The Instigator
Warrior3335
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
evanallred123
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Is global warming really harmful?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/28/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 593 times Debate No: 74118
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

Warrior3335

Con

Is global warming really harmful why is it that it is happening now and not when the Industrial revolution started. The world is starting to heat but we did not notice this until a couple of years ago why?
evanallred123

Pro

I accept this challenge and hope for a fun debate!

First of all, I will answer the questions my opponent posed:

1. "Is global warming really harmful?" Yes, it is. According to the National Geographic, the problems are a) ice melting worldwide, b) animals that rely on the ice caps are dying, c) sea levels are rising, d) alpine plants and animals have been forced to move farther north e) precipitation has increased worldwide, and f) spruce beetles in Alaska have boomed, eating far more wood than normal. Some projected problems later this century are a) hurricanes and other storms are likely to increase, b) species that depend on each other might become out of sync, c) floods and draught might become more common, d) less fresh water will be available, e) diseases will spread, and f) ecosystems will change[1].

2. "Why is it happening now and not when the industrial revolution started?" The fact is, it did start when the industrial revolution happened. According to the US Department of Energy, "Global warming has begun because since the industrial revolution, we humans have been putting large amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and over time these have built up. These greenhouse gases are trapping heat in our atmosphere." With the industrial revolution, people started to use coal a lot more, which expels carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. Because of this, the industrial revolution is taken to be the beginning of global warming[2]

3. "The world is starting to heat but we did not notice this until a couple of years ago why?" Again, this question is completely unfounded, because we noticed it a long time ago; the 1890's in fact, 125 years ago. According to the Guardian, a Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius had already seen the global impact of fossil fuels[3].

So, in conclusion, all of my opponent's questions about global warming's effects have been answered by me, empirically proving that global warming is, in fact, harmful. For these reasons, I see no other ballot than that of the Pro.

Thank you.

[1] - http://environment.nationalgeographic.com...
[2] - https://www.arm.gov...
[3] - http://www.theguardian.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Warrior3335

Con

I to hope that we have a fun and educational debate good luck!

My first piece of evidence is that global warming is not harmful to the environment is from Popular Science

1) The reason that global warming is not harmful is because animals and power companies are stating to adapt to the new climate for example, in Iceland the glaciers are starting to melt that seems bad right? It isn't the runoff that for example this quote from Popular Science. "It's not surprising that the warming effects of climate change can be beneficial for a cold country like Iceland," says T"mas J"hannesson, a geophysicist at the Icelandic Meteorological Office. In a recent study of the influence of climate change on hydro-resources in Iceland, J"hannesson and other researchers project a 25 percent increase in water runoff by the end of the century, resulting in a 45 percent increase in potential power production. This benefit isn't permanent, though. Researchers estimate that, like the glaciers, the extra power from runoffs will disappear in 100 to 200 years.

2) My second reason is that global warming is not harmful is because some animals like polar bears or some birds were endangered are now making a recovery for example polar bears used to be endangered but now they are only on the threatened list. Also another quote from Popular science. A 47-year study of one population of great tits(type of bird it think)"garden birds about the size of sparrows"is providing hope that some animals can adjust quickly to environmental . University of Oxford zoologists have found that the birds are laying their eggs earlier in the spring to time the hatching of their chicks to the earlier emergence of caterpillars. This is among the first examples of birds adapting to a new climate, but the scientists suspect that the ability is widespread. This proves that animals are adjusting to the climate

3) For my final piece of evidence is from Popular science this quote is about how there are clearer skies and less hurricanes.The past few years have been filled with reports that the number of hurricanes will dramatically increase in the next decade. Not so, say researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, who reported in May that Atlantic hurricanes may actually decrease, with a projected 45 percent drop in tropical storms and hurricanes by the end of the century. Unfortunately, the scientists say, the warmer temperatures still portend an increase in the percentage of intense hurricanes change.Although the quote states that there could be more intense hurricanes but there are still less hurricanes then before.

Thank you for taking the time to read my first piece of evidence I wish you the best of luck in the second round.
evanallred123

Pro

I thank my opponent for responding.

Rebuttal:

1. First of all, I would like to see a link for my opponent's evidence so that he can prove that it does, in fact, exist, and
so that I may read over it. If he cannot provide a source, the evidence should be considered invalid.
2. All of my opponent's quotes are from Popular Science. While a reputable science magazine, magazines do not do
their own research, and as such, I would like to also see a source for all of my opponent's statistics. The sources for
my statistics from Washington Post are in the footnotes[2][3].
3. My opponent's first point was that glaciers were melting in Iceland, resulting in an increase of power production 
because of the water runoff. What he failed to mention was that the rapid reduction in ice causes a phenomenon known
as "rebound". Basically, this is when a large amount of pressure is removed from the ground, is springs upward
extremely rapidly, at a rate of almost 1.4 inches a year. That is nearly the same rate as an elemtary schooler. This
doesn't sound like it would have very major ramifications, however, because of Iceland's location over an extremely
volcanic area, this rebound of the land is reducing pressure on these underground pockets of magma, resulting in
increased volcanic activity. Baroarbunga, a volcano in the center of Iceland, has been releasing lava flow since August,
2014. The eruption of Eyjafjallajökull (another volcano) in 2010 can also be attributed to rebound. This eruption cost
$5 billion for the world economy, far more than Iceland can hope to gain from increased energy production that my
opponent admitted will eventually stop[1][2][3].

4. My opponent's second point talks about species that were endangered climbing back up to the status of threatened.
My opponent provided absolutely no link whatsoever between the polar bear's population increase and global warming.
For all we know, it might just be reduced hunting and not global warming that is making the polar bear repopulate.
Also, about my opponents example about the great tit adapting to climate change, we cannot assume that a bird that
lives almost exclusively on the British Isles[4] is any indicator of what other species worldwide can do.

5. My opponent stated that, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Atlantic hurricanes
might actually decrease. He goes on to say that NOAA also projects more intense hurricanes. I found an article also by
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that states, "There are better than even odds that anthropogenic
[man-made] warming over the next century will lead to an increase in the numbers of very intense hurricanes in some
basins—an increase that would be substantially larger in percentage terms than the 2-11% increase in the average
storm intensity. This increase in intense storm numbers is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the
global numbers of all tropical storms[5]." Based off of this quote, while there might be some decrease (or little
change) in the number of all tropical storms, it is almost certain that there will be a dramatic increase in very intense
storms, besides the fact that all tropical storms will be 2-11% more intense. And so, while what my opponent said about
a decrease in all tropical storms, it is far outweighed by the increase in intensity and the increase in amount of
hurricanes.
Extension of Arguments

1.
My opponent attempted to attack the harms of global warming with his bird example, however, I disproved that in my

rebuttal. He also said that the reduction of ice in Iceland was resulting in increased energy generation, but that was
countered with my evidence about "rebound".

2. My opponent did not counter my point 2, and it is therefore automatically considered valid.

3. My opponent did not counter my point 3, and it is therefore automatically considered valid.

In conclusion, I refuted all of my opponent's points and defended all of his attacks. Besides this, he did not attack my
points 3 or 4. If we were to consider all attacks in this debate to be valid, then all of his points would fall, and only one
of mine would. For these reasons, I see no other ballot than that of the Pro.

Thank you.

[1] - http://www.washingtonpost.com...
[2] - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

[3] - http://qz.com...
[4] - http://www.rspb.org.uk...
[5] - http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
Warrior3335

Con

Second argument

1).We thought that the "big bad" global warming was going to through the earth out of balance and that we would never recover from this crisis but it is really not all that bad but maybe it is not maybe that warming of the earth is not all that bad warmer winters warmer waters to swim in. Heck maybe the water will be hot enough that we won't HAVE to have heaters in pool are in fact maybe we won't have to have waterparks but that's for another time.

2)For my first piece of evidence is from Forbes.org "this is a very important point indeed. What we want to know is how much will temperatures change if we double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? That"s what we generally mean by that climate sensitivity. If the temperature change is 0.1 oC then we"ve precisely nothing at all to worry about and we can all start burning as much coal and petrol as we like.
If the answer is 20 oC then we"ve got a huge problem and we might start thinking about capital punishment for those who burn oil or coal." According to the quote it tells us that the tempature will only rise depending on the amount of coal or oil we burn "if we double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? That"s what we generally mean by that climate sensitivity. If the temperature change is 0.1 oC then we"ve precisely nothing at all to worry about and we can all start burning as much coal and petrol as we like.
If the answer is 20 oC then we"ve got a huge problem" It all depends on the CO2
sur ethe quote does not state how much coal we are burning right now but i the next argument I will stat it.

source:http://www.forbes.com...
evanallred123

Pro

Rebuttal

1.
My opponent has literally zero evidence for his first point. It is entirely theoretical, while the harms of global warming are completely factual, as shown by the numerous sources of evidence I have presented. This point should be considered completely invalid.

2. Basically, what the evidence that my opponent brought up says that all we need to worry about is how much carbon dioxide we have in the atmosphere. If there is almost no temperature change, then we needn't worry. What my opponent apparently fails to realize is that ice is, in fact melting. My opponent can't argue that it doesn't matter how much the temperature is changing if ice is already melting.

Extension of Arguments

1.
My opponent did not attack any of my other points, so all of them flow through. If we consider all attacks to be valid, all of my points would remain standing, and none of his would.

Since I have effectively defended all of his attacks and he has failed to defend any of mine, I see no other ballot than that of the Pro. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
Warrior3335

Con

Warrior3335 forfeited this round.
evanallred123

Pro

evanallred123 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Warrior3335

Con

Warrior3335 forfeited this round.
evanallred123

Pro

I extend my previous arguments.

I apologize for not posting in Round 4; I was away and was unable to debate. As my opponent has forfeited more rounds than me, failed to rebut my attacks, and has not provided an excuse for his forfeiture, there can be no other ballot than that of the Pro.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by evanallred123 2 years ago
evanallred123
I apologize for forfeiting Round 4. I was away and was unable to debate.
Posted by kdog519 2 years ago
kdog519
YES IT IS. Global warming is destroying our Earth, melting glaciers and icebergs, and just tearing apart our world.
No votes have been placed for this debate.