The Instigator
jackgilbert
Con (against)
The Contender
Jhhillman
Pro (for)

is global warming true

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
jackgilbert has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/8/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 254 times Debate No: 115278
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

jackgilbert

Con

Pro starts
Jhhillman

Pro

There is indisputable scientific evidence that global warming is real.

1: The globe is warming.

Recent data has shown a dramatic rise in world temperature. [1] This has happened all over the world. And the effects are staggering. Seas are rising [2], islands are disappearing, [3], and crops are failing all over the globe [4]. It is clear that global warming is happening. There is no way to dispute this. The globe is warming. That means that global warming is real.

2: Carbon emissions from fossil fuels are responsible.

Carbon levels in the atmosphere are higher than ever before in human history. [5] We have been burning fossil fuels at an alarming rate, and injected massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. And science has shown quite clearly that higher carbon levels are responsible. We can see this in two ways. First, we know how atmospheric carbon behaves. It traps heat that otherwise would have been reflected back out into space, increasing the temperature of the earth. [6] Additionally, we can see this happening from geological records. In eras when there was more carbon in the atmosphere, (such as the Cretaceous) temperatures were higher. [7] It's clear that higher concentrations of carbon in the atmosphere cause the earth to warm.

In conclusion, global warming is true. Higher carbon emissions such as those of today will result in the warming that we are seeing now.

Links:

1: https://climate.nasa.gov...
2: https://www.nationalgeographic.com...
3: https://www.theguardian.com...
4: https://www.sciencedaily.com...
5: https://ourworldindata.org... (scroll down to II.4 for the data I'm using here.)
6: https://www.livescience.com...
7: https://phys.org...
Debate Round No. 1
jackgilbert

Con

So sorry for the late response. I am currently debating someone else on this same topic so you might see similar arguments in each of those debates.

The greenhouse effect is an effect that occurs when we burn large amounts of gases such as carbon dioxide, which trap heat that would otherwise radiate into space. Without the greenhouse effect, the earth would be so cold, life would not be able to exist anywhere on it. Thankfully, because of God's perfect design, he did create this world with the greenhouse effect and heat is trapped in the earth so it is warm enough for life to exist. However, the more fuel that is burned, the stronger the greenhouse effect, the less fuel burned, the weaker the greenhouse effect.
Because we burn a lot of fuel these days, the greenhouse effect becomes stronger and stronger. The stronger it becomes, the more warm the planet will be. If our planet gets too warm, disastrous things could happen. Ecosystems, for example are very sensitive to temperature and a great enough temperature change could wipe out all of the life contained in it.
Some people are worried that this very thing is occurring today. Because we have been burning large amounts of coal, oil, and wood we are adding a large amount of carbon dioxide to the air enhancing the greenhouse effect. Some people fear that the earth is getting so rich in carbon dioxide, that the earth will slowing over-heat itself. They call this phenomenon global warming and they are convinced that the earth will simply get too hot if something isn't done to stop the build-up of carbon dioxide.
Although the fear of global warming is based on sound scientific reasoning, reality is just a bit more complex than that. Take a look at the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide versus the change in the average global temperature.

increase in amount of carbon dioxide concentration: https://e360.yale.edu...

change in Average global temperature: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com...

When you look at the first graph, you see a steady, consistent increase in the total amount of carbon dioxide in the planet. However, when you look at the second graph, you don't see the corresponding increase in the average global temperature. You see a very up and down shaky 0.5 degree increase in the average global temperature in the past century. It still tends to hover around zero which is the normal global temperature.
This data can be deceiving because it would seem to show that the amount of carbon dioxide does not effect the greenhouse effect. This would be false because we know the greenhouse effect is real or we would not exist. What it does show is that there is more to reality than just a theory. In this case, there are other factors that affect the global temperature. For example, a lot of gases released in every day activity tend to reflect light rather than absorb it. This actually causes a net cooling effect. It could be that this offsets the heat caused by carbon dioxide.
Although there are many unknown factors in the equation, the reliable data would indicate that the globe is not warming. At least not in a significant way. In addition, we know the globe was much warmer in the past, when humans did not create as much carbon dioxide. A team from Harvard university indicated that the globe was much warmer in the 14th and 15th century. In spite of this, it is hard to believe that fuel burning today would result in any kind of global warming given the fact that people did not burn nearly as much fuel in the middle ages as they do now!
Now to your arguments:
1. I would not call a inconsistent 0.5 degree increase in the global temperature dramatic. While certain regions of the world might be warming up, others might be cooling. Thus, the global temperature might not change a lot despite what might be happening in one part of it.

2. As I have already shown, other factors tend to offset the heat caused by carbon dioxide

I look forward to your next argument.
Jhhillman

Pro

There's a flaw in your arguent using the charts. It doesen't say "global temperature" on the y-axis, it says "rate of change". That graph means that in 2010, the average global temperature increased by 0.3 degrees. Here is a similar graph with global temperature: https://i.stack.imgur.com...

Although the rate of change may fluctuate, the overall trend is clearly upward.

" a lot of gases released in every day activity tend to reflect light rather than absorb it. This actually causes a net cooling effect."

I was unable to find any evidence for this. Can you please provide a link? Until you do, your assertion has no basis.

I realize that there are many other factors in global temperature, but co2 levels are a very large one, and one that we have dramatically changed.

On your argument about the Medieval Warm Period: Here is a graph showing the average tempertatures across the world: https://cdn.britannica.com...

If you look at the chart, you can see that Europe experienced warmer temperatures in the medieval era. But if you look at the far right of the graph, closest to the present day, we can see that all regions of the world have been experiencing temperatures higher then those of the Medieval Warm Period, and they're only rising. And they are rising faster than they were at the beginning of the Medieval Warm Period. We are clearly looking at different things here.

"I would not call a inconsistent 0.5 degree increase in the global temperature dramatic." First off, it has been a consistent increase. See the charts I sent you. Second, in the Ice Age, average temperatures were 6 degrees celsius lower than they are today. (https://www.history.com...) And the Ice Age took thousands of years to onset. The change of 0.5 degrees has happened in a matter of decades. If current trands continue (which they show every indication of doing) than the Earth of 2100 will be as different from the present day as the present day is from the Ice Age. It gos without saying that this would be bad.

"While certain regions of the world might be warming up, others might be cooling." Actually, the vast majority of the world is warming. See the map I showed you in the first round. Please provide sources saying that the Earth hasn't warmed at all.

" As I have already shown, other factors tend to offset the heat caused by carbon dioxide". Actually, you haven't. You have provided no evidence, and I was unable to find any. Until you provide evidence, this argument is meaningless.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.