The Instigator
BLAHthedebator
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 3 votes the winner is...
BLAHthedebator
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/17/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,210 times Debate No: 69984
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (98)
Votes (3)

 

BLAHthedebator

Pro

I have done this topic before, but there wasn't a lot of clash so I want to reinstate this. This debate is impossible to acept. Apply in comments. The voting floor is set at 2000.
______________________________________________________________

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, 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.
Debate Round No. 1
BLAHthedebator

Pro

;


Thank you, lannan13. Please note that the first few arguments are identical to that of my last global warming debate as my opponent could not finish the last one and has decided to redo this.

==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</span><br /><br /><span style=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 400 ppm. 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<br>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 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)." [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. [7]

"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. I have also put out evidence that the greenhouse effect does indeed exist.

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.
Sources
Debate Round No. 2
BLAHthedebator

Pro

Now, back onto the debate.
____________________________________________________________________________________
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]:



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]

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 [9]. This and warmer temperatures generally cause coral bleaching, which has happened more frequently recently due to its relatively narrow habitable temperature range [10].

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 [11]. This acidification can harm aquatic organisms, of which organisms that do not need oxygen take place and release greenhouse gases like methane, [12] 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.

lannan13

Con

My opponent agreed that the rule violation is a misunderstanding (see comments section). Whether you want to leave it alone or make it a conduct loss is up to the voters. Now let's get to the debate. I also appologize if I do not get to everything ahead of time as I will likely run out of characters.
Contention 1: CO2 and Temperatures.
Firstly let 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 [1]
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. [2] 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. [3] 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. Now remind yourself that Pro said in Round 2 that CO2 is responsable for LARGE amount of Global Warming. As we can plainly see here that this is incorrect.
My opponent goes and attempts to manipulate data by showing back as far as 1955, but when we push things back to the year 1900 we can see that temperature levels are actually decreasing on a linear slope.
graph-Feb209_06_063302307128.gif
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." [4]
Contention 2: Earth is cooling
Here we can see the plotted Global Warming Hot Spot that was suppose to be there according to the IPPC, however we'll see that they're wrong.
Why, it appears that this hotspot doesn't even exist! [7]
Graph of Additional Absorbance of CO2 showing that extra CO2 makes less and less difference.
You're probably asking yourself, why am I seeing this graph again? This is because the more CO2 we get the less warming there is. If we observe this graph we can see that the Warming has decreased with more CO2 that we've recieved. This shows that CO2 doesn't have that much of an impact on the tempterature like the math that I've proved it in my last contention. [5]
Now I will agree that Eastbrook isn't good with predicting temperature change, but the IPCC is even worse, but whatever is causing the change it is highly unlikely that it's man made.
Contention 3: Artic and Sea Levels
THough my opponent likes to blow things out of perportion we can see that these sea levels rise and fall on their own. It's a natural cycle as I showed last round. The trend shows only a mere +/- 0.30 mm per year. "The Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory estimates the rate of sea level rise at 1.42 plus or minus 0.14 mm/year for the period 1954 to 2003. This is less than the estimate of 1.91 plus or minus 0.14 mm/year for the period 1902 to 1953, indicating a slowing of the rate." [6] We can see that 2.8 inches per 50 years isn't that much of an appocolyptic threat.
Here is a graph from NOAA which shows that the sea level rise is very small and that the IPCC is way off as well as many other Warming "experts". [8]
In the above graph we can see that despit Artic Ice slightly decreasing we can see that it follows the same patern throughout the year as the Ice melts in the summer and freezes in the winter. We can see that my opponents' sea ice level predictions are incorrect. [9] Which if sea ice is decreasing then explain the great sea ice exspansion of Antartica in 2012 shown bellow. It had a total of 20,000 miles more ice than average.
Contention 4: Weather
Tornadoes_F1_1954-2013
The NOAA has shown that Tornados are less frequent and occur less and less. Now the irony behind this is that it comes out at the same time as my opponent's sources which claims the exact opposite. [10]
Also I do wish that my opponet reposts link number 7 as it is broken and I cannot access it, so for now I continue to extend across my NOAA Hurricane graphs from last round.
Contention 5: Ocean Acidfication
Here I Would like to report that we do not emmitt Cobalt2. (I know you meant CO2) If we do some basic Chemistry we can see that 1-6 on the pH scale is acid 7 is neutral and 8-14 is base. The Ocean on average is 8.2 which is a base. Now let's add in the factor of the average coral reef needs CO2 and the average reef can varry from 9.2 to 7.6 throughout the day and night showing that there is no accidfication. This CO2 added envirnment has been seen to increase coral growth by 2 cm per year. We can also see that these areas very by 0.3 pH pending on the area. [11][12]
Debate Round No. 3
BLAHthedebator

Pro



I hate it when links are broken...

http://www.skepticalscience.com...

If this doesn't work, click on the original link and take off the extra space at the end of the link in the URL bar.

I actually quoted the wrong part of this website by mistake. I was meant to quote "It is unclear whether global warming is increasing hurricane frequency but there is increasing evidence that warming increases hurricane intensity."

Also, apologies for writing Carbon Dioxide as Co2 (Cobalt2, as my adversary points out). It's just the way I grew up writing it.

Moving on...

____________________________________________________________________________________

==Counter 1: Co2 and its effects==

"Now remind yourself that Pro said in Round 2 that CO2 is responsable for LARGE amount of Global Warming." - Opponent

I'm not sure where I said this. I ask my adversary to quote from me.

In fact, my opponent's entire rebuttal for this argument is misleading. It is subjective to use only Co2 as a base for a rebuttal against the resolution. If we were to count all the other causes of the greenhouse effect, then it is very possible to conclude that this can heat Earth by more than just 0.15 degrees Fahrenheit. My opponent even concedes that there is a warming caused by anthropogenic emissions, but then states that it is very low. That isn't what his BoP wants. To fulfill it, he must disprove the entirety of anthropogenic global warming.

"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." - Opponent

Not only have Co2 levels increased, but there are steep increases in other greenhouse gases as well [1]:



Be reminded that there is already a correlation between Earth's temperature and Co2 levels, and that the rates of circular cooling and warming, and increase/decrease of Co2 levels have stopped and started to rise severely [2]:


We cannot use my opponent's graph which suggests the contrary to the temperatures above, as it only uses data from Georgia [3], a state in the United States of America [4]. There is literally a direct contradiction between my adversary's chart (from 1990, Georgia) and mine (1880, worldwide).

Atmospheric concentrations of Co2 and anthropogenic emissions of Co2 have a correlation as well [5]:



My opponent then goes on to review a graph on the logarithmic effects of increased carbon dioxide levels. Even if this is true, by my opponent's logic there is still a warming effect. It just gets smaller, but not negative. We can't say that the warming effect is slower to disprove the entirety of anthropogenic global warming, because that is fallacious and invalid, and ends up failing to fulfill the real BoP here.

==Counter 2: The earth is actually cooling==

People and websites have actually shown the hot-spot absence to be fake. According to Skeptical Science, the absence of the hot-spot could be due to the errors in the processing of data [6]:

"Satellite measurements match model results apart from in the tropics. There is uncertainty with the tropic data due to how various teams correct for satellite drift. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program conclude the discrepancy is most likely due to data errors." - Skeptical Science [6]

"Allen and Sherwood sought to side step the problems associated with the radiosonde data entirely, and examined the “dynamical relationship known as the thermal-wind equation, which relates horizontal temperature gradients to wind shear”. Thermal wind speed data, in contrast to the temperature data, lacked many of the systematic adjustment issues and other errors, and were used as a proxy for temperature. Allen and Sherwood found that the troposphere appeared to be warming in reasonable agreement to theoretical and modeling expectations." - Skeptical Science [6]



The IPCC projections are actually considered to be quite accurate, in comparison to both of Easterbrook's projections [7] (animation of both comparisons, then together):




"All of the IPCC projections have proven to be quite accurate, suggesting high reliability. The contrarian projections all underestimate the global warming substantially, and in fact they erroneously predict global cooling and are quite unreliable." - Skeptical Science [7]

==Counter 3: Arctic Ice and Sea Levels==

Note that the rise and fall of the data represents sea level CHANGE RATES, not the sea level itself. The majority of the data is above zero, meaning that on average the sea level, even if minimally, is rising.

In fact, the sea level rise is actually accelerating quite quickly [8]:



"A variety of different measurements find steadily rising sea levels over the past century." - Skeptical Science [8]

"The trend shows only a mere +/- 0.30 mm per year. "The Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory estimates the rate of sea level rise at 1.42 plus or minus 0.14 mm/year for the period 1954 to 2003. This is less than the estimate of 1.91 plus or minus 0.14 mm/year for the period 1902 to 1953, indicating a slowing of the rate." [6] We can see that 2.8 inches per 50 years isn't that much of an appocolyptic threat." - Opponent

This is irrelevant. We are debating whether anthropogenic global warming exists, not if it is dangerous or not. The existence of something does not mandate an argument of how safe it is.

My opponent actually concedes that there is a rise, but again tries to save his stance on the argument by saying that it is minimal, which again isn't the point. By my opponent's logic, if man-made global warming exists, sea levels should not rise at all, to which he has conceded the contrary. Thus my opponent concedes this entire point.

Also, although Arctic sea ice extent does follow a pattern, it is still gradually decreasing [9]:


Although I will concede the Antarctic ice is expanding, the arctic is losing ice more than twice as fast than the Antarctic is gaining ice [10][11].

"Since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles (53,900 square kilometers) of ice a year; the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 sq km)." - NASA [10]

==
Counter 4: Hurricanes and Tornadoes==

I had already proven that tornadoes are not linked to global warming whatsoever, so this argument has been debunked. The hurricane argument has been re-responded to.

To reinforce the fact that hurricanes are getting more intense however, here is a graph showing the increase of more intense hurricanes over time [12]:



"Higher surface temperatures of the world's oceans could be responsible for the big rise in the strength of hurricanes, say US scientists." - Physicsworld.com [12]

==Counter 5: Ocean Acidification==

Although it is correct that ocean acidification is not yet at a critical level, it is acidifying very rapidly. It is predicted that by 2100 the ocean will have a pH as low as 7.8 [13]:



"Currently, there are no known natural explanations for the observed decline in GLOBAL AVERAGE ocean pH, and, there is one, clear human-caused explanation (note the global bit is important - there is natural local variation in pH but we are concerned with global shifts)." - Switchboard [13]

Since the ocean is acidifying, the organisms in the ocean will slowly die out, for anaerobic organisms to replace them and emit gases such as methane, as shown in the last round.

==Conclusion==

I have effectively refuted all my opponent's claims and have shown how my opponent has essentially conceded. Thus the resolution is affirmed.

[1] http://www.natsoc.org.au...
[2] http://www.ukccsc.co.uk...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://www.lawrencevilleweather.com...
[5] http://www.lawrencevilleweather.com...
[6] http://www.skepticalscience.com...
[7] http://www.skepticalscience.com...
[8] http://www.skepticalscience.com...
[9] http://www.carbonbrief.org...
[10] http://www.nasa.gov...
[11/video] https://www.youtube.com...
[12] http://physicsworld.com...
[13] http://switchboard.nrdc.org...
lannan13

Con

Okay thanks, it works now. That's okay, but scientifically the O has to be capitalized, because if you don't it's Cobalt2. Hence Cobalt is Co and Carbon Dioxide is CO2, so please remember to wirte it correct, thanks!

Contention 1: CO2 and its effects.

I deeply appologize for mistaking for what my opponent had stated as it came from my opponent's 7th source in his second round, but let's move on.

The fact is that the Warming from it's effects are so microscopic that it does not cause the effects that my opponent has brought up and to mention that he has DROPPED this portion stating how much Warming Gasses come from humans and it's very microscopic. I'll be posting that graph bellow.


Now once again if we look at this chart we can see that the gasses that are these Warming gasses and compare it to how much mankind has contributed to the Warming equation we can see that it is very microscopic at best and has no impact upon the globe as it is just so small and microscopic. This is an important point that my opponent dropped as it shows that humans are not contributing to Global Warming, but rather something else is. Prehaps is the cows who's manuer produces more methane now for some strange reason? Just in case the graph doesn't post I'll post it's information bellow.

GAS -- GREENHOUSE EFFECT -- HUMAN EFFECT
Water Vapor ------ 95.000% -- 0.001%
Carbon Dioxide -- 3.618% ---- 0.117%
Methane ----------- 0.360 ------ 0.066%
Nitrous oxide ------ 0.950% ---- 0.047%
Misc ----------------- 0.072% ---- 0.047%
Total ----------------- 100% ------- 0.278% [1]

Remeber the Warming numbers that I have posted last round that CO2 is the equilivence to 1 GWP. We can also see that my Numbers that I've allowed for my calculations were more moddested as it showed more of an increase than my opponent is showing and that was from one of his earlier graphs. Once again it's a 0.15 F increase of temperature and that's assuming there's a 105 ppm increase compared to the mere 40 ppm increase that my opponent has shown which means that the temperature under these numbers would drop to around 0.06 F. Again there isn't a large enough amount of emmitions produced from humans to cause a great difference in a global meltdown that my opponent is predictings.



If we observe the above Greenland Ice Core we can see that though it's been heating up we can swee that on average it's a whole lot colder than what it is on a normal basis. This is also acknowledging that humans have only been around in the past 10,000 years or so we can see that this Ice Core is still colder than normal even with the emmission that are produced today.



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.

What I'm showing on my logerithum is that there is no corrilation to what my opponent is stating and this shows that more CO2 doesn't harm the atmosphere and destroy it like that of what my opponent is stating.

Contention 2: Earth is cooling.

My opponent drops the hot spot argument so we'll move on to the next argument.



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.” [2]

Here we can see that they've found that this warming of the similiar to what my opponent is trying to prove is indeed bogus. Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter had shown through his research at University of East Angila in the United Kingdom that the Climate Change increase had actually froze from 1998-2006 showing that this so called Global Warming had actually stopped. [3]

Contention 3: Artic Ice and Sea Levels.

I do not concede the arugment as it shows that there is a plus or minus .3 mm increase or decrease each year which as I've shown in previous graphs in previous rounds that it's a cycle. The graph bellow is proof of the cycle of what I'm talking about. Plus even if it was caused by Global Warming my opponent still has to prove that it was caused by HUMANS in order to take the win here not to show that it exists.



According studies done by Ola Johannessen we can see that the Greenland Ice Sheet is growing! Also we can see from the same study is that the Artic was actually warmer in the 1930's than today! [4]

s://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com...; alt="" />

Here we can see that the Antartic Ice has been increasing recently, but you may ask what about the Artic Lannan? Well let's look.

s://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com...; alt="" />

Well I'll be, not only is the artic ice growing, but it's getting thicker and thicker. According to studies we can see that if we tack on one more year to my opponent's graph we can see that he fails to tell you that from August 2012 to August 2013 that the Artic Ice grew 533,000 square miles and this is according to NASA charts.

Image result for Arctic Ice increasing

Contention 4: Hurricane and Tornados


If we observe the above graph we can see that there is no net increase in violent Hurricanes nor their wind speed. We can see that my includes more years and hence more data which disproves my opponents. Plus when you add in my R2 graph, which was unrefuted, you can see that there is zero if not a decreasing trend when it comes to hurricanes.

Contention 5: Ocean Acidification

Climatoligist Rodger Pielke sr. has found that in the past when the Ocean has gained heat the Ocean has lost that heat within 2 years of which it was gained. Who has been quoted saying, "certainly indicates that the multi-decadal global climate models have serious issues with their ability to accurately simulate the response of the climate system to human- and natural-climate forcings." [5] This shows that the Ocean cannot be gaining this gaining an over exaggerated amount of CO2 causing the acidification that my opponent has been claiming. We can actually see that my opponent's graph actually fits within the amount of pH varriation that I have stated last round which further prooves my point.

Sources
1. (http://www.geocraft.com...)
2. (http://www.epw.senate.gov...)
3. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk...)
4. (https://books.google.com...)
5. (http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu...)
Debate Round No. 4
BLAHthedebator

Pro

Got it. From this round I will refer to Carbon Dioxide as CO2.

Also, my round 2 sites are incorrectly entered. Here they are in respective order:

http://climate.nasa.gov...
https://www.youtube.com...
http://climate.nasa.gov...
http://climate.nasa.gov...
http://data.giss.nasa.gov...
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu...
http://climate.nasa.gov...

==Rebuttal 1: CO2 and its effects==

The statement that humans are not contributing to the emission of greenhouse gases is completely false. Many sites [1-3] point out that humans are, in fact, the most major cause of warming in modern days.

"Natural changes alone can’t explain the temperature changes we’ve seen." - Union of Concerned Scientists [2]

"Scientists have closed the case: Human activity is causing the Earth to get hotter." - Environmental Defense Fund [3]

And, if we were to agree with my opponent's logic, then his arguments are contradictory to his third graph - where he states that Carbon Dioxide is correlating with temperatures perfectly, which is true [4][5]:




Keep in mind that both charts show increasing temperature and temperature increase rates, but short after the Industrial Revolution began, contrary to my opponent's selective graphs where he tries to disprove warming by selecting a range of 10,000 years, when really the Industrial Revolution only started in the 18th century [6].

My opponent's third graph, as proven, is contradicted by my opponent's statements above. Let us look at his two halves of his chart combined [7]:


If the warming effect of CO2 is minimal, then how would the temperature correlate with it so perfectly? And even then, in the years before, the temperature would drop almost instantly after it reached its peak, but the warming period we are in is actually holding itself up there, rather than just being pulled down. Also, we cannot use this graph anyway as the time scale is way too large to see our effects in recent years.

Moreover, his charts could be misleading as he has not cited any links to substantiate his second, third and fourth charts. Let us look at his fourth chart.

His fourth chart tells us that water vapor and other natural causes cover the vast majority of contributions to the greenhouse effect, whilst human emissions only cover about 0.28% of contributions. However, this is very misleading, because it does not count in ANY OTHER FACTORS. For example, we already know that humans have deforestated the vast majority of forests on Earth [8]:



Wildfires, which already contribute to the greenhouse effect [9], are affecting the area of forests worldwide [8]:

Trends in wildlife area burned in wildfire in U.S.



"“Wildfire emissions can have remarkable impacts on radiative forcing,” says Liu." - USDA [9]

"Tropical deforestation contributes as much as 90% of the current net release of biotic carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This change may represent as much as 20% - 30% of the total carbon flux due to humans - i.e., rivaling the carbon release due to fossil fuel burning." - Global Change [9]

Humans, as shown bove, are acidifying the ocean and deforestating (cutting down trees from forests), which is labeled as one of the more major causes of the greenhouse effect on my opponent's chart.

As for my opponent's logarithm argument, this is also contradicting the correlation of CO2 and temperatures because the logarithm would not be able to cause a perfect correlation. Thus this argument is null.

==Rebuttal 2: The Earth is cooling==

My opponent states that his hot spot argument was dropped, when in reality I had responded to this with two paragraphs of evidence. My opponent is straw-manning here. My opponent even goes on to state that I dropped his CO2 argument, to which I responded with even more text. That went unrefuted by my opponent.

Also, the "Hockey Stick" graph is actually proven many times to be quite accurate (at least in the warming period) by studies of different sources, like corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. All confirm that the 20th century saw the most dramatic increase in global temperatue in recent history.

"Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920." - Skeptical Science [10]

Note that my opponent's next graph is a very selective one and that its time scale is literally over a ten-year period. Plus, the grap shows the temperature variations, which ends up being above zero. This graph is contradictory to my opponent's arguments.

Also, my opponent's quote and evidence that global warming as stopped is also quite selective as it is over a period of 8 years. My opponent is blatantly biased as he only used selective time periods instead of an actually unbiased time period, where it focuses on where humans have been speculated to have started to contribute to global warming.

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

Again, my opponent's graph here only shows a time period of 45 years. Let us look at a graph starting from 0 CE, and as we can see towards the end the sea level rises dramatically [11]:

s://motherjones.com...; alt="Different ways to measure sea level over time" />
As you can see the sea level has risen over 20 cm since the start of the Industrial Revolution and has been very consistent throughout this period.

My opponent then goes on to reinstate his argument that Arctic Ice is increasing, which I had already refuted with my NASA evidence, which was collected in late 2014, while my opponent uses data from 2006 and 2013. Even then, my opponent only uses two photographs of the Arctic Ice, each from two single, separate days, which again is subjective because it doesn't show anything over time, but rather it only shows separate days. Again disregard this piece of evidence.

Also, even though I concede the Antarctic Ice expansion, I had proven Arctic Ice was losing ice more than twice as fast than the Antarctic Ice grew. Thus this point is null.

==Rebuttal 4: Hurricanes and Tornadoes==

My opponent drops my argument that tornadoes do not link to global warming.

My opponent is misunderstanding my hurricane intensity argument. It has been shown that when sea levels rise (which I proved true) stronger hurricanes get stronger, but weaker hurricanes show little to no trend. [12]

Trends in tropical cyclone/hurricane maximum wind speeds for different strength hurricanes

"But more significantly, Elsner found weaker hurricanes showed little to no trend while stronger hurricanes showed a greater upward trend. In other words, stronger hurricanes are getting stronger. This means that as sea temperatures continue to rise, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land will inevitably increase." - Skeptical Science [12]

My opponent even states that I dropped his R2 graph, which I responded to throughout the debate. The link was only broken.

My opponent keeps straw-manning that I drop his arguments when a lot of my arguments have been left unrefuted. I ask my opponent to stop.

==Rebuttal 5: Ocean Acidification==

My opponent is saying that since the ocean has not acidified to a certain point that can be deemed critical. However my opponent must notice that small parts of the ocean are acidifying to the point that organisms are dying and being replaced with anaerobic organisms, which produce methane, which further contributes to global warming. Parts of this are directly caused by normal everyday pollution, which an kill animals and bleach corals, which has been proven above to have alreday happened.

==Dropped arguments==

My opponent drops the following arguments/rebuttals:

- That CO2 levels have been ising exponentially over the last few centuries
- That CO2 levels 600,000,000 years ago are irrelevant since not even the dinosaurs had existed then
- That my opponents graphs are very selective and biased
- That the Arctic is losing ice more than twice as fast than the Antarctic is gaining ice
- That tornadoes do not have a link to global warming
- That ocean acidification, even if not at a critical level, is affecting the temperature of the surroundings.

I would like to remind my opponent that he must not respond to these dropped arguments in the last round as I cannot respond to them. Any new rebuttals to these dropped arguments should be disregarded.

==Conclusion==


I have effectively refuted all my opponent's arguments, countered my own, and also proven that my opponent has dropped some of my arguments.

The resolution is affirmed.

[1] http://planetsave.com...
[2] http://www.ucsusa.org...
[3] http://www.edf.org...
[4] http://www.skepticalscience.com...
[5] http://warmgloblog.blogspot.com...
[6] https://www.google.com...
[7] http://www.skepticalscience.com...
[8] http://www.globalchange.umich.edu...
[9] http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov...
[10] http://www.skepticalscience.com...
[11] http://www.motherjones.com...
[12] http://www.skepticalscience.com...

lannan13

Con

I do appologize for this finial round. I have to forfeit here as my friend is in the hospital with Leukemia and I've been busy with him and making sure he's alright. I've already PM'd my opponent reguarding this and he'll post in the comments the verdict if its a loss of conduct or a loss of the debate. I deeply appologize to him as this has been a great debate.
Debate Round No. 5
98 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by BLAHthedebator 1 year ago
BLAHthedebator
Yeah, I need to have more debates like this.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
Now it has ended. Man what a debate.
Posted by BLAHthedebator 1 year ago
BLAHthedebator
96 comments...
Posted by BLAHthedebator 1 year ago
BLAHthedebator
969 views...
Posted by BLAHthedebator 1 year ago
BLAHthedebator
@16k

>I will point out Blah uses a lot of the evidence we used in my global warming team debate (w/ bluesteel and Mikal) vs lannan (w/ DK and subutai), so I am flattered that he used it lol. He should have looked at my debate with Roy :P

It's called "learning" :p
Posted by 16kadams 1 year ago
16kadams
Note: this wasn"t used in my decision, but if one gigaton = 0.15, that means temperature increased would be 150F, or 66 degrees C, which doesn"t even make sense. So Lannan somehow overestimated the impact we have. Since sensitivity is about 1.1 degrees C, we have only increased temperatures by 0.5 or something (about half). The IPCC says 2, but I think the lower number is closer to true. Anyway, fyi. Blah won the point (2) btw.

So those were the two arguments that were relevant, and Lannan"s arguments were pretty much opposite of what Blah said. From the debate I see (1) over the recent warming trend, temps have gone up and so has CO2, (2) CO2 has some effect on temperatures, C: Humans cause global warming. Lannan"s arguments about cooling were debunked as were his CO2 graphs"which were "true" but more long term rather than what the time frame we were looking at was. Lannan dropped much of his original case when he didn"t refute the irrelevant rebuttal (e.g. long term isn"t wholly relevant). A pretty clear Pro win. Also, just a thought, both of you should read some peer-reviewed papers and not just blogs :P
Posted by 16kadams 1 year ago
16kadams
== Analysis of each point ==

(1) CO2 trends: Lannan"s argument relies upon paleoclimate data. As Blah pointed out in R1, a shorter scale of 500,000 years shows how abnormally high our CO2 concentration is. Lannan relies upon paleoclimate data, which Blah shows is tainted with large error bars. This makes it hard to claim that there is "no" correlation between CO2 and temperature. Further, Lannan"s graph shows that temperature is cooling, too. So a basic trend analysis ends up supporting Blah"s argument since Lannan"s graph really proves nothing and really proves Blah correct. Further, as we are arguing a short time trend, a longer one is irrelevant. Blah shows that since midcentury there has been an increase. Since that is the time frame being debated, that information is more relevant than paleoclimate. Paleoclimate is very important in proving/disproving CO2 has any effect, but to say it is falling overall is irrelevant to the modern (100 year) increase in temperature. Blah solidly wins this point.

(2) Again Lannan relies upon long term data, which is great, but not wholly relevant to the 100 year warming. Lannan seems to support Easterbrook despite him being refuted on this issue in other debates. Blah really recycles the rebuttal I wrote in the other debate: that the IPCC actually better predicts temperature, that Easterbrook drastically underpredicts it, and that the IPCC is probably right. So Blah really takes this point and destroys Lannan"s point. Lannan cites a lot of evidence that CO2 is a weak factor, pretty much repeats what he says, but concedes that CO2 has some warming effect (0.15 F per gigaton). Blah shows a graph of 380 ppm, or about 1000 gigatons (a few hundred more, but whatever). Not only this, but other gases increased too.
Posted by 16kadams 1 year ago
16kadams
I will point out Blah uses a lot of the evidence we used in my global warming team debate (w/ bluesteel and Mikal) vs lannan (w/ DK and subutai), so I am flattered that he used it lol. He should have looked at my debate with Roy :P
== Weak Arguments ==
Lannan used many weak arguments which do not convince me of his point. The reason I single him out is because all of Blah"s points are pertinent to the resolution: proving CO2 has increased in modern times, and a greenhouse effect exists. So logically, we would see warming. Lannan argues that sea levels haven"t changed, which doesn"t prove anything. When some ice melts, as a lot of it is in the water already, no change really occurs. Hurricanes and tornadoes are also weak arguments. I didn"t even read Blah"s rebuttal since whether or not climate change is bad was not part of the debate. Since I already touched on Blahs care here ima just leave it at that

== Lannan"s case ==

(1) No CO2 increase.
(2) Earth is cooling
(3) Earth has cycles
(4) CO2 has little effect
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
=================================================================================
>Moderator Update<

Lee01's vote has been reported again. Please stop reporting the same vote over and over. If you are the metaphorical "boy who cried wolf," I may take your reports less seriously next time you report a vote.
=================================================================================
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
=================================================================================
>Moderator Update<

Lee001's vote had been reported. It has passed review. It explains every single point it awards. While an *ideal* RFD would evaluate arguments made later in the debate past round 2, round 2 was the first round where the meat of each side's case was offered. To meet DDO's minimum standards for voting, it is sufficient to explain why Con's original case was more convincing.
=================================================================================
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 1 year 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 Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 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: I will vote on this later. I am giving spelling to Pro. See final round, "reguarding ". R2 "incorect ". Those are a few. But Con also seemed to capitalize multiple things which don't need to be--"Hurricanes" "Tornadoes" "Global Warming" "Atmospheric", etc. I will evaluate actual content later. Comments.
Vote Placed by Lee001 1 year ago
Lee001
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: In the 2nd round, I felt as if pro didn't really prove that humans caused global warming, yet just saying and proving that there was a reason for climate change and such. I found that lannan's graphs did an exceptional good job of rebutting Pro's case in the 2 round. Overall, both sides did a good job. But Lannan backed up his arguments much better by providing much more evidence for his argument such a using a climate scientist to back up his claim's. Good Job.
Vote Placed by The-Voice-of-Truth 1 year ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
BLAHthedebatorlannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments from both sides were excellent (although both debaters liked to point out the flaws in the others' arguments). I could not really decide who won argument-wise, so I voted it a tie. There were few spelling and grammatical errors from both debaters, so I voted that a tie. Con claimed ICCP as unreliable, but I found no backing of this statement, so I voted tied. As per the request of Pro, I will not deduct conduct points from Con. Thus, I voted it a tie. Of course, I voted who I agreed with before and after the debate because 1) before the debate, I agreed with Con; and 2) my views were not swayed by Pro. Overall, it was a good debate.