global warming is significantly man man made
Debate Rounds (3)
here is a general website that debunks anti man made global warming folks, claim by claim
here is proof that carbon dioxide has nearly doubled and increased exponentially since the industrial revolution
here is a similar graph that shows temperature following a similar fate
here are websites that tie together co2 and temperature, and debunks any claims about why co2 and temperature carbon are not always tightly correlated
here is a graph showing the thickness of polar caps melting exponentially
here is a scientific article that refers to the ice caps being doomed
warming not caused by volcanoes and the Sun cycles
'The volcano theorists can't even keep their stories straight. In his book, Limbaugh claims that the 1991 Pinatubo eruption put 1000 times as much chlorine into the atmosphere as industry has ever produced through CFCs; yet on Nightline, Pinatubo is alleged to have produced 570 times the equivalent of one year's worth of CFCs. Both can't be right. It turns out neither are.
The figure 570 apparently derives from Ray's book--but she said it was Mount Augustine, an Alaskan volcano that erupted in 1976, that put out 570 times as much chlorine as one year's worth of CFCs. Ray's source is a 1980 Science magazine article--but that piece was actually talking about the chlorine produced by a gigantic eruption that occurred 700,000 years ago in California (Science, 6/11/93).'
i'd also add, that hte common sense answer to me is... consider all the smoke stacks out there. consider all the pollution, places like LA. i'd bet california itself is like a volcano very short period in intervals. doesn't this make the most sense, considering how little and how infrequent volcanoes erupt?
scientific article saying the sun is only accounting for a third of our warming
With respect to global warming, though solar activity has been at relatively high levels during the recent period, the fact that solar activity has been near constant during the last 30 years precludes solar variability from playing a large role in recent warming. It is estimated that the residual effects of the prolonged high solar activity account for between 18 and 36% of warming from 1950 to 1999
^ Stott, Peter A.; Gareth S. Jones and John F. B. Mitchell (15 December 2003). "Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change". Journal of Climate 16: 4079-4093. Retrieved on October 5, 2005.
Here is a list of organizations that accept anthropogenic global warming as real and scientifically well-supported, and give discussions of the topic at the link:
* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS):
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):
* Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS):
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) -
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):
* The Royal Society of the UK (RS) -
* American Geophysical Union (AGU):
* American Meteorological Society (AMS):
* American Institute of Physics (AIP):
* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR):
* American Meteorological Society (AMS):
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS):
-we rule out major causes like the sun and earth's rotation
-our north pole just melted completely a few years ago. this is a historic event that doesn't occur very often at all.
-if we look at ice levels in polar regions... we can see carbon and darker ice during the industrial revolution... and it's noticably lighter at the point the clean air act was introducted... this is simply evidence, but tangible evidence that this stuff is in not only the sky but everywehre.
-if we look at temperature increases... yes, it shows we are getting hotter. we are setting records at a more frequent basis.
-if we look at natural temperature increases... we see we've been increasing for thousands of years. but, we see that it's been accelerating in recent history, particularly the industrial revolution where polluion occurs. this is in reference to the infamous "hockey stick" graph. no, we can't deduce from that alone that we're the cause, but we can give it as supporting the fact that there's an accelerated increase, especially at our time.
-studies have been done that show CO2 being a cause of warming. we might squabble about how much warming, but we know it causes some.
Merely showing a website claiming it 'debunks' skeptics is not an argument. You should explain what the links describe and post them here. I argue with my opponent, not a website.
A few things I agree with my opponent:
1. It has warmed
2. CO2 increased over the period of time that it warmed
Things we don't agree about:
3. CO2 caused the warming
My opponent must prove that CO2 causes the modern warming period--this means proving causation, not correlation (and even the correlation is weak).
Ice caps melting (doomed is NOT a scientific term) does not prove that manmade CO2 has produced the warming. It only proves that we have warmed--a premise which I agree with. But the fact is, warming existing does not prove that the warming was manmade. My opponent must show that CO2 causes the warming, not that warming exists.
1. Sun and volcanoes
I agree volcanoes do not cause the modern warming period. I do, however, think the sun causes the majority of the modern warming.
Arguing that the sun causes 1/3 of the warming is almost a concession. The study my opponent cites, although claiming greenhouse gasses cause much of the warming, did concede that, "the current climate models underestimate the observed climate response to solar forcing over thetwentieth century as a whole, indicating that the climate system has a greater sensitivity to solar forcing than do models" [1. http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu...]. Indeed, the models do not adequatley account for solar forcing. In fact, if they cannot account for basic TSI, then how can they account for other factors which the sun accounts for? Another study which looks at many types of solar impact--TSI, cosmic rays, etc has found that the sun has likely contributed to 66% of the recent warming, and maybe more [2. http://heartland.org...].
Another study has found that the sun is underrepresented in the models by a factor of 6 [3. http://arxiv.org...].
There is a strong body of research which demonstrates that the sun has caused a significant portion of the modern warming. TSI, luminosity, and many other solar effects are increasing. This means the current warming, based on a solar theory, is to be expected. Research has found strong modern correlations with temperature and solar luminosity. Overall, this line of research finds that the sun has been responsible for at least half of the modern warming, and maybe even more. Correlations have also been found with solar magnetic activity. Now, skeptics are unlike alarmists: they actually accept there is a margin of error (like a good scientist should). These skeptic reports have admitted that, when it comes to the sun, some of the mechanisms remain undescribed--unknown--but still maintain the overall position that the weight of the evidence suggests a strong solar forcing [4. Michaels, Patrick J. Shattered Consensus].
The fact is, we cannot rule out anything. The climate is a complex system and alarmists claim to know much more about it than they actually do. The sun, at this point in the research, is likely the main culprit behind global warming: likely over 50%. And even the 1/3 my opponent claims would be near concession: as 1/3 is very significant, and if we include other natural factors (PDO, AMO, ENSO) and other solar factors (like GCR's), the overall natural effect from global warming does in fact seem to approach--or exceed--the 50% mark. As Dr. Roy Spencer explains, "if the climate system is insensitive, this means that the extra carbon dioxide we pump into the atmosphere is not enough to cause the observed warming over the last 100 years — some natural mechanism must be involved." [5. http://www.drroyspencer.com...].
2. Appeals to Authority
My opponent cited multiple scientific organizations which support AGW theory. This is merely an appeal to authority. Science is not done by consensus. Many of these organizations--namely, the NAS--supported global cooling theory in the 1970s. As did many of the leaders of those organization's leaders. Although many people criticize the skeptic NIPCC, they have been extensivley cited in the academic literature and do have a body of scientists working with them on each of their reports [6. http://climatechangereconsidered.org...]. Their reports have also been hailed and supported by the Chinese Academy of Sciences [7. http://wattsupwiththat.com...].
Further, scientific polls of scientists do not always show a strong consensus. Geologists do, in fact, study climate change. They understand the past and are what are often called paleoclimatologists. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists has stated that "The earth’s climate is constantly changing owing to natural variability in earth processes." A survey of geologists has found that about 68% of geologists remain skeptical of AGW theory, and only 26% think it is due to man made causes. Geologists remain skeptical because the paleo-climactic proof for AGW is very weak, at best, and the evidence tends to show that CO2 is not the main driver of climate over geological epochs [8. http://www.paulmacrae.com...].
3. Rule things out?
We cannot rule anything out, thats not science. We know that, for example, creatonism is very very unlikely, and that evolution is likely true, but we cannot simply rule creationism out as evolution still is not a 'law' (it is almost impossible to make something a 'law'. And to clarify, I support the theory of evolution). But the evidence for AGW is nowhere NEAR as solid as it is for evolution or old earth, and even then we cant say the chances for creationism are 0%, only infinitesimally small. When it comes to AGW, I see a complex climate system we do not know much about: and what we do know about it, natural variations can almost alone explain the modern warm period. The fact is, we cannot rule anything in this area 100% out, and in fact many natural variations seem to explain the modern warming much better than man.
Do I deny CO2 has some effect on warming? Absolutley not. However I do argue that its effects are much smaller than 50%, and natural variations are the main cause of the modern warm period.
here is that they are more than just correlated, but tied together
you can click on "advanced" for advanced explanations of the science. or you can read the simpler versiosn. it is pointless for me to repeat what it says. it gives an example of measuring the sun that gets refracted back to the earth from the CO2. and then it explains that there are ways to 'check your math' with alternative methods that pretty much then corroborate the findings.
i could go on explaining it all, but that is unnecessary when you can read it yourself.
con seems to eb conceding that a third of the warming is from the sun. my resolution can still stand though as all i said is that man made reaosns was significant. even if we accepted a study that said it was like two third of warming from the sun... it is still signficant from man, and that's all i resolved. even if you found a study to say otherise, the overwhelming consensus of studeis says that the sun is only a fraction of the warming cause, less than half.
My opponent, again, mostly points to a link... I suppose I have to debate a blog.
The website makes these claims
1) CO2 causes warming through the greenhouse effect
2) CO2 correlates with temperature
3) Therefore, CO2 causes global warming
I will refute these in order
1) CO2 causes warming via the greenhouse effect
No one denies that CO2 has *some* effect on the climate. In fact, in a no feedback scenario, a doubling of CO2 causes 1.2 degrees C in warming. This means that, at most, CO2 has caused about half--about 40%--of the recent warming. That warming caused by CO2 would likely have beneficial impacts on earth, and would be no cause for alarm. Therefore, it should not be deemed 'significant'. The way alarmists construe global warming is that the heat caused by CO2 will cause a runaway greenhouse effect via positive feedbacks. This leads to estimates that a doubling of CO2 causes in excess of 3 degrees C of warming. This would make CO2 the main cause of global warming, and therefore 'significant'. However, there is no good reason to assume these feedbacks are positive. If they are negative, the effect of CO2 on climate would drop significantly--and reduce the alarmist argument to nothing.
The reason alarmists see positive feedbacks is due to climate models--in fact, the entire theory of positive feedbacks is based on these estimates. They can only reproduce the warming from 1970 - 2000 if they include strong positive feedbacks. If they fail to add these in, they cannot reproduce these temperatures. Therefore, alarmists claim, feedbacks are positive. But this begs the question: are models reliable? Do they capture all the natural processes? The answer to these questions is an astounding no. In fact, if you properly include these processes, we see that CO2 is mainly trivial to climate change: other natural factors better explain the recent warming. Research has found that clouds, about 40% of them, contain rain or drizzle and this drastically affects the radiative properties of clouds. Models do not account for this phenomena. It is likely that once all of the other factors are included, the need for positive feedbacks would disappear. These models fail to account for many negative feedbacks, and the new emerging idea that the cloud feedback is negative, not positive. They dont include all the solar variables, they either don't have or misrepresent oceanic cycles, etc. The fact is, models--and therefore, positive feedback theory--is severely lacking [1. Our Climate, iOS app].
In fact, recent papers have come out proving that climate sensitivity is much lower than needed to demonstrate that CO2 is a significant driver in climate change. When the El Nino effect is properly accounted for, sensitivity falls significantly--from 2-3 degrees C as alarmists claim to 1.3 degrees C, a no feedback climate system [2. http://www.drroyspencer.com...]. Studies looking into the cloud feedback--arguably the most important positive feedback--has found that, contrary to what alarmists claim, the feedback is negative, and this makes the CO2 contribution to warming much lower than it was previously estimated [3. http://www.drroyspencer.com...].
The fact is, feedbacks are likely negative, not positive. This refutes my opponents entire contention that CO2 can even cause significant warming in a real climate system (labratory studies cannot account for feedbacks).
2) CO2 correlates with temperature
Wait, what? If this is true, how to alarmists account for the 1970s cooling (I know how they explain it--I will refute it if she brings it up), the 1997 pause in temperatures, and the fact is has been cooling s ince 2001? In fact, over the last 500 million years, CO2 has no correlation with temperature. In fact, there have been periods of time where the CO2 parts per million exceed the thousands (it is around 400 today), and there was an ice age on earth. To me, that doesn't look like a good correlation [4. http://www.paulmacrae.com...].
Over the same 500 million years, galactic cosmic rays--a forcing as well as a proxy for solar changes--correlates perfectly with temperatures. GCR's explain a huge part of the warming over that time period. This means cosmic rays and other fluctuations in the suns power are much better correlated with temperature, not CO2 [5. http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu...].
3) CO2 causes significant warming
I am confident that, at this point in the research, this cannot be said with confidence.
No, I didn't. I actually disagreed with the 1/3 remark--arguing that, instead, the sun causes 60% of the recent warming. However, what I argued is that if this is true--that solar forcings do cause 1/3 of the warming--AGW is false. The models were not able to accuratley even give the sun 1/3, meaning they cannot account for basic TSI variables. If they cannot account for this basic phenomena, the entire theory goes up in flames.
My opponent attempts to make the claim a consensus is against a solar forcing. Science isn't done by consensus. And in fact I have not seen a meta-study on solar forces. Therefore, to claim there is a consensus against solar influence, my opponent must prove this. In 2013 alone, 71 papers showed a strong solar effect. In a comprehensive list, there are hundreds of studies showing a strong solar impact [6. http://chrono.qub.ac.uk...].
linate forfeited this round.
George_Clinton forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: There's a bit of meta here. Pro has lost arguments because he seems to fail to understand what's expected of him. In a debate, it is the debater's responsibility to debate. Posting sources from other places, and not actually providing arguments yourself, is not acceptable. You have to make your own case and, if you don't, you haven't fulfilled your BoP. Statements like this: "i could go on explaining it all, but that is unnecessary when you can read it yourself." are anathema to how this is supposed to work, Pro.
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.