Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming
This is a direct challenge to Kylar. I thank Kylar for this debate.
I will be arguing that mankind is the main cause of global warming. We will not be arguing if global warming exists or not, it will be assumed that it does; only if global warming has an anthropogenic cause.
BoP is shared.
Mankind: "The human race; human beings collectively without reference to sex; humankind." 
Main: "Chief in size, extent, or importance; principal; leading." 
Cause: "A person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect." 
Global Warming: "Global warming is the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century, and its projected continuation." 
1. The debate structure is given below.
2. No forfeiture.
3. No semantics, trolling or kritiks of the topic.
4. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be posted in an outside link or may be within the debate.
5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.
Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by Con)
Round 3: Refutation and defense
Round 4: Refutation, defense and conclusion
I gladly accept this debate with my friend and I look forward to a great debate :).
I thank Kylar for accepting this debate.
C1) Climate Sensitivity & Feedbacks
My first contention is to demonstrate CO2 has effects in rising the mean land-sea temperature. Climate sensitivity is the level of hypothetical temperature rise if the concentration of atmospheric CO2 would double.  It is not a much debated fact that the temperature rise would be by 1 degrees C. This, though, can be amplified by feedbacks. Positive feedbacks amplify the temperature rise, and negative feedbacks diminish the temperature rise.
A study published in Climate Research proved that the mean climate sensitivity is approximately 1 to 1.6 degrees Celsius due to the level of positive feedbacks.  Another significant body of research notes that climate sensitivity is likely much higher. A review of the evidence in 2008 finds that mean climate sensitivity is 3 degrees C, with a range of 2 – 4.5 degrees C. Nearly every study taken discovers the average climate sensitivity is 3 degrees C. 
The above graph demonstrates the effect of upper fluctuations in equilibrium temperature via. feedbacks. 
The graph shown above was from a 2007 research that places approximate mean climate sensitivity to double CO2 concentration at around 2.5 - 3. 
It is a well known fact that industrial emissions have major impact on the concentration levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. “In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million.” 
Thus, human-caused amplified climate sensitivity affects mean land-sea temperature.
C2) Human-Emitted Greenhouse Gases
There is a documented rise in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere over the last 250 years, with a 100 ppm increase in industrial times *alone*, versus a 50 ppm increase from 9,750 years prior. Below is a graph showing the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. [7-8]
It is a well-known fact that majority of increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations is caused by humans. This is because of the sudden hike during industrial times alone.  CO2 is known to form an atmospheric layer and trap heat within the atmosphere, thus increasing the mean temperature via. the greenhouse effect, wherein insolation and terrestrial radiation are both trapped within the atmosphere. [9-10]
Below is a graph showing a correlation in the rise in temperature and rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
“[T]here is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (Barnola et al. 1987). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows that the main trends of CO2 are similar for each glacial cycle. Major transitions from the lowest to the highest values are associated with glacial-interglacial transitions. During these transitions, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rises from 180 to 280-300 ppmv (Petit et al. 1999). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr.” 
The CO2-temperature correlation is also influenced by CO2’s impact on solar radiation itself. In the Cenozoic era, there was a rise in solar activity due to CO2. “Because Earth absorbs about 240 W/m^2 of solar energy, that brightness increase is a forcing of about 1 W/m^2. This small linear increase of forcing, by itself, would have caused a modest global warming through the Cenozoic Era." The CO2 levels caused a much higher forcing. In contrast, atmospheric CO2 during the Cenozoic changed from at least 1000 ppm in the early Cenozoic to as small as 170 ppm during recent ice ages. The resulting climate forcing, as can be computed accurately for this CO2 range using formulae in Table 1 of Hansen et al. (2000), exceeds 10 W/m^2. It is clear that CO2 was the dominant climate forcing in the Cenozoic.” 
There is proof that it is warmer now than any year of human life since 1400. This is depicted in the graph below. 
Thus, I have presented two valid contentions as to why global warming is man-made. Con must present contentions of their own in the next round and defend theirs in the round after. The resolution is resoundingly affirmed.
sorry for the slowness, prom Mankind is not the main cause of global warming.
• Ocean circulation disrupted, disrupting and having unknown effects on world climate.
• Higher sea level leading to flooding of low-lying lands and deaths and disease from flood and evacuation.
• Deserts get drier leaving to increased desertification.
• Changes to agricultural production that can lead to food shortages.
• Water shortages in already water-scarce areas.
• Starvation, malnutrition, and increased deaths due to food and crop shortages.
• More extreme weather and an increased frequency of severe and catastrophic storms.
• Increased disease in humans and animals.
• Increased deaths from heat waves.
• Extinction of additional species of animals and plants.
• Loss of animal and plant habitats.
• Increased emigration of those from poorer or low-lying countries to wealthier or higher countries seeking better (or non-deadly) conditions.
• Additional use of energy resources for cooling needs.
• Increased air pollution.
• Increased allergy and asthma rates due to earlier blooming of plants.
• Melt of permafrost leads to destruction of structures, landslides, and avalanches.
• Permanent loss of glaciers and ice sheets.
• Cultural or heritage sites destroyed faster due to increased extremes.
• Increased acidity of rainfall.
• Earlier drying of forests leading to increased forest fires in size and intensity.
• Increased cost of insurance as insurers pay out more claims resulting from increasingly large disasters.
Here are disadvantages of it, and fossil fuels also cause it
thanks for the debate
My opponent has presented arguments completely irrelevant to the resolution, merely presenting *disadvantages* of global warming as opposed to actually creating a case that global warming is NOT caused by mankind. In addition, my opponent’s ‘case’ is plagiarized .
Furthermore, the only relevant argument presented by my opponent is “fossil fuels cause [global warming].” But these fossil fuels result in man-made emissions of CO2 that results in GW, thus this case is contrary to my opponent’s position and supports my position.
The resolution remains resoundingly affirmed.
How did global warming discussions end up hinging on what's happening with polar bears, unverifiable predictions of what will happen in a hundred years, and whether people are "climate deniers" or "global warming cultists?" If this is a scientific topic, why aren't we spending more time discussing the science involved? Why aren't we talking about the evidence and the actual data involved? Why aren't we looking at the predictions that were made and seeing if they match up to the results? If this is such an open and shut case, why are so many people who care about science skeptical? Many Americans have long since thought that the best scientific evidence available suggested that man wasn't causing any sort of global warming. However, now, we can go even further and suggest that the planet isn't warming at all.
1) There hasn't been any global warming since 1997: If nothing changes in the next year, we're going to have kids who graduate from high school who will have never seen any "global warming" during their lifetimes. That's right; the temperature of the planet has essentially been flat for 17 years. This isn't a controversial assertion either. Even the former Director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, Phil Jones, admits that it's true. Since the planet was cooling from 1940-1975 and the upswing in temperature afterward only lasted 22 years, a 17 year pause is a big deal. It also begs an obvious question: How can we be experiencing global warming if there's no actual "global warming?"
2) There is no scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and caused by man: Questions are not decided by "consensus." In fact, many scientific theories that were once widely believed to be true were made irrelevant by new evidence. Just to name one of many, many examples, in the early seventies, scientists believed global cooling was occurring. However, once the planet started to warm up, they changed their minds. Yet, the primary "scientific" argument for global warming is that there is a "scientific consensus" that it's occurring. Setting aside the fact that's not a scientific argument, even if that ever was true (and it really wasn't), it's certainly not true anymore. Over 31,000 scientists have signed on to a petition saying humans aren't causing global warming. More than 1000 scientists signed on to another report saying there is no global warming at all. There are tens of thousands of well-educated, mainstream scientists who do not agree that global warming is occurring at all and people who share their opinion are taking a position grounded in science.
3) Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012: The loss of Arctic ice has been a big talking point for people who believe global warming is occurring. Some people have even predicted that all of the Arctic ice would melt by now because of global warming. Yet, Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012. How much Arctic ice really matters is an open question since the very limited evidence we have suggests that a few decades ago, there was less ice than there is today, but the same people who thought the drop in ice was noteworthy should at least agree that the increase is important as well.
4) Climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over: These future projections of what global warming will do to the planet have been based on climate models. Essentially, scientists make assumptions about how much of an impact different factors will have; they guess how much of a change there will be and then they project changes over time. Unfortunately, almost all of these models showing huge temperature gains have turned out to be wrong.
Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies "have failed miserably." Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent of the models "have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH)."
There's an old saying in programming that goes, "Garbage in, garbage out." In other words, if the assumptions and data you put into the models are faulty, then the results will be worthless. If the climate models that show a dire impact because of global warming aren't reliable -- and they're not -- then the long term projections they make are meaningless.
5) Predictions about the impact of global warming have already been proven wrong: The debate over global warming has been going on long enough that we've had time to see whether some of the predictions people made about it have panned out in the real world. For example, Al Gore predicted all the Arctic ice would be gone by 2013. In 2005, the Independent ran an article saying that the Artic had entered a death spiral.
Scientists fear that the Arctic has now entered an irreversible phase of warming which will accelerate the loss of the polar sea ice that has helped to keep the climate stable for thousands of years....The greatest fear is that the Arctic has reached a "tipping point" beyond which nothing can reverse the continual loss of sea ice and with it the massive land glaciers of Greenland, which will raise sea levels dramatically. Of course, the highway is still there.
Meanwhile, Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012. James Hansen of NASA fame predicted that the West Side Highway in New York would be under water by now because of global warming.
If the climate models and the predictions about global warming aren't even close to being correct, wouldn't it be more scientific to reject hasty action based on faulty data so that we can further study the issue and find out what's really going on?
Ob1: Under “Full Resolution”, it clearly says the existence of GW is assumed, and Con must show that it is not man-made. This is violated by Con, but I shall rebut it nonetheless.
Ob2: Once more, Con’s entire case is C/P’d from his source (albeit the source is presented this time), thus there are no original arguments presented by Con.
Ob3: Con violates the debate structure by dropping ALL my arguments. I extend all my arguments to this round.
R1) Global Warming Exists
According to NASA’s GISS surface temperature analysis, the global mean land-sea temperature rose from 1980 to 2014 by 0.8 degrees Celsius, and the corresponding graph shows a constant increase in temperature throughout the years from 1980 to 2014 .
The alleged 17-year pause is incorrect, as there has been a 0.8 degrees C increase in temperature. The global land-sea average temperature in December 2014 was the highest monthly land-sea average in 135 years . There have been major temperature anomalies throughout December 2014 itself .
R2) Scientific Consensus
A study published in Science reviewed the ISI web of science in order to take a survey of relevant climate literature as to what the causes of climate change are. The study failed to find a single paper which was in opposition to the consensus position, that the main driver of climate change is anthropogenic. 75% of the papers supported the consensus position, whereas 25% had no position (they were focused on things other than forgings, like impacts or paleoclimate) . “[T]he National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.” [4-5] A 196 page report representing 13 governmental agencies, and written by 28 authors from scientific institutions, has stated “[t]he global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases …”  According to NASA, “[n]inety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.” 
Above is a graph presented by 4 major institutes that have taken a study on the temperature anomaly, and the results from NASA, MOHC/CRU, NOAA Climatic Data Center, and the Japanese Meteorological Agency have almost identical results .
R3) Arctic Ice
Con concedes that this is irrelevant to the issue, and this is merely a prediction made by some supporters of global warming, thus I need not address this. Nonetheless, I wish to point out that “[t]he European Space Agency’s CryoSat mission has returned its latest map of Arctic sea ice volumes, recording a slight decrease in thickness over previous measurements.” 
R4) Climate Models
While climate models may have been wrong, they were only predictions of the increase. A certain level of increase happened nonetheless, and that is relevant to the resolution, while this is completely irrelevant to the resolution.
This is a repeat of “Climate Models” and “Arctic Ice”. The current data is not faulty unless proven otherwise, thus this argument is useless and irrelevant.
I sincerely request Con to frame his own argument for the next round instead of C/Ping it.
ALL my arguments are dropped. I extend all my arguments.
5. National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001).
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|