Stratospheric Sulfate Aersols or geoengineering should be used in 2016 to combat global warming
Debate Rounds (4)
I'm not a big science guy but I have been reading up on this topic and I find it pretty interesting I debated this also a few times.
I'm mostly against this method but if anyone is for yeah accept and debate. I am trying to get updated on this topic since I haven't kept up with it. looking to see if there's any good reasons to use it now.
But yeah pretty much the Pro side has to prove why they should be used in a year or so or even now.
I have always been a science enthusiast so I assume a stance on this topic with ease. The question of whether or not humans have a direct affect on Earth's climate is age-old, but new science has put forth irrefutable evidence that we do have an effect on our climate, however large the scale. We must be especially careful in researching climate change prevention as a government, but if we can assure that we can safely combat global warming through geoengineering without major repercussions, then there is no reason not to do so.
Some feel as though global warming is the inevitable, natural course of the Earth's existence, while others believe that our industrial habits have an adverse effect on the temperature of the Earth. For this debate, we should assume the latter.
I look forward to a good debate.
Observation: I am not saying we should never use this method. (I personally believe we should never attempt this method but that is not what I am arguing in todays round) I am simply arguing we shouldn't use this at all on a considerable scale in 2016.
Intro: Stratospheric sulfate Aerosols sounds good but we must not pass it because this method isn"t ready
But first we must look to the biggest problem passing this and the main reason we must have as much knowledge on this method as possible.
1.Once we start this method we can"t stop
"An article form the Guardian, articles from Washington post and new scientist all shows that once the world starts geoengineering, we can't really ever stop " especially if everyone keeps pumping carbon-dioxide into the atmosphere at the same time. Why? Because as soon as we quit spraying those reflective particles into the atmosphere, the Earth will heat up very, very, very rapidly. And sudden climate change is even worse than the kind we already know about.
Why we would want to stop this method? Because of the many proposed side effects that could happen which I will start to present in contention 2.
2.Stratospheric Aerosols could have negative effects on agriculture
"Academic proponents admit at conferences that such efforts to reduce the earth's sunlight levels may reduce agricultural yields for billions of people by negatively altering global weather patterns. www.change.org
In addition to having a deleterious effect on water & soil quality (and human breathing), this effort could create dependency on "stress-tolerant" seeds and effectively monopolize the global food market. www.change.org
3.We must also look at the main side effects of this method
"Fighting global warming by reflecting sunlight back into space risks "terrifying" consequences including droughts and conflicts, according to three major new analyses of the promise and perils of geoengineering.
"Billions of people would suffer worse floods
"Ocean upwelling, or the bringing up of deep cold waters, would cool surface water temperatures and reduce sea ice melting, but would unbalance the global heat budget, while adding iron filings or lime would affect the oxygen levels in the oceans. http://www.theguardian.com... this was also presented on an article on the new scientist
4.Next we can see that this hasn"t been properly tested
"The small band of scientists which has been studying this subject over the past decade or so has mostly been using computer models.
"So more research must be done by more scientists, also we must perform more test before passing this legislation.
5.This will not even be ready by 2016
"The main thing keeping this method from going is politics
"Discussing who will manage what. Ensuring the national academy of science doesn"t gain too much power from managing this etc.
"Also the issue with if other countries want to use the method as well. If Russia decided to use this method and we are tense with them now how could we effectually work together to ensure a country doesn"t mess up the environment or interfere with global temperatures? Like I said maybe this method can be used but not now.
6. We don"t even know for sure the cause of global warming.
"There is no for sure cause of the changes of temperature across the globe. Some think it"s simply the sun in fact studies show that a big heat jump like this happened around the time of the Vikings. Simply every once in the way the sun"s rays go a bit further than normal resulting in more heat on the atmosphere. This could be a passive thing.
"Pollution does have some effect on the environment but whether its directly the cause of temperature change is unproven.
"WE do not know for sure if this "death warming" is even inevitable there"s just not enough evidence or urgency to justify wasting money when we are trillions of dollars in debt on a global project that could have negative effects.
I will now provide a response to the general push towards geoengineering simply because I have characters left
Science academies around the world as well as some climate activists have called for more research into geoengineering techniques, such as reflecting sunlight from space, adding vast quantities of lime or iron filings to the oceans, pumping deep cold nutrient-rich waters to the surface of oceans and irrigating vast areas of the north African and Australian deserts to grow millions of trees. Each method has been shown to potentially reduce temperature on a planetary scale.
Response presented by http://www.theguardian.com...
But researchers at the Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel, Germany, modeled these five potential methods and concluded that geoengineering could add chaos to complex and not fully understood weather systems. Even when applied on a massive scale, the most that could be expected, they say, is a temperature drop of about 8%. We don"t really have to technology to regulate temperature at a global scale. So the models currently presented are not stable enough and not ready to be used.
UlyssesWake forfeited this round.
UlyssesWake forfeited this round.
UlyssesWake forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.