Is Human Activity an addition to increased Global Warming/Climate Change
Debate Rounds (3)
1. Humans have increased Climate Change because of Increased C02 emissions
Source: Climate Change Causes: A Blanket around the Earth." Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. NASA, 11 Feb. 2016. Web. 12 Feb. 2016.
Carbon dioxide is released through natural processes such as respiration and volcano eruptions and through human activities such as deforestation, land use changes, and burning fossil fuels. Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by a third since the Industrial Revolution began.
According to the EPA Carbon Dioxide, which includes fossil fuels and industrial processes, contributes 65% of Global greenhouse gases. The Electricity and Heat production industry emits 25% of Carbon Dioxide. This shows how much Co2 contributes to pollution.
Emissions released now will continue to warm the climate in the future. The EPA predicts that climate change will cause the demand for water to increase while the supply of water shrinks. Water is not only essential to human health but also to manufacturing processes and the production of energy and food. Climate change is expected to increase rainfall, thereby causing an increase sediments and in the pollutants washed into drinking water Rising sea levels will cause saltwater to infiltrate some freshwater systems, increasing the need for desalination and drinking water treatment.
With that said, you have not properly defined what "human activity" is and what level of change constitutes "Climate Change".
Not all human activities cause Global Warming or Climate Change.
Furthermore, your evidence at best, only shows that human expels more CO2 than other species, but never considers whether such level of increase is detrimental.
If you do not define what is detrimental, then it can be said that the level of CO2 expel by my hamster is causing Global Warming.
As you said that not all human activities cause Global warming, I acknowledged that in my evidence but as I will state again NASA reports that humans have increased atmospheric C02 emissions by a third since the industrial revolution, and the largest known contribution is fossil fuels, WHICH IS DONE BY HUMANS.
My evidence shows more than that humans expel more C02 than any other species, in my evidence you can clearly see that these levels are detrimental. As I said Water shortages, food shortages, Ocean Acidification, the evidence is all there.
Also to say I would not have to define detrimental that word is of common knowledge and if you can't accept that I'm sorry you're too incompetent.
So I have won this debate because you have not even stated one piece of evidence that goes against my case, and your entire argument is on not defining common knowledge terms so for these reasons this is why Pro as won this debate.
Here are my facts which I hope can put matters into perspective:
A)Dinosaurs that roamed the Earth 250 million years ago knew a world with five times more carbon dioxide than is present on Earth today, researchers say, and new techniques for estimating the amount of carbon dioxide on prehistoric Earth may help scientists predict how Earth's climate may change in the future
B) CO2 is not the only driver to climate change; atmospheric CO2 levels have reached spectacular values in the deep past, possibly topping over 5000 ppm in the late Ordovician around 440 million years ago.
C) The global concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere " the primary driver of recent climate change " has reached 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time in recorded history, according to data from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii.
D) Solar activity also falls as you go further back. In the early Phanerozoic, solar output was about 4% less than current levels. The combined effect of sun and CO2 matches well with climate.
E) I hope you can agree that the Sun is an independent system of the Earth. Therefore, whatever we do on earth do not affect the sun's activities.
My Analysis of the situation:
[A] means that the earth is capable of sustaining life and handling CO2 level that is 5 times more than what we have today.
[B] & [C] support the CO2 level is 10 times more than now prior to the dinosaurs, which roughly supports [A]
[D] supports that it is the combined effect of sun and CO2 that contributes to the climate change.
You can see that even if we increase our current output, it would take a long time to create CO2 level that is 5 times more than what we have now. Even at that level, earth can sustain life like dinosaurs.
Therefore, human activity does contribute to climate change in the time scale of a 100 year, but to put in into perspective, over the time scale that date back to the beginning of life, human contributed CO2 level doesn"t affect life all that much.
The sun would probably be a greater contributing factor than us human.
Of course, with that said, even if we are not the major contributing factor, it is always our responsibilities to do less harm to others and to the nature" even though the sun would have killed us anyway in the end.
Your position was human activity is an addition to increased Global Warming/ Climate Change.
My position was that human activity is an addition to climate change just like other species. You can say human activity contributed more global warming than other species, but no more than the sun. So why aim the gun at us only? If we want to save humanity or other life on earth in the long run, we should not focus our effort in fighting over something insignificant as our demise is inevitable due to the sun. Maybe we should consider decreasing the sun activity to receive a greater impact.
The statement " human activity is an addition to increased Global Warming/ Climate Change" is only partially true, and therefore is not the truth, and could be considered to be false if it is not the entire truth.
With technological advancement, we might just be able to put on an extremely large sun glass to protect our earth from the sun's harmful activity. You may see human advancement or human activities to be harmful, but it could be the necessary ingredient to save the day.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Hakkayo 6 months 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:||2||4|
Reasons for voting decision: The argument made by Con addressed the initial question and did more to prove that the question itself was flawed and not that Pro was wrong. It was a good approach and ultimately left him with a better argument though it did not necessarily answer in the expected way. Pros' argument started out strong though the early self congratulation stunted his argument and came across as crass and close minded. Neither made spelling or grammar that was terribly offensive to me, and Pro gave actual sources giving them more reliability.
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.