The recent warming trends are not due to man made Co2 emmisions
Debate Rounds (3)
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Arguments (no rebuttals)
Round 3: Rebuttals (no new arguments, you may strengthen your previous arguments)
I would also just like to clarify that my understanding coming into this debate based on the title is that I'm not necessarily arguing that manmade CO2 is the sole cause but that it is a cause of global warming. After all, carbon dioxide isn't even the only greenhouse gas!
Just to clarify, I agree that Co2 is a greenhouse gas and that it causes warming. What I don't agree with is how the climate system responds to this direct warming effect. I believe that the climate system responds by dampening Co2 induced warming while global warming alarmists believe that the climate amplifies Co2 induced warming.
An example of this is water evaporation. Global warming alarmists believe that Co2 causes direct warming which then causes water evaporation which then heats the Earth (water vapor is also a greenhouse gas). I, and other skeptics, believe that the direct warming of Co2 causes water evaporation, which then turns into clouds and cools the Earth. I believe that the clouds dampen the direct warming effect of Co2 by causing cooling that has more of an effect on climate then the heat produced by Co2 and water vapor.
(Evidence of how cloud cover influences climate is seen through cosmic ray numbers:
Flipped Cosmic rays and temperature: http://a-sceptical-mind.com...
How cosmic rays influence clouds and therefore temperature: http://physicsworld.com...
Now, for my arguments showing why this is incorrect:
(Sorry if I put a lot but there is a lot to discuss)
Fact 1: There has been no significant atmospheric warming since 1998. In addition to this, there has been a lack of an atmospheric hotspot (in the mid to upper troposphere) that was predicted to be caused by greenhouse gas caused warming. This in itself proves that greenhouse gasses are not causing the recent warming trend.
No warming 1: http://blogs.news.com.au...
No warming 2: http://4.bp.blogspot.com...
Lack of hotspot 1: https://mises.org...
Lack of hotspot 2: http://sciencespeak.com... (Specifically on pg 6 but I suggest you read more)
Fact 2: Co2 is an extraordinarily weak greenhouse gas. According to atomic absorption spectroscopy, it can only store and release 7% of the electromagnetic spectrum that passes through it.
Fact 3: Throughout Earths history, Co2 has been much higher in the past showing that recent levels of Co2 are harmless.
Fact 4: Recently, ice core data shows that Co2 followed temperature, sometimes by hundreds of years, not the other way around.
Lags warming 1: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...
Lags warming 2: http://joannenova.com.au...
Lags warming 3: http://tinypic.com...
Fact 5: Co2 has never caused amplification of warming in the past. It is simple logic. If Co2 amplified temperature after orbital changes raised the temperature first, when would the amplification stop? The answer is when there is no more Co2 in the oceans. This would cause the oceans to become abnormally basic and this has only happened once in the last 25 million years:
Ocean pH 25 million years: https://www.manicore.com...
(I know it shows acidification at the end but this does not contradict my argument because it is a different result of more Co2.)
Fact 6: Almost every single computer model made by the IPCC is wrong. This suggests something fundamentally wrong with the models used. In addition, the models are all wrong because they predict to much heat which suggests that the effect of Co2 is being overblown.
Computer models wrong 1: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...
Computer models wrong 2: http://c3headlines.typepad.com...
Computer models wrong 3: http://cdn.phys.org...
Fact 7: During the post economic boom, when Co2 soared, temperatures fell despite the increase in Co2. This has been blamed on increased sulfur emissions but NASA says, "the cooling effect of the pollution aerosols will be somewhat regionally dependent, near and downwind of industrial areas" which explains how sulfur would only cause cooling in or around the areas it was released. This means that sulfur could not be responsible for the cooling.
Post war economic boom: http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net...
Co2 levels: https://www3.epa.gov...
As you can see, Co2 levels rose dramatically during the post economic boom, past what they had ever been at before, yet temperatures fell.
In conclusion, I have provided 7 facts explaining how Co2 can not, or has never been, a main climate driver. All the historical and recent evidence is stacked against it and, while it does have some slight effect on the climate system, this effect is not, or has ever been, significant.
Thank you for your response. However I'm a little confused as you accept in your post that recent warming trends are due to man made CO2 emissions, even if not as much as some people think: "I agree that Co2 is a greenhouse gas and that it causes warming". You therefore condede the topic to me.
I will save rebuttals for R3, but I think the topic for debate you want to argue and the topic you actually posted are two seperate things. If you want to FF and start a new debate then that makes sense. I think the topic you would want is "The global warming effect of CO2 emissions result in negative feedback" which is the technical term for what you seem mean by "the climate system responds by dampening Co2 induced warming".
Global warming is the name given to the process of "the average global surface temperature increase from human emissions of greenhouse gases".
I will show that the facts clearly show that man made CO2 emissions are a factor driving global warming.
The Massive Overwhelming Evidence
There is only so much evidence you can put into a post with a few thousand characters and both PRO and CON have the same character limits. This does not mean however that the actual body of evidence on each side is the same.
There is a scientific consensus supported by the vast majority of the literature which shows that "The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen." 
SImilarility the IPCC have stated "Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal." 
Therefore on any point where there is dispute and it seems like our points might be equally matched, the vast weight of evidence is on my side and greater precedence should be given to my arguments.
GMST is exceptionally high
Although we expect some variation over time, the current temperature is at a level which cannot be explained as occuring naturally.
Every one of the months in the last year has been the hottest since modern records began in 1880 and all the hottest years occur within the last couple of decades.
When we look at the trends, the rising temperature is clear.
This is true and consistent even as we look further and further back.
CO2 would be expected to cause global warming
The physical properties of CO2 are not up for debate. It is a greenhuouse gas, a gaseous molecule with more than one element. A property of these type of molecule is that they absord and emit thermal infrared radiation (heat, basically).  This is a verifiable, easily testable quality that I don't think even the most ardent climate change denier would try and dispute.
We would therefore expect the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to act as an insulator that keeps the earth warm and for this effect to increase as the amount of greenhouse gases increases.
CO2 emissions have shot up massively since the industrial revolution
Since humanity industrialised, we've got factories, cars, trains, airplanes and all other sorts of devices pumping out CO2. This has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
It is it logical, scientific and evidence based to expect the increased CO2 emissions to cause the higher temperatures. More CO2 in the atmosphere should make the earth warmer. There is more Co2 in the atmosphere. The earth is warmer.
We can be sure this is not coincedence
Although unlikely, it is theoretically possible that a temperature rise and a CO2 rise going hand in hand could be coincedence. However, when we look at paleoclimates we can see that this cannot explained naturally. When the climate has naturally wamred in the past "it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees" but "In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster"
This current warming is happening an entire order of magnitude faster than anything we have seen in the past.
Therefore based on all available data cannot be ascribed to natural phenomenon. Therefore we must look to manmade phenomenon for the cause of the warming. As discussed above, scientists have found time and time again that CO2 emissions are increasing global temperature. As the global temperature is indisputably rising, unless PRO can put forwad a convincing alternate hypothesisis for a manmade cause of global warming,
Reams of Evidence
Science doesn't just rely on a single models, but is testing global 3warming theory again and again using multiple models. The results have consistently shown that global warming is occuring and will continue to occur due to CO2 levels.
Evidence from historical sources before the modern day like tree rings, ice cores, fossilised plant seeds, speleotherms, sediments and middens all point to a historic record of temperature which sows our current climate as abornmal. 
Predicitons made based on models which predict climate change have been shown to be accurate - even beyond our increasing temperatures. For instance following the eruption of Mount Pinatubo "Climatologists predicted global temperatures would drop as a result of that global sulfate infusion. They were right: Following the eruption, global temperatures abruptly dipped by about a half-degree (0.6°C) for about two years."  Being able to succesfully make testable predicitions shows that climate change models meet Popperian standards of scientific falsifiability and the models are trustworthy.
Scientific consensus: My opponent states that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change. There are multiple consensus's but my opponent makes a quote from the IPCC so I will explain the manipulation behind that one. The IPCC put in their report that 2500 of the worlds top scientists agree that global warming is man made. This is not true because not only did they not ask people if they wanted to be part of the consensus or not, the majority of the people they listed are not climate scientists. Many of the people in the consensus didn't want to be part of it and yet they were shown as someone who supports man made climate change.
Here is a list of articles explaining why other consensus's were wrong: http://climatechangedispatch.com...
My opponent then says that the surface temperature is warming. This is true, but in itself disproves man made climate change. If greenhouse gasses were causing the warming, we would expect to see warming in the atmosphere first, not the surface. Skeptical science, the most used global warming alarmist site I have seen used, says, "Climate models predict, that as a consequence of global warming, the temperature of the lower troposphere (TLT) will warm about 20% faster than the Earth's surface temperature"
Troposphere warming: https://upload.wikimedia.org...
Surface Warming: https://tamino.files.wordpress.com...
Total atmospheric warming: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...
As you can see, troposphere warming matches surface warming, it is not warming any faster. In addition to this, the entire atmospheric temperature trend seems to have stayed constant for 20 years.
My opponent then says that Co2 is a greenhouse gas and therefore would be expected to cause warming. As I pointed out in my argument above, I believe the climate system responds to this warming by dampening it and making it insignificant. In fact, I even have historical proof to back up my claims. If Co2 amplified itself (even global warming alarmists agree that the direct warming effect isn't enough to have an impact, 2/3 of the IPCC climate model predictions of rising temperature are due to amplification effects) then, in the past, when would this amplification stop? To answer my own questions, Co2 would only stop amplifying when there is no more Co2 in the oceans. This would cause the oceans to become abnormally basic which we have only seen once in the last 25 million years. This shows how, in the past, Co2 has not amplified itself because the oceans only rarely become abnormally basic.
pH of ocean: https://www.manicore.com...
Co2 amplification is described by skeptical science as, "as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released"
My opponent then says, "The results have consistently shown that global warming is occuring and will continue to occur due to CO2 levels...Predicitons made based on models which predict climate change have been shown to be accurate - even beyond our increasing temperatures. For instance following the eruption of Mount Pinatubo "Climatologists predicted global temperatures would drop as a result of that global sulfate infusion. They were right..."
Firstly, yes, the models show that warming is occurring but they show way to much warming. They are not even nearly accurate to the observed warming trends. This is because scientists overestimate the effect of Co2 on the atmosphere.
Models Wrong 1: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...
Models Wrong 2: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...
Models Wrong 3: http://c3headlines.typepad.com...
Secondly, scientists were also right about the sulfate infusions from the Mount Pinatubo but this aerosol has completely different effect on climate than Co2. It is much easier to predict the effect of sulfate aerosols on climate because we already know how cloud cover effects climate (cooling). Sulfate aerosols just cause more clouds which then reflect more sunlight off the earth causing cooling. Sulfate aerosols are much more understood and there are not many feedbacks effecting them.
In conclusion, I have now debunked everything my opponent has claimed and proven that Co2 does not amplify itself. I have shown how, yes, the surface is warming, but that in itself disproves man made global warming. I have shown how the consensuses have been manipulated and how almost every single IPCC predictions has been wrong. Overall, I have now proven that climate change is not man made and that everything happening now is natural and out of our control, whether the rate of warming is fast or not.
Thank you to my opponent for the debate.
Epidex has conceded that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes global warming. He explain this is because he wanted to argue a different topic from the one he actually chose and laid out in the title R1. He cannot change topics in R2 and R3 and he has conceded the topic at hand.
Lack of evidence
Although Epidex provides lots of links, he has provided hardly any evidence. Please look at and critically analyse the sources he provides rather than just superficially scanning past them. When I provide graphs they are always linked or referenced in regards to the studies and data they are based off so they can be checked and seen that it's accurate. Epidex typically just links to an image of a graph with no information about it or no source for where it is pulling it's data from or anything that would in any way confirm it is based in reality. These graphs in terms of evidential quality are no different from a random person's unsupported opinion.
Indeed, even if you go out of your way to try and track down the source it inevitably turns out to be a load of climate change denialist blog posts and the like with nothing supporting them, e.g. http://goo.gl...
Anyone can make a graph about anything, true or false. Unless we have reason to believe a graph actually represent reality and is accurate, it is useless.
EPI'S R2 "FACTS"
Introduction The first link is to a graph which provides no evidence for being real or based on real data so can be ignored.
The second link though is really interesting because in the entire round this is almost the only link that actually goes through to a source that actually provides evidence and information to back up its claims and unfortunately (for him) Epi shoots himself in the foot here.
Although the link mentions the possibility of cosmic rays effecting cloud formation it points out:
- Even the members of the team conducting it do not say their experiment proves this is happening and they will need to conduct more research to find that out
- It states that the consensus is that CO2 is responsible for most of the warming that is happening. Epi tries to deny this in R3, so why do his R2 sources contradict him.
- As is pointed out by "Chris Folland, a climate researcher at the UK's Met Office" in the link, the effect this would have could be negative or positive because high altitude clouds have a warming effect while low altitude clouds have a cooling effect. As it's not known if this theory is correct where the clouds would tend to form, it's not known what effect it would have even if it's significant. This is doubly important as in R3 Epi tries to claim clouds have a cooling effect, while here his own link says they can have a cooling or a warming effect.
Basically the only source that he provides in the entire debate which offers a solid evidence based view actually contradicts him about basically everything and supports my argument!
1 As shown in my R2, Global Warming is the change in global mean surface temperature, not the temperature in the atmosphere. The atmospheric temperature is therefore irrelevant. His position supported by 3 links to graphs which are backed up by nothing.
The 4th link's claims can be summed up as "the hotspot at the top of the tropical troposphere, is missing from the only data we have (Figures 1, 2, and 7). Therefore the signature of increased greenhouse warming has not been found." However this has very much been found, for instance this study which finds "tropical warming is equally strong over both the 1959–2012 and 1979–2012 periods, increasing smoothly... a pattern very close to that in climate model predictions. This contradicts suggestions that atmospheric warming has slowed in recent decades or that it has not kept up with that at the surface."
His link is a non climate specialist (an electrical engineer and mathematician) pretending that no evidence exists when the evidence exists and he simply refuses to acknowledge it.
2 Unsourced and irrelevant. There is nothing to suggest that even if true that 7% isn't enough to alter the temperature of the climate by a couple of degrees which is all that is necessary.
3 Illogical and the part about it being harmless unsourced. Just because the Earth and non-human creatures existed hundreds of millions of years ago when there was higher levels of carbon, that does not mean humans and human civilisation can exist or exist without suffering greatly.
4 Backed up entirely to links to graphs which don't have any details necessary to assess whether they in any way represent reality or are truthful. No evidence, point must be ignored.
5 Same as above.
6 Again, nothing but baseless graphs with no data or sources to back them up.
7 Obviously hasn't thought this one through. Average global temperatures are based on the mean average of readings from across the globe. If regions of the world temporarily cool due to seperate manmade factor (Sulphates), then this of course reduces the mean temperature in the same way the mean of 8, 10 and 12 is 10 but would be reduced to 9 if the 8 suddenly dropped to a 5 but the other numbers remained the same. Temperature changes do not need to be global to effect the global average. This is basic mathematics.
I'm short on characters, but pretty much everything here can be dismissed based on being a graph with no evidence and being contradicted by his R2 introductory statement.
I will highlight his first link though, which is to a blog post which claims to have '97 Articles Refuting The “97% Consensus”'. Only 3 of the 97 are actual scientific studies. If you click the first link and check the full study rather than the abstract, you will see that this study accepts that the scientific literature does ‘overwhelmingly supports’ AGW. Epi has been taken in by poor quality propaganda that is obviously false if you spend 5 minutes looking in to it.
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.