The Instigator
Sebastian_Ley
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
16kadams
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

Is Global Warming Fake?

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 2 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/15/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 842 times Debate No: 71735
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

Sebastian_Ley

Con

A pretty self explanatory debate. I will be arguing that global warming is real and contributed to by humans, and I welcome any opponent who would wish to challenge me on this subject. I have Just a few criteria for who my opponent is:
1) They are polite.
2) They cite their sources.

The debate debate will be structured like this:
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Opening statements
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Defense of your opening statement and a closing statement.
16kadams

Pro

I accept. I do not think global warming is caused by humans--I am devils advocating, so I hope I don't change your opinion lol.

I will accept global warming is real, but NOT that is anthropogenic--which my opponent says she must prove to win.

I look forward to this.
Debate Round No. 1
Sebastian_Ley

Con

I'm really sorry about this, but I'll have to post my opening statement in the comments. I've been seriously busy and I've got an appointment and only 45 minutes before my time is up. When I get back in an hour I'll post my opening statement in the comments. Again, sorry for the inconvenience.
Debate Round No. 2
Sebastian_Ley

Con

Alright, I've posted my opening statement in the comments, go ahead and post yours. I will then attempt to disprove your argument, and then you will do the same to me. Finally, we'll do our closing statements and defend our opening statements.
16kadams

Pro


My opponent could have posted his round here… But I will refute it nevertheless and voters can easily check it out—it is fairly short. I must also note I am devils advocating, so I really don’t want to change my opponent’s opinion :P


My opponent’s argument is fairly simple: temperature rose, greenhouse gas emissions rose, thus climate change is caused by man-made emissions. This is faulty reasoning. Post hoc ergo propter hoc: merely because one event (climate change) occurred after another event (greenhouse gas emission increase) does not mean that climate change is necessarily man-made.


First I must show that climate has the potential to change—whether or not greenhouse gas emissions exist or not. The best evidence for this is a look into paleoclimatology. The strongest evidence suggests climate over the past 500 million years is actually better correlated to galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) than to carbon dioxide changes. Geological reconstructions of both CO2 and temperature do not correlate well, whereas GCR reconstructions almost perfectly predict climate changes over earth’s geologic past. GCRs are rays which come from across the universe but are regulated by solar winds. If the solar wind changes, either more (or less) GCRs enter earth’s atmosphere. The weaker the solar wind, the more GCRs come to earth. Those GCRs cause cloud cover, which leads to cooling. Thus, the correlation is reverse: fewer clouds and GCRs = warming, more GCRs and more clouds = cooling. So when you read about GCRs, you must remember that there is a reverse correlation. At least 66% of paleoclimate trends can be explained by variations in the GCR flux [1. http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu...].


Could this be happening today? Maybe. Cloud cover has decreased significantly in recent years. Basic correlational analysis has demonstrated that at least 1/3 of recent ocean heating is due to changes in cloud cover, suggesting GCRs (or some other natural mechanism) are having some influence on modern temperature changes [2. http://www.drroyspencer.com...]. Indeed, the correlation between cloud cover and GCRs has a coefficient of 0.92, or a 92% correlation, indicating GCRs could influence cloud cover by as much as 92% [3. http://www.icr.org...].


So it is not crazy to assume that GCRs may be causing climate change. A review of the evidence by Willie Soon and David Legates, one a climatologist the other a solar physicist, has concluded that the sun has a more direct effect. GCRs are an indirect effect, total solar irradiance is a direct one. They measure temperature between 1850 and 2010, and find an excellent correlation between total solar irradiance (TSI) and temperature. They extended the analysis over millions of years, with one dataset extending to 65 million years ago, another to 100 million years ago, and ones ranging from 35 – 55 million years ago. All of the datasets seem to show strong correlations between TSI and temperature changes [4. http://people.duke.edu...].


It should be noted models which show that CO2 causes climate change cannot explain the medieval warm period (MWP) which occurred about 1000 years ago [5. http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk...]. This is why Michael Mann, the creator of the hockey stick, has worked so hard in order to prove that it didn’t occur. But evidence suggests that the MWP did, in fact, occur. And if it did, models showing that CO2 causes warming are flawed and the theory is broken. A review of the evidence has been done and finds the majority of studies find the MWP to be 0.25 degrees warmer than present, but there are many showing that the MWP was in excess of one degree C warmer than today. Those claiming it to be cooler than today are low in number. So, if consensus is how you like to do science, the MWP was a real thing [6. http://www.co2science.org...]. About 100 studies show that the MWP was warmer than today and a little over 20 show that they are about equal—only 10-15 claim that the MWP was cooler than today [7. http://www.co2science.org...]. If the MWP was warmer than today, the MWP was real. We are in a warm period now, so if it was equal then a MWP still existed. If it was cooler, it is possible for the MWP to still exist and invalidate the models. Indeed, even though Mann et al. 2008 claims today is warmer than the MWP, their evidence strongly suggests that there was *some* warm period about 1000 years ago [8. http://en.wikipedia.org...]. Thus, the MWP invalidates global warming theory.


Back to you.


Debate Round No. 3
Sebastian_Ley

Con

Sebastian_Ley forfeited this round.
16kadams

Pro

Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Sebastian_Ley 2 years ago
Sebastian_Ley
Im assuming we all know how global warming works. Greenhouse gasses trap heat energy in earths atmosphere, causing the planet to heat up. Humans increase rates of global warming by deforestation and burning fossil fuels which produce greenhouse gases. The most common example of a greenhouse gas is CO2, Or Carbon dioxide. For the past 640,000 years atmospheric CO2 levels have fluctuated between 180 and 300 parts per million. They have never gone higher than 300 ppm. And yet, just since the 1950's CO2 levels have spiked to 400 ppm. Unsurprisingly, along with this rise in atmospheric CO2 levels has come a steady rise in the earths average surface temperature, which was roughly 14.1 degrees Celsius in 194o to slightly more than 14.5 degrees Celsius in the year 2000. Now, call me crazy, but I somehow don't think that it's a coincidence that both global CO2 levels and temperatures have been rising simultaneously.
At the same time, it's not as if you could argue that humanity isnt causing this rise in CO2 levels. You can see perfectly clearly on nasa's websites atmospheric CO2 chart that as human technology advances the atmospheric CO2 levels increase as well.

Atmospheric CO2 chart: http://climate.nasa.gov...

Global temperature chart: http://www.ncwarn.org...
Posted by nessmonster 2 years ago
nessmonster
First of all, there is a wealth of evidence that Earth's climate does change immensely. Earth has experienced multiple greenhouse and icehouse periods where the planet has either hosted hot and barren terrestrial regions or glacial coverage near the tropics. Today's CO2 levels and global temperatures by far indicate that the planet is heating up in an irreversible manner. Positive feedback loops such as diminishing ice albedo from melting glaciers increasing heat absorption near the poles drive global temperatures up at an accelerating rate.

Whether humans cause global warming is really about the rates at which these positive feedback loops affect global climate.

I dont wanna write much, but the idea is that the average transition from icehouse (the state we are in currently) to greenhouse Earth is at least tens of millions of years. We might enter greenhouse within a few hundred thousand years if global temperatures rise at today's rate.

Other helpful points:

Regional weather tells us nothing about GLOBAL climate. There are so many complex processes between the relationship of global temperature and regional temperature. As global temp increases, some areas get much colder (polar vortex in USA last year). Remember, we are in an ICE AGE, there is snow and there should be snow. If we wait until all the snow melts, terrestrial biomes might not be suitable for human life at all.
Posted by nessmonster 2 years ago
nessmonster
First of all, there is a wealth of evidence that Earth's climate does change immensely. Earth has experienced multiple greenhouse and icehouse periods where the planet has either hosted hot and barren terrestrial regions or glacial coverage near the tropics. Today's CO2 levels and global temperatures by far indicate that the planet is heating up in an irreversible manner. Positive feedback loops such as diminishing ice albedo from melting glaciers increasing heat absorption near the poles drive global temperatures up at an accelerating rate.

Whether humans cause global warming is really about the rates at which these positive feedback loops affect global climate.

I dont wanna write much, but the idea is that the average transition from icehouse (the state we are in currently) to greenhouse Earth is at least tens of millions of years. We might enter greenhouse within a few hundred thousand years if global temperatures rise at today's rate.

Other helpful points:

Regional weather tells us nothing about GLOBAL climate. There are so many complex processes between the relationship of global temperature and regional temperature. As global temp increases, some areas get much colder (polar vortex in USA last year). Remember, we are in an ICE AGE, there is snow and there should be snow. If we wait until all the snow melts, terrestrial biomes might not be suitable for human life at all.
Posted by nessmonster 2 years ago
nessmonster
First of all, there is a wealth of evidence that Earth's climate does change immensely. Earth has experienced multiple greenhouse and icehouse periods where the planet has either hosted hot and barren terrestrial regions or glacial coverage near the tropics. Today's CO2 levels and global temperatures by far indicate that the planet is heating up in an irreversible manner. Positive feedback loops such as diminishing ice albedo from melting glaciers increasing heat absorption near the poles drive global temperatures up at an accelerating rate.

Whether humans cause global warming is really about the rates at which these positive feedback loops affect global climate.

I dont wanna write much, but the idea is that the average transition from icehouse (the state we are in currently) to greenhouse Earth is at least tens of millions of years. We might enter greenhouse within a few hundred thousand years if global temperatures rise at today's rate.

Other helpful points:

Regional weather tells us nothing about GLOBAL climate. There are so many complex processes between the relationship of global temperature and regional temperature. As global temp increases, some areas get much colder (polar vortex in USA last year). Remember, we are in an ICE AGE, there is snow and there should be snow. If we wait until all the snow melts, terrestrial biomes might not be suitable for human life at all.
Posted by Berend 2 years ago
Berend
I want too, but trying so hard to find a way to argue Devils Ad.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
Sebastian_Ley16kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro. Con forfeited the final round, which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. S&G - Tie. Both had proper spelling and grammar. Arguments - Pro. Pro was effectively able to dismantle each of Con's points, while also remaining unchallenged himself due to Con's forfeit of the final round. For these reasons, Pro wins arguments. Sources - Pro. Con was heavily outclassed by Pro's usage of sources within this debate. Each point raised by Pro had either one or multiple sources to back it up. Ultimately, this is a clear win for Pro. *Good job Pro, you've convinced me that Global warming is fake.
Vote Placed by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 2 years ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Sebastian_Ley16kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF