The Instigator
Conservative_98
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
dtaylor971
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points

global warming

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
dtaylor971
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/3/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 840 times Debate No: 69375
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

Conservative_98

Con

global warming fake or real? i believe that it is a scam
dtaylor971

Pro

I accept this debate under the following resolution, which has been taken from instances where the opposition has said that global warming is a scam:

"Global Warming is Legitimate."

To clarify, I am NOT debating whether global warming isgood or bad for the Earth. Switching this resolution mid-debate should be seen as an automatic loss, for my opponent was somewhat straightforward about his suggested resolution by saying "[Is] global warming fake or real?" I ask that my opponent stick to this resolution, and only this resolution, so we can keep the debate on track.

I also ask that my opponent back up his evidence with sources. This is because debates like this can easily lead to personal opinions and insults, throwing the debate astray. I also ask, if this is not too much, for my opponent to use proper grammar and formatting so I can refute and debate in a cleaner and easier manner. Since this is a five round debate, I believe this is essential to the quality of the debate.

I will now present the definitions to be used in this debate. The definitions may be argued, but these are, in my eyes, the most trustworthy definitions. They will all be taken from the same site so there is no bias or differing opinions involved.

Global Warming: an increase in the earth's atmospheric and oceanic temperatures widely predicted to occur due to an increase in the greenhouse effect resulting especially from pollution [1].

Legitimate: Real. (For this debate, "accepted" and "official" do not apply [2].)

Since this is a five round debate, I will reserve this round only for acceptance. I will use the rest of the four rounds to argue and solidify my point. I wish my opponent luck, and I return the table to him.

Sources:

1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
2) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Conservative_98

Con

According to NASA"s own data via Remote Sensing Systems , the world has warmed a mere .36 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 35 years (they started measuring the data in 1979) however, that does mean the world is warmer, right? The problem with that argument is that we experienced the bulk of that warming between 1979 and 1998 . . . since then, we"ve actually had temperatures dropping. as a matter of a fact the north polar ice cap is increasing in size. In recent satellite images from NASA there is at least a 43% increase in size.Leaked emails from global warming scientists state that the Earth is not warming, such as this one from Kevin Trenberth that states, "The fact is that we can"t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can"t."It is becoming harder and harder for the global warming community to ignore some of the scientific data that show the Earth is not getting warmer . . . instead, the world is getting cooler.
source:http://www.newsmax.com...
dtaylor971

Pro

I thank my opponent for his arguments, and his speedy response. The framework was depicted thoroughly in the first round, so the framework for the second round will be skipped. I will attempt to address my opposition's short argument, for there are ten thousand characters. May I also point out my opponent has already conceded to a rise in temperature from 1979-1998. I will skip right to the debate.

==Recent Land Temperatures==

I will start with a straightforward argument, one that is quite often set forward by the pro on this debate topic. To see if the global temperature really is rising, we must look at the big picture, not just data collected from the last ten years. The reason for this is because, as every intelligent scientist knows, the temperature on the Earth is quite unstable, and often affected by sunspots. When the solar activity ceases, periods known as "maunder minimums" tend to occur. According to one Professor Lockwood, the sun's activity is falling off at a pace not seen in 10,000 years [1]. This happened around 1995-2000, which would explain why the Earth's temperature seems to be "cooling," as my opponent argued.

In fact, Drew T. Shindell found that these minimums in solar activity can shave 0.3-0.4 degrees Celsius off of Earth's overall temperature [2]. The study conducted by Shindell found that in the last Maunder Minimum (1600-1700, roughly,) temperatures were widely affected.

"Modeled global annual average surface temperatures were 0.34°C cooler in 1680 than in 1780 [2]."


[6] Since it has been established that the sudden "stoppage" of global warming can be explained due to sunspots and minimal activity, we can now look at the temperature over the last 50 to 100 years. This is roughly when greenhouse gases skyrocketed, which is believed to be the main cause of global warming. I would also like to state that the graph my opponent set forward was obviously sawed, and came from a non-trustworthy source [3]. My opponent's graph showed two of the following things:

1) Temperature over a 15 year period

2) A slight (possible) temperature fall that can EASILY be accounted to the drop off in solar activity. Also, the graph itself shows the major temperature imbalance, with temperature imbalance reaching up to 1.10 degrees Fahrenheit during 2008, which is minor compared to the 1.30 degree imbalance in 1998.

Results from a much more trustworthy link, NASA, show that temperatures from 1880-2000 (before the drop-off in solar activity) steadily rose 0.8-1 degrees Celsius [4]. Not so coincidentally, methane and carbon dioxide have skyrocketed according to samples taken from both North and South Pole ice [4].

"Despite ups and downs from year to year, global average surface temperature is rising. By the beginning of the 21st century, Earth’s temperature was roughly 0.5 degrees Celsius above the long-term (1951–1980) average." -Goddard Institute for Space Studies and NASA.

Earth Temp

In this graph, we see a variety of different things. First, there is a high imbalance between temperatures. However, we can also observe that the Earth's mean surface temperature has inclined, though not necessarily in a straight line. The data shown by this graph depicts that the temperature of the Earth is rising at a steeper rate over time, which coincides with the increased Co2 emissions over the past decades [5].

It has been shown that the globe is warming (insofar) on land. This satisfies one of the definitions of global warming, which is that the globe is warming on land. As of now, part of the resolution is negated. On to the second part, which will be a rise in oceanic temperatures.

==Oceanic Temperatures==

My opponent shows an increase in the polar ice caps (which, as I remind the audience, comes from a non-trustworthy link,) but does not show the size or temperature of any other part of the ocean. It seems like the opponent is focusing on little things that seem to go against global warming, so I will try to look at the big picture. For now, there are graphs explaining the sudden increase in Arctic Ice, such as the following [7]:



As the graph shows above, there has been a general warming across most of the worlds' oceans, which coincides with the atmospheric temperature. In response to the increase in Arctic Ice, we can see there is an isolated spot of cooling, but it is not generally a statistically significant trend. However, the Southern Atlantic Ocean has seen a two degree to a four degree increase in temperature (surface-wise.)

Once again, we must look at the big picture. The possible increase in Arctic Ice (from August 2012 to August 2013) could be due to limited sun energy, an anomaly in unstable temperatures, etc. However, much like surface temperatures, the ice/temperature is very rocky, but it is clearly on a downward trend [8]. In fact, the data shows that there is a 3.2% decrease in ice per decade. What con also fails to show is the thickness of the ice, for an increase of thin ice does not necessarily coincide with lowering temperatures.

Despite a rise in ice over the past two years, the oceans are undoubtedly hotter and the ice is still quite low. In the same year (2013) as the NASA satellite image was taken, the following statement was concluded:

"October ice volume was around 20,000 cubic kilometers (approximately 4,800 cubic miles), meaning that ice volume in October 2013 still ranks among the lowest of the past 30 years." -National Snow and Ice Data Center.


To sum this rebuttal/argument up, we can see there is a small, normal spike around 2012-2013, and then a continuous downward trend from thereafter. In response to the Kevin Trenberth e-mail that my opponent pointed out, I would like to show what the E-mail actually said and meant.

"Global warming is still happening - our planet is still accumulating heat. But our observation systems aren't able to comprehensively keep track of where all the energy is going. Consequently, we can't definitively explain why surface temperatures have gone down in the last few years. That's a travesty!" -Kevin Trenberth, ©2009.

==Overview of Next Round==

I will end this round here having satisfied the definition of "global warming" and refuted my opponent's arguments. Of course, all of my evidence is very far from being stated. This was just an outline of what my case will look like. In the next round, I will go into further details concerning the following:

-Changes in Migration
-Animal Behavior

-Hottest years on record
-Density of Arctic Ice
-Co2 Emissions
-Glacial Retraction

In conclusion, all my opponent did was falsely state an E-mail and use biased evidence from a non-trustworthy link. He has also conceded that there was a period of warming, and stated a temperature WITHOUT evidence. I ask my opponent link me to his NASA Remote Sensing Systems that says there was an 0.36 degree Fahrenheit climb, because my graphs (which are must trustworthy) state an entirely different story.

I thank my opponent for his time, and return the table to him. Good luck.

Sources:

[1] http://wattsupwiththat.com...

[2] http://www.meteo.psu.edu...

[3] https://w3.newsmax.com...

[4] http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

[5] http://www.epa.gov...

[6] http://www.skepticalscience.com...

[7] http://www.epa.gov...

[8] http://nsidc.org...




Debate Round No. 2
Conservative_98

Con

today I was on my favorite news website... the Drudge Report, if you don't know what that is it is an uncensored news website that tells the truth and inst being choked by the government. one of the headlines was "PAPER: 'GLOBAL WARMING' BIGGEST SCIENCE SCANDAL EVER... ". I read the article, it stated that "When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records " on which the entire panic ultimately rested " were systematically "adjusted" to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified." Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way "adjustments". First these were made by the US government"s Global Historical Climate Network. They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the National Climate Data Center, which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in "global warming".Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87 degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded. This has surprised no one more than Traust Jonsson, who was long in charge of climate research for the Iceland met office (and with whom Homewood has been in touch). Jonsson was amazed to see how the new version completely "disappears" Iceland"s "sea ice years" around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling almost devastated his country"s economy. One of the first examples of these "adjustments" was exposed in 2007 by the statistician Steve McIntyre, when he discovered a paper published in 1987 by James Hansen, the scientist (later turned fanatical climate activist) who for many years ran Giss. Hansen"s original graph showed temperatures in the Arctic as having been much higher around 1940 than at any time since. But as Homewood reveals in his blog post, "Temperature adjustments transform Arctic history", Giss has turned this upside down. Arctic temperatures from that time have been lowered so much that that they are now dwarfed by those of the past 20 years.Homewood"s interest in the Arctic is partly because the "vanishing" of its polar ice (and the polar bears) has become such a poster-child for those trying to persuade us that we are threatened by runaway warming. But he chose that particular stretch of the Arctic because it is where ice is affected by warmer water brought in by cyclical shifts in a major Atlantic current " this last peaked at just the time 75 years ago when Arctic ice retreated even further than it has done recently. The ice-melt is not caused by rising global temperatures at all. Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record " for reasons GHCN and Giss have never plausibly explained " has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known. This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time. this proves my point by using factual evidence provided by this article.

sources:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

http://www.drudgereport.com...
dtaylor971

Pro

==Framework==

Before anything, I would like to address the opposition's arguments. He has copied and pasted (literally) in both of his arguments. He has cited where he got the information from, but he has not made any arguments of his own. Furthermore, I have refuted everything he stated from his first link, which shows he is using biased and unprofessional links to copy information from. I ask that he make his OWN arguments instead of just asking me to refute cold information from a website.

The con side has not even refuted or responded to any of my arguments. I remind the reader that these points remain dropped by the con until such time as he is bold enough to actually refute them. Insofar, he has dropped the following four major points, all of which are vital to the resolution:

-Surface temperatures are heating up
-Hiatus in global warming is due to limited sun
-Ocean temperatures are heating up
-Increase in Arctic ice can be easily explained

He has also dropped many other more minor points, but the above are the ones that are worth bringing up. Without further ado, I will refute my opponent's "arguments" and discredit his source. Afterwhich, I will add more evidence to support that the globe is heating up. This should solidify the resolution to the point where I should be able to win the debate. Let's begin.

==Global Temperatures are being Adjusted==

My opponent states that global temperatures are being adjusted to show a warming trend. However, even while looking over his source, no strong scientific evidence supports this empty claim. He states that adjustments in temperatures were made by Goddard and the Institute for Space Studies, without any evidence, data, or a study shown. Since this seems like a disagreement between data sources as to what the temperature really is, I have found a graph showing what disagreement in temperature "really" looks like [1].



As is shown, practically all of the major temperature recording studios agree on the temperature change. To state that each temperature station doctors their results in an almost unanimous faction without any evidence is clearly absurd, borderline insane. My opponent's article states that NOAA and NASA doctor their results significantly. However, JMA and MOHC seem to correlate with the findings, as well as almost all other temperature recording studios.

In a review of over 10.5 thousand articles on global warming in 2013, it was found that only two of the articles questioned human involvement, and none presented an alternative theory [2]. It seems essentially irrefutable that scientists agree on almost all aspects of global warming. There is clearly no scandal here, and the Earth is clearly warming. I challenge my opponent to show me a graph from a highly trusted source that shows the global temperature going down instead of going up. Until such time, this point is refuted.

==Arctic Ice==

Once again, the thickness of Arctic ice is mainly what matters, not the quantity, hence the saying "quality is better than quantity." Though Arctic ice could appear to be going up, the thickness and luster is on a downward trend not seen before [3]. The total volume of Arctic Sea ice was lowest between 2007 and 2008, as reported by Maslowski in 2010 (PDF.) People who argue that Arctic and Icelandic ice is going up are merely focusing on a thin, almost nonexistent, layer at the top. But what they fail to notice is that ice is going down at a significant rate.


For good measure, I will post another graph explaining the lack of correlation regarding high temperatures and an increase in ice [4].



It was found the increase in Antarctic Sea Ice was due to a number of factors, as argued by various sources:

"One [factor] is the drop in ozone levels over Antarctica. The hole in the ozone layer above the South Pole has caused cooling in the stratosphere (Gillet 2003). This strengthens the cyclonic winds that circle the Antarctic continent (Thompson 2002). The wind pushes sea ice around, creating areas of open water known as polynyas. More polynyas lead to increased sea ice production (Turner 2009)."

Henceforth, it is blatantly obvious that an increase in Arctic Sea ice does not necessarily correlate with lowering temperatures, for there are many things to take into account. However, it has been shown that volume of ice is coinciding with rising temperatures. To sum up, we can see the Arctic ice volume is lowering, sea temperatures are rising, sources can be trusted, and my opponents' source shows no evidence of its' preposterous claim. The resolution that Global Warming exists is, insofar, affirmed.

==Animal Behavior==

Even if, in some event, we could not trust the graphs, there is natural evidence to back up the fact that global warming exists and is happening. For example, animals are migrating, hibernating, and swimming earlier than usual. This is clearly visible through the behavior of the marmot. Their hibernation cycle is ending three weeks earlier due to rising temperatures [5][6]. In a study by Terry Root, published on journal, surprising results regarding animal behavior were found.

"Out of the nearly 1,500 species examined, the researchers found that about 1,200 exhibited temperature-related changes consistent with what scientists would expect if they were being affected by global warming [7]."

These changes have occurred in history, but no changes have been as rapid as the ones we are seeing today. In retrospect, the temperature change is the most rapid in history. It is clear as day that animal hibernation is being effected by rising temperatures due to global warming. Furthermore, there is a conspicuous change in the migration pattern of various birds and animals. These animals and birds are migrating further up north (where it is much colder) due to the rising temperatures across the globe [8].



The migration of many animals, most notably the wild turkey, cannot be ignored in any stance. Since 1966, the turkey has migrated an additional 468 miles due northeast, all while the temperatures in the United States (avg. January) rose due to global warming. In addition to both hibernating and migrating, animals are nesting and hatching earlier (most specifically, birds.) This is due to warmer springs [9][10]. To solidify these claims of warming, we will look into the hottest years on record.

==Hottest Years on Record==

a. If global warming is happening, recent years should be the hottest on record.
b. Recent years are the hottest on record.
c. Global Warming is happening.

This logic is backed up with findings from Climate Central [11.]



Due to the fact that my opponent neglected to respond to any of my previous arguments, and copied and pasted information from a website, I will end my arguments for this round right here. I return the table to him and wish him luck. Sources follow:

[1] http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov...
[2] http://www.allgov.com...
[3] http://www.skepticalscience.com...
[4] http://psc.apl.washington.edu...
[5] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[6] http://www.livescience.com...
[7] http://www.nature.com...
[8] http://kanat.jsc.vsc.edu...
[9] http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org...
[10] http://www.isciencetimes.com...
[11] http://www.climatecentral.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Conservative_98

Con

my opponent seems to be getting mad for no reason... like a typical american citizen that believes everything the government tells them... How have we come to be told that global temperatures have suddenly taken a great leap upwards to their highest level in 1,000 years? In fact, it has been no greater than their upward leaps between 1860 and 1880, and 1910 and 1940, as part of that gradual natural warming since the world emerged from its centuries-long "Little Ice Age" around 200 years ago.This belief has rested entirely on five official data records. Three of these are based on measurements taken on the Earth"s surface, versions of which are then compiled by Giss, by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and by the University of East Anglia"s Climatic Research Unit working with the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction, part of the UK Met Office. The other two records are derived from measurements made by satellites, and then compiled by Remote Sensing Systems in California and the University of Alabama, Huntsville. One of the more provocative points arising from the debate over those claims that 2014 was "the hottest year evah" came from the Canadian academic Dr Timothy Ball when, in a recent post on WUWT, he used the evidence of ice-core data to argue that the Earth"s recent temperatures rank in the lowest 3 per cent of all those recorded since the end of the last ice age, 10,000 years ago. In reality, the implications of such distortions of the data go much further than just representing one of the most bizarre aberrations in the history of science. The fact that our politicians have fallen for all this scary chicanery has given Britain the most suicidally crazy energy policy (useless windmills and all) of any country in the world.

source:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
dtaylor971

Pro

I extend all arguments. My opponent's "arguments" were copied and pasted from a post on this link [1].

Once again, I extend all arguments. All my opponent has done was copy and paste information from links. I will give him one last chance to respond to my arguments. Until then, consider them dropped. All of the information from the Telegraph link was refuted my round 3 arguments (see ARCTIC ICE, GLOBAL TEMPERATURES ARE BEING ADJUSTED.)

[1] http://www.24hourcampfire.com...




Debate Round No. 4
Conservative_98

Con

All I have sen in this debate from my opponent is information from sites that i am quite familiar with. sites that are controlled by the government and are pro green party. i have come to the conclusion that global warming is a complete scam, Wallace S. Broecker got rich off he idea of "global Warming" and there is no proof that the earth is getting warmer. If anything the world is getting colder, he polar ice caps are bigger than ever. My opponent seems to believe everything that the government tells him, what a pity.
dtaylor971

Pro

All arguments extended. My opponent has dropped every single point of mine, including the points that show global warming is real due to land and sea temperatures. All my opponent has done is copy and paste information from biased and untrustworthy sources. Shame the debate had to end this way.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by dtaylor971 1 year ago
dtaylor971
C98, want to actually respond to my arguments, or just recopy information from a biased news site?
Posted by dtaylor971 1 year ago
dtaylor971
@Josh How's that?
Posted by dtaylor971 1 year ago
dtaylor971
Might not be able to complete on time. Will argue in 3rd round if case.
Posted by Josh_debate 1 year ago
Josh_debate
@dtaylor971 Evidence and proof are synonyms, but lets have it your way, what evidence is there of global warming.
Posted by dtaylor971 1 year ago
dtaylor971
Proof? No., There isn't' really proof of any theory (if it can be called such,) but there is evidence. For example, gravity is unproven, but that does not mean it does not exist, does it?
Posted by Josh_debate 1 year ago
Josh_debate
There is no proof that global warming even exists.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
Blade-of-Truth
Conservative_98dtaylor971Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro. Con copy/pasting his arguments from other sites without proper sourcing is borderline plagerism. Such conduct is never permitted in debates. S&G - Pro. I noted several minor spelling errors within Con's rounds, including an example from the final round where he types *sen* instead of *seen*. Normally this is whatever, but since Pro had no such errors, he wins these points. Arguments - Pro. I think Con actually started off somewhat strong, but throughout the debate managed to drop a majority of Pro's arguments, whereas Pro overcome Con's. Due to this, Pro wins arguments, as a majority of his were left standing unchallenged. Sources - Pro. Con used far less sources than Pro, whereas on the flip side Pro utilized multiple sources throughout the debate of high academic integrity. This is a rare, but clear 7-point win for Pro.
Vote Placed by Hylian_3000 1 year ago
Hylian_3000
Conservative_98dtaylor971Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Con copied and pasted his arguments. S&G: No noticeable errors. Arguments: Con dropped major points and to some degree just ignored his arguments. Con also copied and pasted. Pro made great arguments and Con was not convincing. Sources: Pro had more sources and his sources were more reliable.