

It is estimated that more than 50 percent of global methane emissions are related to human-related activities, according to the EPA.

A.The agency also works with industries and all levels of government in a wide variety of voluntary pollution prevention programs and energy conservation efforts. [2] There are going to make numbers up so people working for the EPA now will be rich in 5 years when those policy come into effect. It"s the same idea that President Bush and Big Oil companies got accused during 2000 thru 2008. It"s all about money.

B.Estimated is A tentative evaluation or rough calculation, as of worth, quantity, or size.

[1] http://www.sciencenews.org...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[4] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
Debate Round No. 2
jh1234l

Pro

This shows that evidence that humans are not the main cause of global warming. You are telling me that humans produces CO2 can move Gulf Stream. Can human drilling with machines move the seven continents on earth or even the fault lines that are in earth surfaces?

The above is as wrong as: "anti-warmists say that humans use CO2 to make patties"

I drilling move contenent!
This debate is not about geography. CO2 does not move continents, plus I never told you that.
This is a strawman fallacy, which is misrepresenting your opponent's case.


A.The agency also works with industries and all levels of government in a wide variety of voluntary pollution prevention programs and energy conservation efforts. [2] There are going to make numbers up so people working for the EPA now will be rich in 5 years when those policy come into effect. It"s the same idea that President Bush and Big Oil companies got accused during 2000 thru 2008. It"s all about money.

This is an irrelevent argument. Attacking someone's sources or the person making the claim insted of their arguments is called an Ad Hominem fallacy. [1] Plus, how does the organization working for conservation mean that the source is wrong? That is anther fallacy, called correlation is not causation. The company working for energy conservation has nothing to do with its validity, until you prove it otherwise.

B.Estimated is A tentative evaluation or rough calculation, as of worth, quantity, or size.

Just because it is a rough idea does not make it wrong.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Pheidippies

Con

Pro Says: This debate is not about geography.

Pro Said in Round 1: Generating electricity using fossil fuels is the largest single source of CO2 emissions in the United States. This deals with geography.

Pro Said in Round 1: In the year 2010, methane levels in the Arctic were measured at 1850 nmol/mol"This deal with geography.

Pro Said in Round 3. This is a straw man fallacy, which is misrepresenting your opponent's case.
Yet, my opponent is missing the connection with geography in his own data and facts that he/she provided.

Plus, why does the government have a department called National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. These deals with geography such as mapping oceans and measure the CO2 levels in atmospheric over certain continents. The argument that humans are making Antarctica smaller due to CO2 levels melting the ices on Antarctica which in turn is raising the ocean levels. This is geography. Climate changes warming or cooling deals with geography, atmospheric, temperature, Ocean levels, and ice. [2][1]

[1] http://www.noaa.gov...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...

My opponent is trying to use the halo effects or sometimes called halo error which is a cognitive bias in which our judgment of person"s character can be influences by our overall impression of me
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
jh1234l

Pro

Yet, my opponent is missing the connection with geography in his own data and facts that he/she provided.

I never said that drilling in the ground moves the continents. I also never said that co2 moves the golf stream, an ocean current.[1] Plus, although this debate includes geography, it is not mainly about it. Your claim that I think that drilling can cause the continents to move is completely baseless.

My opponent is trying to use the halo effects or sometimes called halo error which is a cognitive bias in which our judgment of person"s character can be influences by our overall impression of me

How am I using it? Plus, you only described what a hao effect is, you did not say where and when I used it. This means that you have just made another baseless assertion.

Because my arguments still stand, I have met my BOP. My opponent, however, (this is not an ad hominem attack as it is about my opponent's arguments, not him/herself) has used fallacious arguments, including thinking that just because it is an estimate means it is invalid, and strawman statements including stating that I think drilling moves contenents. That was not a good case.


[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...



Pheidippies

Con

Members of the Jury and voting members, my opponent has used negative attacked when I provided better facts them him. I do admit that my comments were scared at times however; the response of my opponents not willing to discard the sarcastic comments and provided more facts about his side of the argument shows that he did not have strong facts and more relievable proof. There was a great presidential debate this past year that use sarcastic comment. The following was the sarcastic quote "Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military has changed," Obama said, after Gov. Mitt Romney jabbed the president for, he said, overseeing a Navy that is smaller than at any time since 1917. [1]" Gov. Mitt Romney went on the negative attacked because he could not provide a better argument to this sarcastic comment.

The facts are Methane gas in the Ocean being release is causing Global Warning and changes in the temperature and/or direction of the Gulf Stream is also causing Global Warning. With that say, I ask the member of the Jury to look at only facts and not at the sarcastic comment and negative comments towards each opponent.

[1] http://www.politico.com...
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by ishallannoyyo 3 years ago
ishallannoyyo
BALLS didn't mean to accept, i'll just forfeit R1 so it goes back to challenge period.

Sorry!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by youmils03 3 years ago
youmils03
jh1234lPheidippiesTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: I voted as I saw fit.