Official May Tournament Final: Global Warming
This is the Final debate of the Official May Regular Tournament [http://www.debate.org...] on solely highly controversial topics, hosted by Unitomic. On account of RoyalFlush100 and KingKD being inactive, Lannan and I are the only ones to pass Round 1 and Round 2, to go onto the Final. In Round 1, I defeated Mister_Man, while Varrack dropped out, to give Lannan a bye. In Round 2, both of us gained byes due to inactivity. Therefore, we are the last standing in the tournament.
There is a minimum required Elo of 2500 to vote on this debate, with a 72 hour time period, 10,000 characters, and five rounds. I wish Lannan the best of luck, and thank Unitomic for the tournament!
On balance, mankind is probably the main cause of global warming.
All terms and definitions influenced by the Oxford Dictionary, the American Heritage Dictionary, Encyclopedia Britannica, Merriam-Webster, and Wikipedia.
On Balance - 'when all factors are taken into consideration'
Mankind - 'the human race; human beings collectively without reference to sex; humankind'
Probably - 'is likely to take place or be true'
Main - 'chief in size, extent or importance'
Cause - 'the producer of an effect' or 'a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition'
Global Warming - 'the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century, and its projected continuation,' and 'the observed century-scale rise in the average temperature of the Earth's climate system and its related effects'
1. No forfeits
2. All arguments must be within this debate, but sources can be in an external link directed to within this debate
3. No new arguments in the final round
4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling or deconstruction semantics
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (or any other "kritiks")
7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions
8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understanding of them that fit within the logical context of the debate
9. The burden of proof is shared
10. The first round is for acceptance only
11. Violation of any of these rules or any of the R1 set-up is a conduct violation, and any violating arguments (e.g. "kritiks," rebuttals in R4) should be discredited by judges
R1. Acceptance Only
R2. Pro's Case, Con's Case
R3. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's Case
R4. Pro defends Pro's Case, Con defends Con's Case
R5. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's Case, both Crystallize
...again to Lannan13, and to Unitomic for organizing the tournament; I look forward to a truly stellar discourse!
C1) Positive feedbacks dominate climate
Carbon dioxide has a significant influence on global land-sea mean temperature. All scientists agree that CO2 has some direct effect, increasing temperature by 1.1 degrees Celsius per doubling of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. David Evans argues, “Most serious skeptical scientists have always agreed with the government climate scientists about the direct effect of CO2. The argument is entirely about the feedbacks.” 
Climate sensitivity is the key point in all of climate science. The term ‘climate sensitivity’ refers to -- in this context -- the rise in equilibrium global land-sea mean temperature per doubling of the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere . A 2005 study by Nir Joseph Shaviv confirms that the climate sensitivity, without any amplification, is 1.1 degrees Celsius . Most serious scientists agree. The argument, as Evans argues, is about the feedbacks.
What is a feedback? A feedback is a climate process that amplifies or dampens the effect of a climate forcing. A climate forcing is any factor that influences temperature increase, in this case referring to CO2. So, a feedback is anything that amplifies or dampens the effect of CO2 on climate. Feedbacks that amplify it are called positive feedbacks, while those that dampen it are negative ones . I argue that positive feedbacks dominate climate, and therefore, increase the overall effect of CO2 on temperature.
Various studies report positive feedbacks as more likely. Soden and Held report a 2 degree celsius climate sensitivity due to positive feedbacks. The study reports very few negative feedbacks. “Water vapor is found to provide the largest positive feedback in all models and its strength is consistent with that expected from constant relative humidity changes in the water vapor mixing ratio. The feedbacks from clouds and surface albedo are also found to be positive in all models, while the only stabilizing (negative) feedback comes from the temperature response.”  A 2003 study by Colman reports a feedback of nearly 3 degrees celsius, and the paper is cited by Soden and Held. In the study, “[a] comparison is performed for water vapour, cloud, albedo and lapse rate feedbacks taken from published results of ‘offline’ feedback calculations for general circulation models (GCMs) with mixed layer oceans performing 2 x CO2 and solar perturbation experiments.” 
There is much evidence outside climate models as well. Wigley, et al. report a possible sensitivity of greater than 4.5 degrees celsius due to volcanic forcings, and supports an average sensitivity of 3.5 degrees. The study says, “After the maximum cooling for low-latitude eruptions, the temperature relaxes back toward the initial state with an e-folding time of 29–43 months for sensitivities of 1–4 degrees C equilibrium warming for CO2 doubling.”  A 2005 study by Forster and Gregory also uses volcanic forcings and feedbacks, and finds a climate sensitivity range of 1 - 4.1 degrees Celsius .
Even in a hypothetical scenario where negative feedbacks cancel out positive feedbacks to a climate sensitivity of 1 degree C, research by Ziskin and Shaviv (2011) has predicted that “the largest contribution to the 20th century warming comes from anthropogenic sources.”  They find that of the ~0.7 degree C temperature rise in the 20th century (some estimates slightly higher), about 0.4 degrees of that are due to anthropogenic forgings, or about 57% of the warming.
Nonetheless, climate sensitivity is likely much higher than that. Research by Patrick Michaels, a CATO scholar, found that the amplifier was 1.6 degrees C . This means that human activity causing global warming is much greater than 57%, even under these low estimates. I still maintain that sensitivity is somewhere around 2 - 3 degrees C. A study by leading climatologist JD Annan -- using the Bayesian statistical approach -- found a mean sensitivity of 3 degrees Celsius . The following graph describes the consensus in the literature on climate sensitivity .
The following picture portrays the evidence regarding climate sensitivity.
As such, I conclude that the effect of the rise in CO2 on climate is huge.
C2) Evidence from paleoclimatology
The paleoclimatological record is clear that CO2 has become the chief climate forcing in the Cenozoic Era (which began after the Cretaceous mass-extinction event 65.5 million years ago). Overall, solar activity has increased by 40% in this period. James E. Hansen and Makiko Sato argue, “The sun’s brightness increased steadily through the Cenozoic, by about 0.4 percent according to solar physics models (Sackmann et al., 1993). 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.”  It’s clear that “CO2 was the dominant forcing in the Cenozoic.” 
The temperature changes correspond to the changes in CO2 levels. Take the example of the Vostok ice cores. A study by French and Russian institutes says, “There 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.” 
This graph shows the correlations between CO2 and temperature over the past 200,000 years.
There is proof that it is warmer now than since the Medieval Warm Period. In fact, it is warmer now than any year since 1400 . Another study that replicated previous ‘hockey stick’ studies shows the following data .
Thus, paleoclimatology confirms that CO2 influences climate at huge levels.
C3) Human activity
I have now established that CO2 is responsible for much more that 57% of global warming, somewhere around 75%. Now, I must establish that humans are responsible for much of CO2 generation. First, a simple correlation -- CO2 levels rose with the beginning of industrial activity . The following graph shows CO2 concentrations over the last 10,000 years.
If the ratio between C-14 and C-12 decline, the observation would virtually confirm that human activity is responsible for increase in CO2 concentration. This is because the CO2 emissions humans make come from fossil fuels . This has been observed .
Thus, human activity has influenced CO2 decline and CO2 is a driving force of climate. Therefore, I affirm.
Contention 1: CO2 and Temperatures.
First, let's bring up just how much these accused compounds exactly warm the Earth's atmosphere. CO2 for example has the global warming potential of 1. Here are the other numbers.
Carbon Dioxide -- 1
Methane -- 21
Nitrous Oxide -- 298-310
CFC's -- Various
Water Vapor -- 0.25 
Now, I just want you to keep this in mind for this next part here. We may observe that humans release approximately 35 gigatons of CO2 a year.  This is only 4.3% of the total amount of all Global Warming Gasses, however it is incrediably small when it comes to comparing the rest of the Global Warming gasses. If we observe the chart bellow we can see that Water Vapor is a large Contributor to Global Warming at 95% and CO2 comes in second. But here's the kicker. If we look at the Human contributed part that I'm about to post in the graph bellow we can see that it's very miniscule of 0.117% of all total Warming gasses. Now let's do some quick math here. CO2's increase was from what my opponent is claiming is from 295 ppm to 400ppm, a total of only 105 ppm. 1 Gigaton of CO2 is the equilivent of 2.13 ppm.  This means that increase of 105 ppm means a total of 49.29 gigatons. Since 1 gigaton of CO2 is the equivilance of .004% of the Greenhouse effect that means that 49.29 gigatons means an aditional .21% increase to Global Warming. This would account for a grand total of a 0.15 F increase in global temperature. This is a very measly amount and we can see that with my opponent's claims a simple 0.15 F increase isn't enough to melt glacers and have the effeccts that he is speaking of and it proves that this is NAUTRAL not man-made to fulfil his effects if they were real.
The above graph shows that comparisions of C13 (Carbon isotope) and this shows that there is little to no trend pertrade in many of these as the average is zero while the trend for all of these are zero.  This is important as the Carbon isotope is important in measuring this so called "Global Warming."
Let us observe the above graph. Here I would like to point out the that the increase from Pre-Inustrial to Industrial era and the doubling of the CO2 leveling lead to a decrease in it's temperature. Also we can see that the 10 mile "hot-spot" above the tropics is actually absent. "The computer models show that greenhouse warming will cause a hot-spot at an altitude between 8 and 12 km over the tropics between 30 N and 30 S. The temperature at this hot-spot is projected to increase at a rate of two to three times faster than at the surface. However, the Hadley Centre's real-world plot of radiosonde temperature observations shown below does not show the projected CO2 induced global warming hot-spot at all. The predicted hot-spot is entirely absent from the observational record. This shows that atmosphere warming theory programmed into climate models are wrong." 
Now if we observe the above graph of the past 400,000 yeasrs we can see that the CO2 rates in our atmosphere has flutated the exact same way in this cycle both before and during the existance of human beings. We can see that the temperatures and CO2 levels have been going up and down randomly for the past 100 thousands years and it is observed that this occured before the industrial revolution. We can also see that right now we are in a warming period so that arguing that humans are because of this is post hoc. Not to mention that we are in the coldest of the warming periods in Earth's history!
We can see that once again despite contrary to belief we can see that though there may be warming the fact is simply that there is no human warming.
Contention 2: Earth is cooling.
If we observe the above graph we can see that Earth has been a whole lot hotter than where we currently are to the point where the Earth's average temperature has been 7.5 degrees Celcuis hotter than it currently it is. You can also see that in the span of the past 10,000 years the temperature has leveld off, but you may ask yourself where does that place us in the lights of modern day?
I am going to site Dr. Done Easterbrook, who is a climate scientist. Back in 2000 he predicted that Earth was entering a cooling phase. He predicts that for the next 20 years Earth will cool by 3/10 degree each year and that we are going to enter another little Ice Age like we did from 1650 and 1790. (6) The funny thing is that many of my opponent's charts are actually from the incorrect IPPC.
How about the "Hockey Stick" graph that many Global Warming supporters , including my opponent, argue about? Well if we observe the fallowing chart taken from Northern Scandenavia we can see that the Global trend over the past 1,000 years that the Global Cooling trend slope is that of -0.31 Degrees Celcuis, give or take 0.03 degrees (for the error room). Professor Dr. Jan Esper has found that the Earth's temperature of Earth actually decreases 0.3 per millenia due to the Earth moving away from the sun. (7)
Here is another graph from 1920 to 2005 and we can see that the graph has a negative temperature slope, thus meaning that the Earth is under a period of cooling. (8)
You can see in terms of more Warming in the evidence in which Scientists use Ice Cores Earth has actually been Cooling the past Mellenium.
You can see that in terms of Gasses contribution to the Green House Effect the major contributer is Water Vapor and it's at 95% to CO2's 3.6% and this is the overall contribution including man made and natural. When we look to the chart on the left we can see that Man-Made CO2 does have a higher contribution to the atmosphere than Water Vapor, but that's because we do not create much water vapor as humans. Even with this evidence we can see that CO2 does not have any effect what-so-ever compared to Water Vapor. (9) Where might those CFCs be on this graph you may ask. Why it's under the Misc. gases section.
Once again, we can see that the IPCC and Al Gore are inccorect as the hocky stick graph is a bust. As I've shown in earlier rounds and they have been dropped in showing that the Earth's temperature has indeed been way hotter then current and on an average basis at that. My opponent has also dropped my opening graph in C1 r2 That also showed that CO2 levels are at an all time low! Thus once again disproving my opponent's theory.
Here we can see that even though CO2 levels are increaseing that the temperature in recent years has actually decreased on the linear scale.
Also, the US Senate Committe on Envirnment and public works also took a stab at this issue. They found that the Hocky Stick graph was also bogus in 2006.
“Today’s NAS report reaffirms what I have been saying all along, that Mann's ‘hockey stick’ is broken,”Senator Inhofe said.“Today’s report refutes Mann's prior assertions that there was no Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age.”
“This report shows that the planet warmed for about 200 years prior to the industrial age, when we were coming out of the depths of the Little Ice Age where harsh winters froze the Thames and caused untold deaths.
“Trying to prove man-made global warming by comparing the well-known fact that today's temperatures are warmer than during the Little Ice Age is akin to comparing summer to winter to show a catastrophic temperature trend.” 
11. ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk...)
The effects of carbon dioxide increase due to positive feedback amplification. Feedbacks such as volcanic activity and clouds can significantly expand the impact of carbon dioxide on temperature.  The below graph depicts the correlation between carbon dioxide and temperatures over the last 700,000 years.
The exact values of CO2...should not be taken literally...[O]ver the long term, there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature."  The following graph shows the uncertainty of values of CO2. 
Thank you and please vote Pro!
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|