The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points

manmade activity is probably a significant cause of global warming

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/8/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,265 times Debate No: 24173
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)




detractors from MMGW man made global warming, who say it's not ssignificant, and only a hoax, usually rely on sun flares and volanoes.

essential facts.
one is that studies have shown that the sun cycles have accounted for only a third of the warming that's occurred.
the other is that the volcano theorists have never cited sources... and sources that can be found show that they produce only a small amout of heating.

i've never seen any sources cited for the volcano theory, but here's what i can find pointing that the volcano thing is a myth:
'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
It is found that current climate models underestimate the observed climate response to solar forcing over the
twentieth century as a whole, indicating that the climate system has a greater sensitivity to solar forcing than
do models. The results from this research show that increases in solar irradiance are likely to have had a greater
influence on global-mean temperatures in the first half of the twentieth century than the combined effects of
changes in anthropogenic forcings. Nevertheless the results confirm previous analyses showing that greenhouse
gas increases explain most of the global warming observed in the second half of the twentieth century.

^ 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):

-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.

so, if we cut out the biggest theorest that are alterantives to MMGW, if our ice caps are melting, and there's a correlation between Co2 and temp, and the ice caps have gotten dirty since the industrial revolution... and everything else, MMGW makes sense.


1. The sun

I would like to note climate changes in cycles, and much of the time they are very predictable. The current warming, an interglacial, a 1500 sun movement is known to create many umps in temperature (like in the medieval warm period.) Now a book was written on the subject, and is arguably the most comprehensive data on the subject, 580 references, and shows a 1500 year climate cycle that has been shown to heat the earth rapidly; all due to the sun. Solar variability is the most important factor in modern warming. [1, 2]

Cosmic rays increase cooling by creating cloud cover, and a stronger sun means less cosmic rays as its magnetic field blocks it from us. The sun is unusually active, and therefore lowering the amount of rays we receive; less clouds more warming. "When the Sun is active, its magnetic field is better at shielding us against the cosmic rays coming from outer space, before they reach our planet. By regulating the Earth’s cloud cover, the Sun can turn the temperature up and down. ... As the Sun’s magnetism doubled in strength during the 20th century, this natural mechanism may be responsible for a large part of global warming seen then." [3]

Further satellite data has seen the earths sun getting hotter, and more of its rays have been seen to hit earth more frequently, therefore much of the warming we see is a warm sun. [4]

2. Volcanoes

I do not think volcanoes cause warming. Also as my opponent never cited her quote it is technically plagiarism. After eruptions temperatures temporarily decrease. But over 1000s of years the CO2 they emit (much more then humans have can ever dream of emitting) can lead to long trends of warming. [5]

In the long term many eruptions WILL heat the planet, but most eruptions are small enough to have little effect. But this is irrelevant to my case, as I think the sun and the PDO warm period is the reason we are seeing warming.


My opponent cites many quotes, all of which are refuted above. But I will provide a few.

"We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century."
Read more:
**In other words sun caused warming in 20th century, the current cooling/flatline was expected based on a small 15 year cycle.

"If CO2 is the main driver of climate change this last century, it stands to reason that the trend of surface temperatures would follow the trend of CO2, and thus the R2 correlation between the two trends would be high. ... The results were striking to say the least. An R2 correlation of only 0.44 was determined, placing it between fair and poor in the fit between the two data sets. [co2 correlation weak then] ... In this case, the correlation of TSI to the surface temperature record is better than with CO2, producing an R2 correlation of 0.57 which is between fair and good. [the PDO is a better correlation]"

4. Agencies say man made

Appeal to authority fallacy, therefore all evidence here is refuted based on that.

5. Her bullet points

I agree warming is happening, but the polar regions never fully melted. It is observed, however, Antarctica is gaining ice. [6] Temperature has not been increasing for 1000s of years, only since 1850, as seen in this graph:

(IPCC 1995)

As we can see tempertures where falling for much of those years, and the trend is a flatline/downward trend. e have actually seen cooling/flatline since 1997-8, as seen here:

Essentially all of my opponents bullet points are refuted by these two graphs. I see no hockey stick.


BoP - My opponent is pro, BOP on her. My case, therefore, can be weak.


co2 and tempertures -- not correlated

Medivial warm period warmer then today -- Natural cycle

C02 is mostly natural -- unlikey we can warm. The ppt is 1.6/100,000. It will have no effect on temprtures, logically.

Poor correlation

solar erradiance = correlation

PDO/AMO = correlation

No correlation 1940-70. No correlation 1905-1935.

Co2 correlation failure list:

1998-2007 (graph above)
Co2 has no correlation.

vote con

Debate Round No. 1


you sun activity study essentially boils down to "we go through cycles of warming due to the sun. we've been going through a high peak". i never contested that. my sun study that i cited specifies how much warming could be attributed to the sun, less than a third. if we assume both studies are accurate, my study delves into the specifics more to the detriment of your theory that it's all attributed to sun activity.
the correlation with yoru solar irradiance graph pretty much amounts to this too.... we have just proof that the sun is causing warming.

'Temperature has not been increasing for 1000s of years, only since 1850, as seen in this graph'

that temperature is increasing in that graph since 1850 supports my point more because that's around when the industrial revolution started.
granted, we also see a natural cooling and might deduce that it's all part of a warming cycle. but, the only cycles i see are sun cycles, and i've already addressed all that.
also, it has been increasing for thousands of years on whole (it also goes agaisnt concensus of both sides of the debate to claim it's not been increasing for all that time)... your graph only goes back to one thousand AD. the graphs i will cite show further back.

here are the graphs that show that we've been increasing in temperature in recent years, particularly during industrial periods....

those graphs clearly show expoenitial growth in very recent years. that article describes the classic hockey stick controversy, that is often even mentioned in debates about this issue at this site. antiMMGW folks say "correlation doesn't imply causation" etc etc... but it does provide proof of warming, espeically in recent years. the question is whether it's man made or not..... and if we can effectively rule out all else, and that we have much CO2 in atmosphere, which causes warming... MMGW makes sense.

this graph clearly shows Co2 growing expoentially since the industrial revolution.
it started at 275 and shot to 375. that's like a third increase, not insignificant.
as to your graph about percentage of co2, this graph is commonly accepted in academic debates.... your graph's source seems suspicious.
that also applies to your co2 v. temp graph going back millions of years. in addition, for that graph, my graph focuses in on the most recent years in addition to eons back in time, to show exponeitial increases.
-also, your graph that goes back to 1979 just shows a dip in recent years, ten years, not enough to establisb that we're no longer warming.
if we have hockey stick in carbon dioxide, and in temperature, and can rule other other things, and know that Co2 and temp are correlated.... it's an obvious situation.
-as to the graph back to 1905, we see a trend going up. if we zoomed out and looked at the Co2 levels in a larger persepctive with temperature... the overall correlation would be better establisehd.

as to your other graphs. you showed temperature since 1995 to now... that's not enough to establish a firm trend. it might have decreased some but overall increased as the other graphs seem to indicate.
al gore's movie an inconvenient truth showed us increasing the the number of record temperatures we've met. i can cite this if you insist from a better source, but the graphs i've shown is proof enough.

as to ice thickness. even if some ice has formed... overall, ice is decreasing substantially, as this graph indicates.
the fact that con has contested the northern caps melting next to nothing is just antoher example of him contesting well established information. (we having him contesting the thousands of years of warming, the hockey stick graphs, co2 v temp corerlation, now this,,,,, he pretty much is contesting everything)

that there might be ice forming somewhere just shows that ice sometimes forms. it also at best shows that there's variablity.... but that's what global warming supposes, more ariablity. that's why we ahve more extreme warming and cooling in various areas, with an overall increase in temp.

con questions well established information, cites less established data, and doesn't prove anything else that the warming could be.
i've shown warming and CO2 going up together exponeitlaly since the industrial revolution.
the facts speak for themselves.


1. Sun

My opponents case here is studies show X, yet seems to ignore the argunmentation and the other studies. To me, personally, it seems my opponent has only seen one side of this. There has been a large increase in skeptic literature, much of it surfacing in 2007 (the year is known by skeptics as AGW "bites the dust"). Now it is true many studies claim solar has had no effect, notably Hansen and the IPCC claim this. But other scientists, many closet skeptics, publish their papers that show the opposite. The difference is you cant find it hidden in all of those skeptical science links (an AGW supporting website.) I would like to note there are at least 450 skeptic studies [1]. Now there have been many frauds within the IPCC, so I view their data biassed and sometimes fraudulent. Many studies have found the warming (and 1995-2012 cooling) due to 15-25 year sola cycles, also explainign much of the 1945-70 cooling. In other words these short solar cycles amist larger ones are the cause for much of the warming we have seen [2].

The graph I am taking is from a peer reviewed study (source 3)

This is the surface temperture record from 1900-2000.

Now based on that 25 year cycle theory we get this graph

As we can see the solar power controls many of the smaller bumps. And it as also been observed the sun has been increasing in power since 1850, and is closer correlated to tempertures then CO2; noting the correlation is fairly weak [3].

2. Temperture increases

Me and my opponent agree it is a fact the sun causes [some or all] global warming, and this has been observed for hundreds of years. Where we disagree, though still agree, human caused warming is still a theory. And my opponent is mixing correlation to causation. A fallacy by the way.

I would also like to note my opponent is ONLY pulling data from 1850-present, whereas I have pulled data as far back as 600 million years. Now my opponent is basically arguing this correlation is causation, which is a fallacy and is not provable. I would also like to note a strong correlation would fufill the resolution, but the current correlations are weak. As the center
for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change note:
"Proponents of the notion that increases in the air's CO2 content lead to global warming point to the past century's weak correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global air temperature as proof of their contention. However, they typically gloss over the fact that correlation does not imply causation, and that a hundred years is not enough time to establish the validity of such a relationship when it comes to earth's temperature history."[4]

In other words a weak 100 year correlation IS NOT enough to hinge evidence on. Meaning my opponent has already lost.

---> Hockey stick?

Now creating a fake hockey stick is not hard, as Mann (the creator of the graph) noted:

"I thought I’d play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I could ‘reconstruct’ northern hemisphere temperatures. [...] The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about."[5]

That right there refuted the accuracy/validity of the graph my opponent cited. Also note it cut out the medivial warming period which is also existant. Meaning it again is a fraud, see this graph (courtesy of RoyLatham)
(I keep getting internal error so I am linking graphs instead)

As we can see the hockey stich is easily refutable with previous IPCC (before the bias and fraud) vs. Manns hockey stick. Hence this argunment is deemed null.

3. CO2 rising

" Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years."[6]

In other words, the increased rate of CO2 is a natural cycle and humans have little to do with it. And evn if we assume the humans cause the increase, we must again ask if CO2 is a stronger force (significant) then the sun, PDO, AMO, and the rest. As CO2 is a fairly weak gas it would be hard to prove that.

4. Graph[s]

Which graph? I posted 10. Most of them are from wattsupwiththat, a meteorologist made the website and he took those graphs right out of a peer reviewed paper. The other one was from, a geoogist website. And the other from the NOAA. None of them are "suspicous", I am not the one relying on wikipedia.

My opponent then criticises one of the graphs for a 10 year trend, agree I am not arguing we are not warming. I am arguing that this breaks the correlation. A weak correlation over 100 years, 10% of that is not correlated, that is like cutting on an AGW's foot. I agree the earth is warming, but I am arguing the 10 year drop off means CO2 is not raising tempertures. CO2 increases – tempertures fall – there is a problem with the theory.

I agree the tempertures are rising, but I have shown CO2 did not correlate in 3 places, and the sun correlated in all except one, and the PDO and AMO correlated in all. Meaning natural factors are a better fit then CO2, meaning your point is refuted.

"as to your other graphs. you showed temperature since 1995 to now... that's not enough to establish a firm trend. it might have decreased some but overall increased as the other graphs seem to indicate."

To push this, this is a strawman. I am arguing not that tempertures are decreasing, rather a CO2 correlation is weak. If it existed we would still be heating. In other words the natural solar cycle is responsible.

5. Ice thickness

1980 - present. We see no change in the yearly extents, it rises first, lowers, rises less *continues then you see increase like befre* and if you connect them alone they are equal like this -- Ice extent is not changing.

And even if it was, look at this: "The western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica."[7]

In other words the ice is due to NATURAL oceon cycles...


My opponent uses ad authoritum fallacy last round, correlation/causation fallacies the last round, and strawmans this round. Basically most of my opponents case based on that is falsified

Further, my argunments prevail. My opponent has the BOP (being pro and instagator) and has not met it.


[2] Nicola Scafetta, Bruce J. West: "Estimated solar contribution to the global surface warming using the ACRIM TSI satellite composite" Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Number 18, September 2005
[3] N. Scafetta and B. J. West, "Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming" GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 33, 2006
Debate Round No. 2


dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.


--> easy vote

Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
16k dominated this.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
It has a lag time of 800 years lol
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 5 years ago
it does show enough correlation.
temp don't spike up like CO2 does, but we see there's a general correlation. and we see with the exponetial growth of co2, there's spikes in temps even fi not exactly the same rate. eg those hockey stick graphs.

at the end of the day... all one needs to do is look at the hockey stick graphs that show spikes in temp from industrial times. they are so extreme in spike, that even a third grader could tell you something is not right, it's unnatural, a quirk. in nature that often means there's man made activity afoot.
i'll be sure to note this in the debate when it's my turn again.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
The graph shows no correlation, surprisingly
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 5 years ago

i meant to show that as a co2 and temp correlation... and to show the changes in temp thousands of years ago and how we're on an upward trend naturally. (not that MMactivity isn't making it worse .. we see co2 increases spiking etc, and with graphs that show since industrial times, expoential increases in temp
Posted by Thaumaturgy 5 years ago
I think my eyes are bleeding.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 5 years ago
don't let me forget to point out... we must be going through a trend of thousands of years of warming increases, because at no point in anything remotely recent history has the northern ice caps been melted, or next to it.
of course, there's also the hockey stick graphs that show ++++ of years of warming.
Posted by Thaumaturgy 5 years ago
Sadly, I'd have to agree that 16kadams should take the debate. It will offer little resistance because Pro seems somewhat disorganized and "science lite". So this is the kind of debate an "agw skeptic" can snag.

If pro wanted to, she could probably easily muster a huge amount of solid science for her proposition, but it doesn't look like she's quite got the chops or experience on this one.

If Pro does get any nibbles on this I'm hopeful she'll delve into the various attribution studies rather than the kind of rambling in the original challenge.

Oh yeah, Dairygirl, the Arctic ice cap didn't melt away, it just got so thin that scientists estimated that soon we will be without an arctic ice cap for the first time in recorded human history, and it is showing massive loss of "multi-year ice pack" which is the true bellweather for the kind of danger we're talking about. You can generate single year ice pack with each winter, but the multi-year pack going away is a real danger and an unsettling effect.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
Can she finish it in a week? Yes
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
take it 16k!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 5 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit by Pro