The Instigator
BLAHthedebator
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

Resolved: Man-made Global Warming, on Planet Earth, Exists.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 5 votes the winner is...
BLAHthedebator
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,203 times Debate No: 67914
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (5)

 

BLAHthedebator

Pro

I thank lannan13 for accepting this debate. This topic seems to be quite popular, so I decided to debate this.
______________________________________________________________

I will add in definitions to prevent semantics arguments from arising.

DEFINITIONS

Man-made: Created by a human or caused by a human.

Global Warming: The state of which the Earth's temperature progressively and abnormally rises, which is attributed to the Greenhouse Effect that is caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide, other greenhouse gases, and pollutants in general.

Planet Earth: The 3rd closest planet from the Sun in the solar system, which is known for being the only known planet that currently sustains life.

Exists: Is in existence; have objective reality or being.

Rules:
1. Breaking any rules (except for rules related to voting) will result in automatic forfeiture of all seven points to the opponent. If both sides break the rules, the points will be awarded to whoever breaks the rules more often. If tied, votes will be placed as normal. Invalid votes will result in reporting the vote.

2. No semantics.

3. No forfeiture.

4. No Ad Hominem OR mere insults

5. Plagiarism is absolutely prohibited.

6. All arguments must be contained within the character limit. Words or characters on videos, soundtracks or pictures are exempted and do not apply. Sources are also exempted.

7. (Branches off from above rule) Extra arguments in the comments section are forbidden.

8. The debate must be followed under the below structure:
  • Round 1: Acceptance.
  • Round 2: Opening arguments and Constructive Case, NO REBUTTALS
  • Round 3: More arguments, Rebuttals and Strengthening of original case
  • Round 4: Final arguments, Clarification of case, counter-rebuttals and rebuttals
  • Round 5: Clarification of case, Counter rebuttals, rebuttals, closing statements, NO NEW ARGUMENTS

9. No trolling or spamming.

10. No cheating (Gish-gallop, asking for votes in your favor, etc.)


As shown, first round is acceptance. I look forward to a fun and intriguing debate!

lannan13

Con

I accept this debate.

Good Luck.

Debate Round No. 1
BLAHthedebator

Pro



Thank you, lannan13. I intend to go all out on this, because I have seen his debates.

==Contention 1: The correlation between increase in Carbon Dioxide and global temperature==

Throughout the last 650,000 years, there have been seven cycles of glacial advances and retreats, where the carbon dioxide levels abruptly increased, then gradually decreased afterward. However, in 1950, Co2 levels were at a critical level and kept on rising. As of 2014, the global Co2 levels were at an all time high of nearly 400 parts per million [1]:

This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Source: [[LINK<a href=||http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov...||NOAA]])" />

As we can see above, in the last 650,000 years, the Co2 levels have never grown above 300 ppm, as opposed to now, where the Co2 levels are at Obviously, this abrupt growth in Co2 levels are caused by human activity, such as mass production, the use of electricity, polluting, etc.

I have provide a youtube video above to show the correlation between the high Co2 levels and global temperature [2]. When both are compared, this becomes irrefutable evidence that man-made global warming exists.

In fact, as of 2013, the average global temperature was 14.6 degrees Celsius (58.3 degrees Fahrenheit), which is 0.8 degrees Celsius (1.4 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than when the year was 1880, and 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.1 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline [3][4][5]:



Already, on the first contention, we have seen major evidence affirming the resolution.

==Contention 2: The cause and effect of the Greenhouse Effect and what makes it more powerful==

The greenhouse effect on Planet Earth has been occurring for almost its whole life and is a natural phenomenon, since greenhouse gases such as Co2 have existed on Earth from its birth, thus heating the Earth to help sustain forms of life [6]:

"To its credit, the greenhouse effect has been around long before humans began to burn fossil fuels, and it is a natural phenomenon in that makes life habitable for all living things." [6]

The greenhouse effect operates when the sun's heat passes through Earth's atmosphere, heats the Earth's surface and is reflected back upward. Most of this heat is absorbed by the greenhouse gases like water vapor, Co2 and methane. Afterward, the heat is re-emited in all directions, thus starting the cycle again, continuously heating the Earth. Greenhouse gases literally act like a thermal blanket for Earth [7]:

A layer of greenhouse gases – primarily water vapor, and including much smaller amounts
of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide – act as a thermal blanket for the Earth, absorbing heat and warming the surface to a life-supporting average of 59 degrees Fahrenheit (15 degrees Celsius).

"A layer of greenhouse gases – primarily water vapor, and including much smaller amounts of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxideact as a thermal blanket for the Earth, absorbing heat and warming the surface to a life-supporting average of 59 degrees Fahrenheit (15 degrees Celsius)." [7]

From this information, we can conclude that the more greenhouse gases are put into the atmosphere, the more heat from the sun is absorbed, thus creating a powerful greenhouse effect. Human actvity is causing this to happen.

P1) The more greenhouse gases there are in the atmosphere, the more powerful the greenhouse effect
P2) Human activity is emitting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere
C) Human activity is the cause of a more powerful greenhouse effect, and thus man-made global warming exists.

To further prove this point, let us inspect Earth's neighboring planets, Mars and Venus.

Mars' atmosphere is quite thin, and it's nearly completely made up of Co2. However, it is because of the low atmospheric pressure and lack of other greenhouse gases that the greenhouse effect is not at all strong and thus Mars has a frozen surface without any signs of organisms [7].

"Not enough greenhouse effect: The planet Mars has a very thin atmosphere, nearly all carbon dioxide. Because of the low atmospheric pressure, and with little to no methane or water vapor to reinforce the weak greenhouse effect, Mars has a largely frozen surface that shows no evidence of life." [7]

Now, let us inspect Venus.

Despite Venus' atmosphere also being almost entirely carbon dioxide, the amount of Co2 Venus contains is about 300 times as much as Mars' or Earth's. This creates a HUGELY powerful greenhouse effect, causing a temperature so high that lead could not stay solid.

"Too much greenhouse effect: The atmosphere of Venus, like Mars, is nearly all carbon dioxide. But Venus has about 300 times as much carbon dioxide in its atmosphere as Earth and Mars do, producing a runaway greenhouse effect and a surface temperature hot enough to melt lead." [7]

Again this information is major evidence of the existence of man-made global warming.

==Conclusion==

I have put forward major evidence and arguments proving the existence of man-made global warming.

Thus, the resolution is affirmed.

[1] http://climate.nasa.gov...;
[2] https://www.youtube.com...;
[3] http://climate.nasa.gov...;
[4] http://climate.nasa.gov...;
[5] http://data.giss.nasa.gov...;
[6] http://earthguide.ucsd.edu...;
[7] http://climate.nasa.gov...;
lannan13

Con

Contention 1: No Major/any CO2 Increase.

Many Global Warming advocates state that CO2 levels are skyrocketing, but that is incorrect. I give you the above graph measuring the past 600 million years of CO2 levels are we are actually at an all time low. Now the website I got this from no longer has this page up so I appologize. We can see from observance of this graph that we being at all time CO2 low levles that we are nowhere close to meeting the impact that my opponent brings up. We have been over 5,000 ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere and are now currently around apprx. 350 ppm CO2 levels.
Fig. 2. C13 fraction variations contained in seasonal versus, interannual versus decadal variability, compared to known geophysical sources.
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. (1) This is important as the Carbon isotope is important in measuring this so called "Global Warming."
This chart above shows the CO2 and Earth's temperatures for the past 600 million years. My opponent's claims are incorect as we have had aburd levels of CO2 and temperature on Earth and may I ask how did we survive that? (2)
Now I will move on to how Earth is actually cooling and how it's temperature is cooler than it has been.


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. (3) 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. (4)
graph-Feb209_06_063302307128.gif
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. (5)

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. (6) Where might those CFCs be on this graph you may ask. Why it's under the Misc. gases section.

Contention 3: Artic Ice.

First, I would like to state that Pro's claim about the North Pole completely melting is bogus.
Al Gore stated that the Artic Ice would be completely melted by 2014, but he is incorrect then and now.
Jan. 6, 2012: The Coast Guard Cutter Healy breaks ice around the Russian-flagged tanker Renda 250 miles south of Nome. The Healy is the Coast Guard’s only currently operating polar icebreaker. The vessels are transiting through ice up to five-feet thick in this area. The 370-foot tanker Renda will have to go through more than 300 miles of sea ice to get to Nome, a city of about 3,500 people on the western Alaska coastline that did not get its last pre-winter fuel delivery because of a massive storm. (7)
Let's go back to 2007-2008 and see if his claim was justified in the Artic Ice activity.
Arctic_ice_comparison_8aug
Hmmm... It seems that he is incorrect, but let's look further into the near past. How about 2012-2013? (8)
We all remember the Climate Scientists that got stuck in Arctic Ice Earlier last year correct? Then a Russian Ice Breaker tried to free them, but got stuck. Can you guess what they were studying? They had predicted that all the Arctic Ice had melted due to Global Warming and that Earth would get flooded massively. Boy were they wrong. (9)
GLOBAL WARMING HOAX
(10)
Dr. Koonin, former head of the Department of Energy under President Obama, has stated that the Global Warming scare is not suttle. This is because that he has found 3 things wrong and highly incorrect about the scare.
1. Shrinking of Artic Sea ice doesn't acount for the gaining of the Antartic ice.
2. The warming of Earth's temps today is the same as it was 30 years ago.
3. The sea levels rose at the same height and rate in the 20th cenury. (11)

Contention 4: Sea Levels

Here is another corralation that must happen. If the Ice Caps are completely melted as Pro claims then the sea level would have risen completely drowning tons of land.
The graph above is raw satellite image data of the sea level rise over an 8 year period showing that there is little to no change in the Sea Levels rising. (12) The sea level rises, on average, about 3 inches per century and it has been found to not even been rising at all.
This graph is the sea levels off the cost of French Guyana which is one of the areas which is predicted to be flooded due to Global Warming, but as you can see by the graph (which goes to 2008) the sea level is currently on a downward trend. (13) The source is the PDF within the link.

Contention 5: The Weather

My opponent is claiming that Hurricanes are increasing due to Global Warming, but this claim is indeed false! The hurricanes since the year 1900 to 2008 have actually been decreasing. The slope of this downward slope is .0016. Though it is small the hurricanes are still in a downward trend.



As a matter of fact not only are Hurricanes on a downward trend, but they are at an all time low as in the year 2010, there was only 68 Hurricanes Globally, which is an all time low in the past 40 years.



How about Tornados you may ask?

Tornadoes_F1_1954-2013


In the graph above you can see that tornados are at an all time low in the past 60 years! (14) But what about Hurricanes?

hurricane_drought_May2013
Here is a graph showing the number of days between hurricanes and this shows that the number of days between hurricanes is greatest at 76 days between hurricanes.The slope of this line is zero showing no trend of a massive storm increase.
Due to the character restrictions I have to post my sources in the coments section, so for all my sources you'll find them there.
I'll pass it back to my opponent now.
Debate Round No. 2
BLAHthedebator

Pro

Thank you, lannan13, for that impressive response. Unfortunately, he has broken the rules by refuting my graphs and data I had put out in round 2:

"Round 2: Opening arguments and Constructive Case, NO REBUTTALS"

I'm not sure if I should let it slide since this seems like my most fun debate, so that will be up to my opponent. I will first focus on rebuttals, then my contentions. Note that counter-rebuttals are now switched to this round as my opponent refuted my graphs in round 2, thus I must respond to these refutations or otherwise they will be seen as dropped.

==Rebuttal 1: No Major/any Co2 increase==

My opponent's graph is a graph of Co2 levels over the past 600 million years. In contrast, my graph is a graph on Co2 levels only throughout the past 650,000 years. My opponent's graph shows as time closes in on the present, the Co2 levels grow lower. However that is because we are looking at a much broader timeline and thus can't see all the needed details in the graph. Yes, we are at an all time low, but that doesn't mean Co2 levels aren't increasing [1]:

Current chart and data for atmospheric CO2


I would like to point out that global warming doesn't mandate warming all throughout Earth's life. Global Warming happens anytime when Earth's temperature substantially increases, and that is what is happening. If Co2 levels are increasing, mainly due to human activity, and Earth's temperature rises at the same rate at the same time, then we already have good evidence man-made global warming exists.

Also, it seems that my opponent uses a graph by Robert Berner. It is known that Berner's studies are very untrustworthy, especially this one. You can see in the following graph that his graph contains many errors [2]:



"History of Atmospheric CO2 through geological time (past 550 million years: from Berner, Science,1997)... The shaded area encloses the approximate range of error of the modeling based on sensitivity analysis..." [2]

My opponent then goes on to state that man-made global warming (or even global warming on general) does not exist simply because our Earth has been much hotter before, and then asks, "may I ask how did we survive that?" However this is a fallacy because:

1.) I had already stated that global warming does not mandate a warming all throughout Earth's life, and recently it has been increasing, even though if not by as much as older times. Also, under the circumstances, one degree is still quite substantial.
2.) We could not survive in those times as the human race had not even come to being, let alone the dinosaur race. Plus, the animals and forms of life during those times were specially adapted to the hot climate. Also, this is irrelevant as we are only debating the existence of man-made global warming, not if we are going to survive it.
3.) Because of the sun being dimmer than now, higher Co2 levels would be needed in order to keep the Earth at a bearable temperature, or else the Earth would literally freeze over.

This contention is negated.

==Rebuttal 2: The Earth is Actually Cooling==

Again, I must remind my opponent that global warming does not mandate warming throughout Earth's life. As you can see at the end of the graph, the temperature slightly increases back, thus proving global warming's existence, and, with the previous information I had given, man-made global warming as well. Just because the Earth has been hotter before doesn't mean it isn't warming again.


When my opponent puts up his graph on the cooling of early 2000, again this is misleading, and Easterbrook's predictions have gone wrong from the first 10 years of data collected on the graph. Yet my opponent claims the IPCC studies are incorrect, which is untrue. The evidence is here [3]:

“Figure 5: Don Easterbrook's global temperature graphic presented during the 2010 Heartland conference.”

Then, down lower on the cited website [3], it is said:

ipcc vs. easterbrook

So while the IPCC TAR projection was too high by about 0.12°C for the reasons discussed above [on cited website], Easterbrook's projections were too low by 0.28°C and 0.58°C. Despite all of these non-greenhouse gas factors acting in the cooling direction over this timeframe, the IPCC projection was still much closer to reality than Easterbrook's.” [3]

What’s more, the observed temperature, as shown on the graph, actually rises above IPCC’s projection!

On my opponent’s next graph, he shows that each millennium the Earth cools down by 0.3 degrees Celsius (0.54 degrees Fahrenheit) due to Earth’s motion away from the Sun. However, the study was conducted only for the last 2 millennia, when most of the millennia were basically Industrial Revolution and modern activity free. The IR started in 1790 [4]. At the end of the graph, the global temperature abruptly rises above the red line even before 2000, thus proving the existence of global warming, and man-made global warming. This is the same for my opponent’s next two graphs.

My opponent’s last graph focuses on the contribution of the Greenhouse gases, and states that the contributions are very low. However that does not negate the existence of global warming or man-made global warming, it simply states that global warming is slow and weak.

Thus, this contention is negated.

==Rebuttal 3: Arctic Ice and Sea levels==

“First, I would like to state that Pro’s claim about the North Pole completely melting is bogus.”

Never in this debate did I ever claim that. This is a straw-man.

In my opponent’s Arctic Ice graphs, he shows that since nothing has happened to the Arctic Ice Sheet, global warming, and thus man-made global warming, cannot exist. However, again this is a straw-man since he simply takes a single photo for each year (which only shows the ice on a specific date) and then compares them. It is literally subjective to choose the worst of something on an earlier date and compare it with the best of something on a later specific date. For example, you could say that Whitney Houston is bad because she had an off-day, which is completely untrue.

Also, although I don’t believe in all Arctic Ice melting, it is melting slowly and gradually [5]:

And here is a graph on gradually rising sea levels, contradicting my opponent’s [6]:

Image of a graph showing sea level change due to ocean warming

Thus this contention is negated and proved once again man-made global warming exists.

==Rebuttal 4: The Weather==

My opponent is claiming that Hurricanes are increasing due to Global Warming, but this claim is indeed false!”

Again, never in the debate have I claimed that.

What’s more, hurricanes aren’t actually linked to global warming in general [7]!

“Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming

“According to the National Hurricane Center, storms are no more intense or frequent worldwide than they have been since 1850. […] Constant 24-7 media coverage of every significant storm worldwide just makes it seem that way.” (Paul Bedard)” [7]

The story is similar for tornadoes as well [8]:

Global warming may well end up making them more frequent or intense, as our intuition would tell us. But it might also actually suppress them—the science just isn't clear yet.” [8]

Thus, either way, this contention doesn’t contradict anything about the existence of man-made global warming.

==Contention 3: Oceanic Acidification==

A large portion of the Co2 emitted by the atmosphere is absorbed into the ocean. The more Co2 that is emitted into the atmosphere, the more is absorbed into the ocean, and thus the more acidified the ocean becomes [8].

diagram of historic carbon dioxide levels

diagram of present carbon emissions

diagram of future carbon emissions

Ocean acidification has increased by 30% since the Industrial Revolution [9], thus proving that man-made global warming exists.

==Conclusion==

I have refuted all my opponent’s arguments and have given out major information to support the existence of man-made global warming.

Thus, the resolution stands affirmed.
(Sources are in comments)

lannan13

Con

I cannot debate due to a personal matter. Pro wins.
Debate Round No. 3
BLAHthedebator

Pro

I would like voters to give my opponent conduct for the gracious concession. I think that this has been a great debate. Extend all my arguments, and vote pro.
lannan13

Con

I apologize, but me being sick in the past few days doesn't help.
Debate Round No. 4
BLAHthedebator

Pro

Extend, again thank you for this informative and fun debate.
lannan13

Con

Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by BLAHthedebator 2 years ago
BLAHthedebator
Source 8 is for tornadoes citation, 9 is for the science of ocean acidification, and 10 is for how much the ocean has acidified since the industrial revolution.
Posted by BLAHthedebator 2 years ago
BLAHthedebator
Bump
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
BLAHthedebatorlannan13Tied
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:51 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 2 years ago
1Historygenius
BLAHthedebatorlannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by 1harderthanyouthink 2 years ago
1harderthanyouthink
BLAHthedebatorlannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
BLAHthedebatorlannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con formally concedes.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
BLAHthedebatorlannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Reasons for voting decision: FF