Ice Ages versus Man Made Climate Change.
Debate Rounds (4)
Round 1: acceptance only
Round 2: opening arguments (Thou shall not refute current round)
Round 3: refutation of opponent's Round 2 argument.
Round 4: closing arguments & response to R3 refutations if you so desire.
Any sources used must be linked to directly. Linking to WWW.climate.com will not be considered quality sourcing unless you link DIRECTLY to a specific article within the webpage. (WWW.climate.com was just an example.)
As Pro I shall argue as Resolved above.
As Con (if you accept) you shall argue in support of man made global climate change.
Firstly I would like to thank Con for accepting this debate.
Resolved: Ice Ages are real, we are currently in an interglacial period and the Earth will warm further with or without the influences of mankind.
Ice Ages are real (I don't expect you to argue that ice ages are NOT real)
The Earth has experienced five ice ages that we know of Huronian, Cryogenian, Andean-Saharan, Karoo Ice Age and the Quaternary glaciation.
The current ice age that Earth is in is the Quaternary, within the Quaternary we are in an interglacial period known as the Holocene Epoch.
"The Holocene is a geologicalepoch which began at the end of the Pleistocene (at 11,700 calendar years BP)  and continues to the present."
As you can see from the table ^ posted above, The earth has experienced temperatures far warmer than we currently are experiencing, and likewise has experienced temperatures far cooler than we are currently experiencing. And this is just in a relatively short period (geologically speaking) and within our current ice age.
The Greenland ice sheet is thought to be fairly young, only to have formed in the Oligocene epoch, and most likely to have retreated and advanced many times.
The beginning of this ice age is referred to as the time when permanent ice sheets were established on Greenland and Antarctica, thus the end of the last ice age was set by the absence of those permanent ice sheets.
In summary, we know there have been five separate ice ages and within those ice ages there are multiple glacial and interglacial periods where these ice sheets have retreated and advanced.
I contend that with all the geological evidence available to us, the Greenland ice sheets would retreat with or without the impact of humans. We may in fact be having an impact on glaciation, but regardless of that impact, glaciation would occur with or without us as it has for hundreds of millions of years.
There are forces at work that affect our global climate far greater than the man made Co2 which is measure in ppm (parts per million)
These forces include but are not limited to:
Solar Output http://en.wikipedia.org...
Orbital Forcing http://en.wikipedia.org...
Plate Tectonics http://en.wikipedia.org...
Ocean Currents http://en.wikipedia.org...
This is a graph of CO2 concentrations and global temperature. If you look closely you can see that every time an ice age ends and the temperature starts rising CO2 levels lag behind a few hundred to thousands of years.
http://www.futuretimeline.net...; width="558" height="454" />This is a graph showing the same thing except for the years 1850-2000. At the year around 1975 a big change takes place in the way CO2 levels and temperature are related. Unlike in the past 400000 years where CO2 levels lagged behind temperature; starting around 1975 the CO2 levels rise almost Simultaneously. In the past 25 to 40 years there have been no worldwide effecting volcanoes, asteroids, or anything else that could cause that change the relationship between CO2 and temperature other than humans.
Another element of evidence is that "when climate model simulations of the last century include all of the major influences on climate, both human-induced and natural, they can reproduce many important features of observed climate change patterns. When human influences are removed from the model experiments, results suggest that the surface of the Earth would actually have cooled slightly over the last 50 years. The clear message from fingerprint studies is that the observed warming over the last half-century cannot be explained by natural factors, and is instead caused primarily by human factors."-http://en.wikipedia.org...
This is a graph of the results:
With this you don't even have to be a scientist to find that with no human influence it's incredibly different.
Also even if CO2 isn't enough; scientists have found a new green house gas that produced by humans and is 7100 times stronger than Carbon Dioxide. http://en.wikipedia.org....
Round 3: Refutation of opponents argument
"This is a graph of CO2 concentrations and global temperature. If you look closely you can see that every time an ice age ends and the temperature starts rising CO2 levels lag behind a few hundred to thousands of years."
Point 1 Temperature and CO2 - Vostok ice-core
In Con's graph associated with the above quoted text, what you actually see is Co2 levels increasing fairly consistently with a rise in temperature. However what you also see is the temperature dropping suddenly with a much greater lag in Co2 levels dropping that you see on the rising side of these peaks. If Co2 is the main contributing factor in global temperature, then how could the temperature drop thousands of years before the Co2 levels.
Con's graph in this case actually serves to illustrate that Co2 levels are NOT the main contributing factor in global temperature.
The next graph provided by Con only covers the years between 1850 and 2013, We definitely see a rise in temperature along side the rise of Co2 levels, but what does this mean?
In the previous graph which covers 450,000 years, we see the exact same relationship between Co2 and temperature. The only problem is that humans were not present in our current industrial state during the peak shown between 350,000-300,000, nor were we present during the peak between 250,000-200,000, and AGAIN we weren't present during the peak between 150,000-100,000! The only peak we are present for is the one between 50,000 and current, and this last peak looks identical to all the other peaks that have occurred during this ice age!
The final graph provided by Con shows a speculative difference between our current measured temperature and then the "blue line" shows what would have happened with "NO HUMAN INFLUENCE". This is pure speculation and has zero bearing on reality. Unless the creators of this graph have somehow managed to visit a parallel universe where Earth has no human inhabitants, this graph should be disregarded entirely because it is pure fiction.
Lastly, Con provided a link to Perfluorotributylamine, this gas is extremely rare less than 1 part per trillion. precisely 0.18 parts per trillion, that is less than 2/10ths of 1 part per trillion. I can't even begin to explain how rare that is.
This is a big part of the problem with Global warming science, many of these exaggerated claims like this last graph are based on nothing but speculation. They are based on a consensus which is fueled by our desire to "Not break the planet" I understand this desire, there is no argument that pollution is good. But blaming naturally occurring events like interglacial periods on pollution isn't going to help us better understand our environment.
If our Co2 centric models are actually the least accurate, then how can we expect speculative models like the "NO HUMAN INFLUNCE" model to mean anything but "PLEASE SUPPORT US EVEN THOUGH OUR SCIENCE IS WRONG"
Consensus is only evoked when the science isn't strong enough.
"In the previous graph which covers 450,000 years, we see the exact same relationship between Co2 and temperature" This statement is false. In the graph of graph of 450000 years and the graph of 1850-present the relationship between CO2 is different. What's different is that CO2 and temperature start rising simultaneously when before they didn't. It's also interesting to note that the"unimportant" perfluorotributylamine gas started to be produced in the Mid-20th century is only a decade or two off of the time when global temperatures started rising more drastically.
The last peak is actually quite different. It shows that the temperature started to rise less rapidly and then it suddenly started rising at a much higher rate when you look at it closer up in the 2nd graph.
"The final graph provided by Con shows a speculative difference between our current measured temperature and then the "blue line" shows what would have happened with "NO HUMAN INFLUENCE". This is pure speculation and has zero bearing on reality. Unless the creators of this graph have somehow managed to visit a parallel universe where Earth has no human inhabitants, this graph should be disregarded entirely because it is pure fiction. This is a big part of the problem with Global warming science, many of these exaggerated claims like this last graph are based on nothing but speculation."
Actually this graph is not pure speculation. This graph was created from data taken from a supercomputer which modeled the climate using all available knowledge. So it should be taken quite seriously. In addition the red line so closely following the actual temperature is good evidence that it is not pure fiction or speculation and is actually likely to be quite reliable.
Round 4: closing arguments & response to R3 refutations if you so desire.
In my closing argument I would ask the readers to "put aside" their preconceived conceptions of global warming as it has been told to us repeatedly and LOOK at the graphs that Con provided. Everyone can clearly see the same event repeating over and over again as we enter an interglacial period. A sudden rise in temperature and Co2 on each peak. Mankind was only here during the very last peak. Con argued that "This statement is false" in round 3 but why is it false? we can all see the graph for ourselves.
We can see that on each peak, The left side of the peak rises sharply, and then there is a much slower decent on the right. the temperature of the Earth on the left side of each peak rises sharply, then slowly descends back down into glacial periods.
Just because we are measuring a rise in Co2 and the temperature, doesn't mean that correlation is causation. Correlation is not always causation.
The 3rd Graph might be based on data from the biggest super computer the world has ever known, that doesn't change the fact that they are not observations of the REAL WORLD. Someone wrote those models to support their own theory, and all of our Co2 centric models FAILED to predict real world events. That is why the IPCC can not explain the 20 year pause in warming, That is why Germany wanted to DELETE the pause in global warming from the IPCC reports.
"Germany called for the reference to the slowdown to be deleted, saying a time span of 10-15 years was misleading in the context of climate change"
In conclusion the evidence is unmistakable. Everything points to the conclusion of anthropological global warming. With both graphs made from measured temperatures and from supercomputers performing trillions of calculations per second to simulate the physical laws governing the climate I have shown great evidence to support man made global warming. It has also been shown here that conspiracy theories are riddled throughout arguments provided by denialists. I'd also like to remind readers that climate trends only appear in the long run on the order of centuries. Also that last graph did predict a fall in temperature quite accurately and it was CO2 centric.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Con pointed out that there was a difference this time in that CO2 is leading rising temps, while in the past, temps rose first. Pro did not respond to this and continued to claim that they were the same as in the past. Pro also simply tried to dismiss the comparison of where we would be if there was no human involvement, but doing nothing more than calling it speculation is not a refutation. Con actually presented sources to support his case, while Pro focused on sources to tear down a strawman (all of his non-wiki sources were just news sources about some scientists being wrong or claiming to cover up data, this has nothing to do with showing that the warming is natural).
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.