geoengineering should and can be used in 2016 to combat global warming
Debate Rounds (4)
First round is for acceptance only
I am starting this over because someone requested I extend the age gap. I had it set for like 17-27 so now I increased it to 17-28 years old. I am 18 so I prefer not to debate someone beyond that, just a preference. Also in real life debate I debate people around my age so its yeah.
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.
Pro burden= show this could be used effectively on at least a city scale and why it should be used during of course 2016.
Rule= basically no random made up counter plans
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 aerosol geoengineering is a primary term for the ongoing global climate modification programs being conducted by major powers around the world. "Aerosols" is simply a term for a microscopic particle that is suspended in the air. A primary stated goal of the geoengineering programs is to provide a "solar shield" to slow "runaway climate change" by spraying tens of millions of tons of highly toxic metal nano particulates (a nanometer is 1/1,000,000,000 of a meter) into the atmosphere from jet aircraft. Is the spraying only for solar radiation management? Based on available data, there are a number of known objectives including but not limited to SRM, weather warfare, over the horizon radar enhancement, controlling food production, and probable biological testing. There are likely many more aspects and agendas related to the atmospheric spraying which we can not yet know. http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org...
I didn't understand this much either when I first found out about it. If you look up this method itself there's a diagram that makes it simple enough to comprehend. A plane fly's over a certain location and releases these particles into the atmosphere basically.
First you 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
" 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. https://www.washingtonpost.com... SO in conclusion this method isn't ready and will not be on a city scale in 2016.
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. Negative effects from actually testing this method
Many geoengineering patents have a stated goal of slowing global warming.
This area of the Pacific Northwest was thought to be a pristine water source. Dozens of rain samples taken in this region from numerous individuals were tested at the State certified lab in Northern California and showed shocking results without exception. Former US Forest Service Biologist Francis Mangles has confirmed the alarming heavy metal contamination with his own testing. Snow tests taken from the side of Mt. Shasta showed aluminum content as high as 61,000 PPB. (parts per billion). This level of aluminum in the snow is tens of thousands of times anything that might be considered "normal background" contamination. Aluminum is the primary element named in numerous geoengineering patents. The same patents that describe dispersing this aluminum from jets for the expressed purpose of blocking the sun which is exactly what we see aircraft "trails" doing in our skies day in and day out, creating artificial cloud cover and haze which blocks direct sunlight. http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org...
More negative outcomes from testing:
Ozone layer damage is yet another known consequence of geoengineering the atmosphere. Other recent studies now note a "shrinking atmosphere" which is very possibly also linked to the ongoing geoengineering programs. http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org...
The "hydrological cycle" of the planet is being completely disrupted by the geoengineering aerosol saturation of the atmosphere. Fungal proliferation is yet another inevitable crisis when the atmosphere is filled with particulates, soils are contaminated with the geoengineering fallout, and waters are polluted with the same
It is important to remember this contamination is not local, but global in scope. Movements have formed in countries all over the world which are desperately trying to address this dire issue.
5.This will not even be ready by 2016
"The main thing keeping this method from going is politics
"Also the issue with if other countries want to use the method as well. IF something goes wrong could affect other cities nearby or the general climate.
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 and simply because this website presents it greatly
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.
RNG_REKT forfeited this round.
I'd also like to clarify on something myself. I prefer to say "climate change" instead of "global warming," partially because it is the more-used term now. Forgive me if you don't understand at times, but just understand that climate change is pretty much the exact same thing as global warming. I don't care which one you prefer to use; either one sticks with me.
First of all, I'd like to tell the judges that pretty much all of your first paragraph was copied and pasted. However, I'll debate against your arguments anyway. First of all, your source stated it themselves: "there are a number of known objectives including but not limited to SRM, weather warfare, over the horizon radar enhancement, controlling food production, and probable biological testing." That means that this aerosol spray that your source talks about is also very helpful. Do you even know who sponsored this aerosol spraying? NASA, one of the most trusted organizations in the world.(https://www.nasa.gov...)That means that aerosol should be a very trustworthy thing to be spraying in our air. If there were harmful aftereffects of aerosol spraying, then we would have seen them by now. You know why? Aerosol was established a long time ago. "The patent was filed in September 1949 and was issued on March 17, 1953," according to the NAA, the National Aerosol Association. (http://www.nationalaerosol.com...) The "highly toxic metal nano particulates" that your source mentions is not toxic at all. Do you know what it is? Aluminum. There's lots of reason why we might spray aluminum into our air instead of other substances. "There might be some good reasons to think about aluminum. Aluminum has four times the volume rate for small particles as does sulfur. That means you have roughly 16 times less the coagulation rate, and that the thing that really drives removal." (David Keith, Canadian Environmental Scientists, President of Carbon Engineering) Maybe your source was just theorizing without evidence.
You said, "as soon as we quit spraying those reflective particles into the atmosphere, the Earth will heat up very, very, very rapidly." Let me tell you why this happens: The carbon dioxide that is breathed by everyone will just make the Earth heated up again. However, this is not true with today's technology. When the scientists did the tests, they had not yet heard of the TreePods(Also known as the Boston TreePods).(http://www.shiftboston.org...) These TreePods are things that can take in carbon dioxide and store it away safely, and ready to be used. They are to be placed in populated cities, and all the carbon dioxide that is breathed by the people can be stored away, and it won't reach the atmosphere. In the UNLIKELY event that geoengineering is proven to be "unhealthy" for the environment, then the TreePods will clean out the carbon dioxide long before the geoengineering is shut down. But you might be thinking that the TreePods themselves are geoengineering. However, they won't be taken out because they don't have any harmful aftereffects, just like most forms of geoengineering. Besides, do you think that the planet will just stop geoengineering immediately after they discover that there are harmful aftereffects? I doubt it. The planet already knows what will happen if they quit too soon, so they will try and reduce the use of geoengineering slowly. However, as I said before, that definitely won't happen, because geoengineering is very reliable.
First of all, the aerosol spraying will not completely reduce the amount of sunlight that is allowed into the atmosphere. It will barely, if at all, affect the agriculture. But the only reason that we have climate change is because we have been using a lot of fossil fuels in the past few decades. Doesn't that mean, however, that people have been farming effectively before the introduction of fossil fuels? Yes, they have! And when we reduce the climate change, we will go right back to farming in the same temperatures from the 1800's, when the fossil fuels were introduced. (http://www.fe.doe.gov...) In case you're wondering, that's actually a good thing. But let's pretend that what you say is true: it will make the planet "colder." This will not reduce the water or soil quality, and will in fact make more air.
First of all, you are forgetting that geoengineering isn't only about reflecting the sunlight into space. It's also a way to reduce the carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere. Maybe those would be the harmful aftereffects of aerosol, but they aren't completely guaranteed. If they prove to be a problem, then we could always just use another type of geoengineering, like the TreePods that I mentioned earlier.
You said "61,000 PPB (parts per billion.)" However, do you know how much that is, compared to 1 billion? That is less than one percent, out of all the snow. However, the aluminum is actually much smaller than most things that we could spray out, and can coagulate. Their rate of coagulation is much higher than other things, according to David Keith. Given the chance, the particles of aluminum would easily become coagulated, and "clotted." Then they could easily become collected.
First of all, I don't believe that geoengineering is the thing that is making our atmosphere shrink. You said it yourself: "very possibly also LINKED," which means that it could be associated with a shrinking atmosphere, and it has a little evidence, but it's not necessarily the thing that's causing these things to be happening. I won't give a rebuttal to your shrinking atmosphere until you give me concrete evidence that it's being caused by geoengineering.
First of all, I would like to address your "fungal proliferation." First of all, it can't be completely linked to the aerosol being sprayed in the air. As I said, it can be associated, but no concrete evidence. But let's assume that what you say is true, and that there is a lot more fungus now because of aerosol. You say "the growth of fungus" like it's a bad thing, but it's really not. In fact, it's really helpful to our economy, and helps us get more food. It also only feasts on dead things, and we have a lot less dead things in our world. They also can't spread very far into different environments, so they can't exactly be counted as an invasive species. Just because things look disgusting doesn't mean that they're bad. If that were true, then your family would be the worst people ever (Joking).
First of all, if geoengineering won't be ready by the end of 2016, then let's just assume that the date will be ASAP, despite what you said in the debate title. Anyway, if we were to use geoengineering, then we would have a lot of testing on it, to see how it would be affect the world. We wouldn't just put it into effect immediately, and the aerosol testing is a very clear example of this; we tested this for an exceptionally long time before putting it into use.
I will put my later rebuttals and arguments in a later speech, because I have very few characters that I can use left. Once again, I apologize for running out of time on the previous one, and I will make sure that this doesn't happen again.
Thank you for your time and consideration, judges and debater.
Observation2: you can't provide a case in the final round because it wouldn't be fair. I have no way of addressing it, my opponent should have provided his case in round 3. He is welcome to however attack my case more and address my attacks on his rebuttals against mine
Clarification: I will simply attack his rebuttals
attack on His rebuttal 1: first points out all my first paragraph is copied and pasted (that's why I put the link dude) thus my opponent gains no leverage from that argument since I have the source and I am generously giving credibility to the owner. He claims that because NASA sponsors the spraying it is trust worthy but that's not true. Ironically the same NASA he supports contributes to the space trash junk problem.http://www.bbc.com... Thus this proves that just because an organization is great doesn't mean it will focus on pollution management. He is making the claim that just because a organization is big and powerful and is good at what it does it will not cause environmental issues but that argument as I show is flaud. Also my opponent assumes the method isn't harmful but I provide evidence showing this can detriment crop growth, cause horrific weather patterns, and determine the climate.
attack on rebuttal 2: My opponent states geoengineering is very reliable but still hasn't told me or you viewers why. While I have shown you how this method can be very unreliable. Next he brings up tree pods and there are a ton of problems with this. I will provide a attack that orderly takes down this "solution"
1. I looked up the source and this article he used to back up this method was made in 2010
2. We can imply this method has been out for a decent amount time.
3. In his own words he states my test are not true because , "they had not yet heard of the TreePods"
4. This method has been out since at least 2010 and no one has heard of it.
5. Not even the scientist who actually care about this stuff have heard of this.
6. This means this method isn't being considered for 2016 and this tree pod isn't a CAN resolution factor
7. This isn't going to be a so called "back up plan" as my opponent puts it for geoengieinering.
Conclusion: my opponent is back to square 1, my contention suggesting this method cannot be stopped still stands since there is no official backup if the resolution proposed method goes wrong therefor we can apply it SHOULD not be used. Thus I still of course uphold the should part of the resolution.
8. I look this up and the most popular result is actually a tree pod to use dead bodies to generate clean air (not 2016(
9. The dead method far fetched is ironically more popular then the one my opponent suggest
my attack on Rebuttal 3: The 2nd most ironic rebuttal of all (after number 8) my opponent states this, "But let's pretend that what you say is true: it will make the planet "colder." This is funny because I am responding to my opponents arguments pretending they are true because they have no sources and they are all formulated by my opponent himself. Also I provide sources... http://www.theguardian.com......... https://www.washingtonpost.com...... you can also look to the new scientist. The fact of the matter is I don't even need thee sources to prove to you this is real evidence, you can look up harmful affects of this method and you will get a ton of results. This is a popular considered view point on geoengineering while my opponent is making up stuff or using his general knowledge of arguments to formulate arguments with possible skewed information. I hope this is considered in the voting.
attack onRebuttal 4: cross my argument I made on his 2nd rebuttal to address the tree pods. Next he states this, "Maybe those would be the harmful aftereffects of aerosol, but they aren't completely guaranteed." He literarily concedes to my case. Why? well his statement at least for my contention 1 and 2 is true. These are possible harmful effects that have a lot of evidence support, but that's not even the main reason I win this. The main reason is because that is what a evidence based prediction is. It's a highly possible aftereffect from a method. For example meteorologist predict the weather and sometimes they are wrong but it doesn't mean you should ignore them. Also again my contention 1 states we can't stop this method if we start it on a big scale so why not wait until 2025 or so and get rid of the possible side affects?
attack on Rebuttal 5: he claims the level of aluminum is normal but my evidence clearly states this "This level of aluminum in the snow is tens of thousands of times anything that might be considered "normal background" contamination." Also again he's using a claim or his own personal understanding as a response rather then facts. He's essentially making anecdotal arguments.
rebuttal 6: You wanted evidence here it is
Also consider my opponent has no concrete evidence this method is safe and CAN or SHOULD be used in 2016.
Rebuttal 7: Again contradiction claiming I need more and more evidence when his side has more burdens which he leaves unproven.
Rebuttal 8: He makes this statement "First of all, if geoengineering won't be ready by the end of 2016", I guess it wont since you haven't proved how it will. Next this method is being tested and readers my opponent seems unsure of himself now. An anaology for this "dude I have the best product it will help us get that girl you like." "Dude I have to test it to see if it works though. He is implying basically that he is unsure if this method will work/should be used thus it needs testing. He concedes
Also more proof that Temps could rise if the technique is stopped and why we must wait beyond 2016
According to the UW study, global temperature increases could eventually double if SRM is implemented for a period of decades and then stopped suddenly -- in relation to expected temperature increases if the technique is not implemented at all. The scientists utilized a global climate model to demonstrate that if an extreme emissions pathway -- RCP8.5 -- is followed up until the year 2035, which would allow for temperatures to rise 1"C above the 1970-1999 mean, and the technique is implemented for 25 years and then ended suddenly, global temperatures could rise by 4"C in the following decades. Such a rate of increase, which would be caused by the resultant buildup of background greenhouse gas emissions, could grow beyond boundaries experienced in the 20th century, the scientists said. "According to our simulations, tropical regions like South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa are hit particularly hard, the very same regions that are home to many of the world's most food insecure populations," said lead author of the research, Kelly McCusker, from the University of Washington. "The potential temperature changes also pose a severe threat to biodiversity." "The primary control over the magnitude of the large temperature increases after an SRM shutoff is the background greenhouse gas concentrations. Thus, the greater the future emissions of greenhouse gases, the larger the temperature increases would be, and, similarly, the later the termination occurs while GHG emissions continue, the larger the temperature increases," continued McCusker. "The only way to avoid creating the risk of substantial temperature increases through SRM, therefore, is concurrent strong reductions of GHG emissions."
Conclusion: I win vote me.
First of all, I would like to address your first Observation. You stated: "my case is the only thing in the round, thus the only thing that can be looked too. I have a fact-based case with evidence." First of all, I have given my own arguments in my rebuttals; you just have to look for them. Just because I don't give my arguments their very own space does not necessarily mean that I have refused to give my arguments (lack of space/character limitation). I believe that this also addresses your second observation as well. I'd also like to address the fact that you won't be the definite winner of the debate just because of a single rule. If my opponent says that he automatically wins, don't listen to him; that's just his desperation and realization that I am the better debater.
I'd like to address your first attack on my rebuttal: You stated that NASA is not a very reliable source, considering the issues that went with space junk. However, that doesn't have much to do with the aerosol spraying, especially since it's a different subject; if you still think that NASA isn't credible, you could use another source, like the organization that is entirely dedicated to aerosol spraying(http://www.nationalaerosol.com......) You also stated that aerosol spraying would be detrimental to crop growth and other things, but I'd like to quote you on your source: " Based on available data, there are a number of known objectives including but not limited to SRM, weather warfare, over the horizon radar enhancement, controlling food production, and probable biological testing." This means that aerosol HELPS the things that you mentioned, instead of harming them. Therefore, the statement and your source contradict each other completely. That argument should go to me. You also said that you would show evidence, but you never did.
I can also provide evidence why geoengineering is still quite reliable, despite your neatly organized list.
1. If it was made in 2010, then that means that we have had 6 more years to study it, so that it is very reliable, due to testing during this period of time. This contradicts your second number as well.
2. Perhaps it has not been heard of, because they are still testing it. However, if you look on the CNN page, it shows that it is going to make an appearance very soon.
3. All your arguments for why geoengineering is unreliable have all been based upon the Boston TreePods, but you fail to state why other forms of geoengineering are reliable.
4. Aerosol is reliable because it coagulates and makes for easy removal, as I said before. It also does not have any harmful effects, both on space or on Earth.
5. Therefore, since your list has been proven to have hardly made a difference in my arguments, and you clearly cannot use your reasoning as to why geoengineering is reliable, then your conclusion is wrong.
6. I did mention the fact that they use carbon, not the dead bodies. I am sure that you can actually read what I wrote, so what I said did not refer to the dead-body TreePods.
First of all, reducing climate change has been proven to reduce the greenhouse gases. Forgive me if you did not see my source; I thought that most educated people knew that. Therefore, I am not making things up, and I did not realize that I needed a source. I also don't need these sources to prove to you that greenhouse gases trap heat, because you should already know this. Your science teachers taught this to you; I am sure of it.
I believe that you misunderstood my statement: You said that these were the aftereffects of aerosol, but I said that they would not be completely guaranteed. Also, your last statement makes no sense at all, just because the background effects don't fade away.
First of all, I highly advise you to not make these stupid comments such as "He's essentially making anecdotal arguments," against your future opponents. I have evidence, but you are simply unable to see it. You are essentially being a hypocrite, by giving this statement without further research. Also, I noticed that you have failed to see that I put " That is less than one percent, out of all the snow." That is my evidence, and you don't need a source to realize how I got my answer.
The source that I checked from you was only restating what you said, but it never gave evidence. Just saying. I also gave concrete evidence, but, once again, you fail to notice it.
First of all, you said that "This will not even be ready by 2016." That is why I put the "if" in my statement, not because I had doubts. I said this because it was an unfair debate, and I was resetting the burdens of the debate.
Also, you said: "Also more proof that Temps could rise if the technique is stopped and why we must wait beyond 2016." First of all, the temperature is going to rise if we don't do anything about it, so that's why we should employ geoengineering to help with this issue.
I believe that I have argued against all of your points successfully, while you slander and say that I have no evidence.
Thank you for your time and consideration, judges and debater.
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.