Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Overpopulation, and The Inconvenient Truth.

donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2013 8:12:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I accepted this debate. I was proud of my stance and wanted to make it here. I only used Wikipedia to find basic State Size and City Population statistics. Here is the following...

--------------------------------------------------

Is Overpopulation and Global Warming an issue today? Both can be answered with one stone.

--------------------------------------------------

Lets define Overpopulation.

over"pop"u"la"tion noun
*The condition of having a population so dense as to cause environmental deterioration, an impaired quality of life, or a population crash(1)
*Excessive population of an area to the point of overcrowding, depletion of natural resources, or environmental deterioration.(2)
*To fill with an excessive number of people, straining available resources and facilities:(3)

1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
2) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
3) http://dictionary.reference.com...

Now the generally shared issue listed is Population Damage and Environmental Damage.

The world has seen overpopulation in terms of impaired quality of life many times, and the human race simply adapts and moves on. Are we too populated for our own quality of life? Lets do the math. New York City's population density is 27,550/sq mi.(4) I suppose you could say it's comfortable there. Very comfortable for some. The World's population is 7,101,513,000.(5)

7,101,513,000 / 27,550/sq mi. = 257,768 sq mi.
Texas size = 268,581 sq mi.(6)

4) http://www.census.gov...
5) http://en.wikipedia.org...
6) https://en.wikipedia.org...

With the whole worlds population fitting nicely in less a space than Texas, comfortably none-the-less, it's safe to say that overpopulation hasn't yet occurred in terms of quality of life.

Now lets discuss Environmental Deterioration.

Hmmm Lets think... Trees! Deforestation is a major concern, right? Wrong.

The world deforests what amounts to 4.5 billion trees a year (I averaged between 3-6 billion.)(7) According to NASA, there are 400 billion trees in the world.(8) This means that the forest population could last around 88.8 years. That doesn't sound very long, does it?

7) http://understory.ran.org...
8) http://www.npr.org...

Think again. Actual deforestation estimates don't include the number of trees replanted. The US alone plants 1.5 billion trees a year from nurseries alone.(9) This alone increases the forest lifespan to 133.3 years. If the rest of the world planted 1/20th that amount per person, we'd be replanting enough trees to make the forest last 326.5 years. That's a little better.

9) http://forestry.about.com...

How many trees does the world grow, though? Well it's hard to tell. With Europe and (yes, shockingly) China, the number is far from small. This number also does not include the trees regrown in corporate Replacement programs, or volunteer programs. According to the UNEP Billion Trees Program, all the trees grown under the UN program equaled 2 billion in 18 months after launch.(10) If it kept up like that, we would see the program produce 1.33 billion trees a year. Has it kept up with that number? No. It's increased. The UN now plants 1.7 billion trees a year (12 billion total.)(11)

10) http://www.grida.no...
11) http://www.un.org...

Between the UNEP program, and the US Nurseries, we replant 3.2 billion trees. Total number of plants planted would include this amount + all the other Replacement programs. Most companies that deforest have a Replacement Program, obviously they aim to keep their product growing. It also does not account for the trees that grow naturally on their own.

How many trees do we think are grown each year, compared to the number of trees lost? Ask the US, whose forests are larger today than they were 100 years ago (when industry and war led the nation.)(12) The US's forest growth is 42% larger than it's forest harvesting.

12) http://www.mnn.com...

But what about Global Warming?

Not an issue. The world as always gotten hotter for short periods. It's a natural process that helps burn up and refresh the world. I don't mean get rid of people or cities like in the movie 2012. I mean it helps to start Wild Fires and melt the ice caps a little. A very natural process.(13)

13) http://www.drroyspencer.com...

This time around, the warming process is hotter than ever before, not to be confused with being overly hot. Why is it hotter? Because of Humans? No. Humans mostly contribute to the greenhouse gases by adding in Carbon Dioxide. Humans only make up 5.53% of all the greenhouse gases.

Well, actually. One thing everyone leaves out is Water Vapor. Gases don't have to be filthy in appearance to be a greenhouse gas. Water Vapor is the largest greenhouse, making up 95% of all the gases in the sky. With this added, Humans only make up 0.28% of all Global Warming. (14)

14) http://www.geocraft.com...

So what is causing this global warming to be worse than prior global warming? A growing Earth in general. All populations are growing, not necessary because of people. Global Warming this time around still is not hot enough to do harm, and if it were, it still wouldn't be because of the Human Population.

But what about the Polar Ice Caps?

What about them? They aren't really melting. Global Warming fanatics love to post pictures of the Ice Caps melting, but never speak of the ice cap growth. All ice melts over time, and it's only natural the Ice Caps melt to refresh the water and even the ice itself. For every bit of ice that melt, more takes it's place. The Ice Caps melt in the summer and grow in the winter.

The Ice Caps have been growing, but for how long? All 33 years we've been studying them.(15) This mean they were growing when the Global Warning fanatics were just being born, and have been growing the whole time they've been shouting at us. Since we started viewing them, they've been growing, and have likely been growing long before. They have grown 26% since 2007.(16)

15) http://www.forbes.com...
16) http://www.washingtontimes.com...

--------------------------------------------------

So while there is Global Warming, it's both natural and temporary, and is only slightly worse now than it was back then. Global Warming is, also, highly unaffected by Human activities, who only affect 0.28% of all greenhouse gases. The Ice Caps aren't getting smaller, and we aren't taking up nearly that much space.

When do humans start to overpopulate? When they can not prevent the negative effect we have. Tearing down 4.5 billion tree a year is a negative effect, but we can and are preventing it's effect with our own programs. If we get to a point where we can't undo our annual impact (which is very small right now) and the impact left over after all our attempts are (more than damaging) deadly to the Earth, than we are overpopulated.

As of right now, the Resolution does not hold up. Right now, Overpopulation and Global Warming is simply not a concern.

SOURCE DEBATE: http://www.debate.org...
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2013 8:18:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This has been addressed multiple times. The issue isn't physical living space. It's about quality of life, environmental invasiveness, and natural resources going down to a point where a mass extinction is inevitable.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2013 9:24:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/1/2013 8:18:04 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
This has been addressed multiple times. The issue isn't physical living space. It's about quality of life, environmental invasiveness, and natural resources going down to a point where a mass extinction is inevitable.

At least read my thing before commenting. You literally missed 4/5th the whole post.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2013 9:30:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
more simplified version.

Why has it bee so scientifically proven that Human's are involved i Global Warming? Because scientists are usually only paid to find out how Humans affect Global Warming, and so only discover that we do. They never actually try to find how natural some of it is.

First flaw... Carbon Dioxide is not the largest Greenhouse Gas. It's only second largest, and human's only responsible for 0.117% of the Carbon Dioxide in the air.

Second flaw... Water Vapor. The largest Greenhouse Gas. By how much? 95% of all the Greenhouse Gases is Water Vapor. Human's responsible for only 0.001% of all Water Vapor.

So how much Global Warming is human's fault? Without Water Vapor, 5.53%... With Water Vapor? 0.28%.

Why is Global Warming here? Because it has always been here. It comes around every few centuries to refreshes things... Like Forests, and the Ice Caps...

Oh! The Ice Caps and the Rising Ocean! All fake. Ice Caps have increased 26% since 2007.... They have actually been increasing since we started observing them from space... 33 years ago. They have likely been increasing since before that too.

What about the images of melting ice? Summer photos, literally. Ice does that in the summer, and sometimes the ice near the far ends of Antarctica and the North Pole end up in the heats way. It all comes back during the Winter.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2013 2:44:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Anybody who uses the Texas argument should be sterilized for mental deficiencies.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2013 2:49:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/1/2013 9:30:22 PM, donald.keller wrote:
more simplified version.

Why has it bee so scientifically proven that Human's are involved i Global Warming? Because scientists are usually only paid to find out how Humans affect Global Warming, and so only discover that we do. They never actually try to find how natural some of it is.

Ad hominem.

First flaw... Carbon Dioxide is not the largest Greenhouse Gas. It's only second largest, and human's only responsible for 0.117% of the Carbon Dioxide in the air.

Second flaw... Water Vapor. The largest Greenhouse Gas. By how much? 95% of all the Greenhouse Gases is Water Vapor. Human's responsible for only 0.001% of all Water Vapor.

So how much Global Warming is human's fault? Without Water Vapor, 5.53%... With Water Vapor? 0.28%.

Nice way to play with the statistics. You see, even that 0.117% can be enough to push us over the threshold where there is a net increase in heat. You're conveniently leaving out the fact that there are natural CO2 sinks as well as sources. We are adding more sources without adding more sinks.

You are also conveniently forgetting that water vapor is quickly removed from the atmosphere (a phenomenon which we call 'rain'), whereas CO2 is not.

Why is Global Warming here? Because it has always been here. It comes around every few centuries to refreshes things... Like Forests, and the Ice Caps...

Does this say anything about what is causing this cycle? Can you be certain that it is just a natural cycle? In addition, these cyclical patterns have destroyed life, and we're better off being concerned about it if we don't want to be next.

Oh! The Ice Caps and the Rising Ocean! All fake. Ice Caps have increased 26% since 2007.... They have actually been increasing since we started observing them from space... 33 years ago. They have likely been increasing since before that too.

And these ice caps are still losing thickness. It isn't useful to have extremely thin ice. You can measure area, though volume is the only useful and relevant statistic here.

What about the images of melting ice? Summer photos, literally. Ice does that in the summer, and sometimes the ice near the far ends of Antarctica and the North Pole end up in the heats way. It all comes back during the Winter.

Does this matter if the total volume of ice is decreased?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2013 9:08:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Ad hominem.

In what way? Look up Ad Hominem. I did not insult or attack anybody to avoid using logic. I said scientists research one side of the topic and so only learn one side (research if humans are involved in Global Warming : Find out humans are involved in Global Warming). That's not Ad Hominem, it's logic.

Nice way to play with the statistics. You see, even that 0.117% can be enough to push us over the threshold where there is a net increase in heat. You're conveniently leaving out the fact that there are natural CO2 sinks as well as sources. We are adding more sources without adding more sinks.

No, the ecosystem really is not that weak. You leave out how the gases have in fact been growing. The Greenhouse Gases as still growing, but human's are only responsible for 0.28%. By your logic, the world would have burnt up the second Global Warming started.

The atmosphere is not that weak. If it were, every Volcanic eruption would cause an Ice Age.

You are also conveniently forgetting that water vapor is quickly removed from the atmosphere (a phenomenon which we call 'rain'), whereas CO2 is not.

But it's there the whole time. At any given time, Water Vapor makes up 95% of all gases in the Atmosphere. You're viewing everything from a one-second only point-of-view. It's there, then it's not. It's not. As soon of a little gas goes away, more have took it's place.

Does this say anything about what is causing this cycle? Can you be certain that it is just a natural cycle? In addition, these cyclical patterns have destroyed life, and we're better off being concerned about it if we don't want to be next.

It's in one of my sources. Don't be lazy, read through those sources before debating someone.

These patterns aren't going to destroy us. That's a vague and exaggerated accusation.

And these ice caps are still losing thickness. It isn't useful to have extremely thin ice. You can measure area, though volume is the only useful and relevant statistic here.

I didn't say they were only growing in length. They are simply increasing (growing in general).

Again, I'll repeat this for you... "Ice Caps have increased 26% since 2007...."

Increased in not referring to one dimensional growth.

Does this matter if the total volume of ice is decreased?

Clearly it does, since all the summer melting, and the Ice Caps have still been increasing (in length and volume.)
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2013 9:11:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/2/2013 2:44:41 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Anybody who uses the Texas argument should be sterilized for mental deficiencies.

It had to do with whether or not Human's were comfortable. That example had nothing to do with the Ecosystem or environment. That's why it was used before I brought up the Environment.

Believe, I know it wouldn't stand an a proper example of how we don't hurt the environment. It's an example of how we aren't too crowded.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2013 11:08:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/2/2013 9:11:07 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 8/2/2013 2:44:41 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Anybody who uses the Texas argument should be sterilized for mental deficiencies.

It had to do with whether or not Human's were comfortable. That example had nothing to do with the Ecosystem or environment. That's why it was used before I brought up the Environment.

Believe, I know it wouldn't stand an a proper example of how we don't hurt the environment. It's an example of how we aren't too crowded.

That made literally no sense.

There's a reason that most of the Earth is uninhabited: the land cannot support life for a variety of reasons e.g. soil, water, climate, etc...

Even though Africa could probably house many times Earth's population with a relative large amount of space for each person, very few portions of Africa are capable of supporting life. Same thing with Texas or any other place, which is an inherent problem with this way of thinking.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2013 11:08:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It is a problem, at least in some parts of the world. But it isn't an extreme problem, and it certainly isn't a problem which can't be alleviated (not via some kind of coercive or Darwinian reduction in the population, or even necessarily a reduction at all).
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2013 1:37:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
That made literally no sense.

There's a reason that most of the Earth is uninhabited: the land cannot support life for a variety of reasons e.g. soil, water, climate, etc...

Even though Africa could probably house many times Earth's population with a relative large amount of space for each person, very few portions of Africa are capable of supporting life. Same thing with Texas or any other place, which is an inherent problem with this way of thinking.

It make perfect sense. You are completely missing what I'm saying... I brought up the reference to explain that our quality of life is not hurt by overcrowding. It had nothing to do with sustaining life or the environment, that came after the point.

I'm saying we have plenty of elbow room, and aren't cramped or overcrowded. Our quality of life is not impaired. If you want to debate whether or not the Earth can sustain that amount of life, continue below the Texas example.

And you're wrong. Earth as plenty of livable space that can sustain life of some kind. And obviously I'm not saying we could safely stash everyone in one spot. That is a fallacious misinterpretation of my argument.

School of Logic informs everyone not to take an analogy too literal. I'm not saying put everyone in Texas, I was giving basic math to explain how little space human's actually take up.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2013 2:18:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/2/2013 9:08:33 AM, donald.keller wrote:
Ad hominem.

In what way? Look up Ad Hominem. I did not insult or attack anybody to avoid using logic. I said scientists research one side of the topic and so only learn one side (research if humans are involved in Global Warming : Find out humans are involved in Global Warming). That's not Ad Hominem, it's logic.

It is a useless point that does nothing but make baseless accusations. I could say that global warming denialists only research things that help them conclude that global warming does not exist, it'd be just as true as your point, and we'd be back where we started.

Nice way to play with the statistics. You see, even that 0.117% can be enough to push us over the threshold where there is a net increase in heat. You're conveniently leaving out the fact that there are natural CO2 sinks as well as sources. We are adding more sources without adding more sinks.

No, the ecosystem really is not that weak. You leave out how the gases have in fact been growing. The Greenhouse Gases as still growing, but human's are only responsible for 0.28%. By your logic, the world would have burnt up the second Global Warming started.

The atmosphere is not that weak. If it were, every Volcanic eruption would cause an Ice Age.

Once again, you've allowed things to fly over your head. The natural CO2 cycle involves the addition and removal of atmospheric CO2. Human influence only ever adds CO2. The same natural geological processes can, over time, normalize CO2 levels, but the processes involved take a long time to work. Therefore, the CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a much longer time.

You are also conveniently forgetting that water vapor is quickly removed from the atmosphere (a phenomenon which we call 'rain'), whereas CO2 is not.

But it's there the whole time. At any given time, Water Vapor makes up 95% of all gases in the Atmosphere. You're viewing everything from a one-second only point-of-view. It's there, then it's not. It's not. As soon of a little gas goes away, more have took it's place.

The "one-second only point-of-view" is still quite important when determining how long it would take for artificial influence to correct itself. In addition, I should also mention that when CO2 causes more heat, more water evaporates (resulting in more atmospheric water vapor at any given time), causing a feedback loop, and potentially doubling or tripling the heating effect of CO2.

I'm also curious about where you got that 95% statistic for water vapor. By mass, water vapor makes up 0.25% of the atmosphere, and by mole percentage it can vary between 0.004% and 4% (for reference, CO2 is about 0.04%. Yes, we hit the 400 PPM milestone. Do you feel that you have succeeded in your mission yet?). I don't see how the hell you could have possibly gotten 95%. Maybe if we continue ignoring climate change to the point where our oceans boil from a runaway greenhouse effect, atmospheric H2O levels will be closer to 95%.

Does this say anything about what is causing this cycle? Can you be certain that it is just a natural cycle? In addition, these cyclical patterns have destroyed life, and we're better off being concerned about it if we don't want to be next.

It's in one of my sources. Don't be lazy, read through those sources before debating someone.

These patterns aren't going to destroy us. That's a vague and exaggerated accusation.

Your source cites the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Here's the PDO compared with the observed temperature anomaly:
http://www.skepticalscience.com...

And these ice caps are still losing thickness. It isn't useful to have extremely thin ice. You can measure area, though volume is the only useful and relevant statistic here.

I didn't say they were only growing in length. They are simply increasing (growing in general).

Again, I'll repeat this for you... "Ice Caps have increased 26% since 2007...."

Increased in not referring to one dimensional growth.

I've read your source. They refer to surface area. To point it out for you in case you glossed over it in favor of it reassuring you that your actions have no impact on the generations to come:

"A report from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado finds that Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007."

Square miles is a measure of surface area.

Now, thin sea ice melts quickly. Once the ice is melted, any additional heat goes into the ocean, which speeds up the melting of other ice, which also causes a feedback loop. It may return, but if it goes away as quickly as it comes back, it might as well not be there at all. Thicker sea ice takes longer to melt, and will reflect heat while it is there, thus reducing global warming.

Does this matter if the total volume of ice is decreased?

Clearly it does, since all the summer melting, and the Ice Caps have still been increasing (in length and volume.)

Your argument about the surface area of ice being increased is only useful in a semantic sense. All it does is present the data in a form where only the evidence that supports your case is shown. If you look at our arguments, you might notice that while you have been dismissing my points and restating your own, I have been only adding information when possible (the exceptions to this being when you are spreading obviously and hilariously false information, such as your 95% water vapor statistic). You are being very dishonest with your arguments.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2013 2:21:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/2/2013 1:37:19 PM, donald.keller wrote:
That made literally no sense.

There's a reason that most of the Earth is uninhabited: the land cannot support life for a variety of reasons e.g. soil, water, climate, etc...

Even though Africa could probably house many times Earth's population with a relative large amount of space for each person, very few portions of Africa are capable of supporting life. Same thing with Texas or any other place, which is an inherent problem with this way of thinking.

It make perfect sense. You are completely missing what I'm saying... I brought up the reference to explain that our quality of life is not hurt by overcrowding. It had nothing to do with sustaining life or the environment, that came after the point.

I'm saying we have plenty of elbow room, and aren't cramped or overcrowded. Our quality of life is not impaired. If you want to debate whether or not the Earth can sustain that amount of life, continue below the Texas example.

And you're wrong. Earth as plenty of livable space that can sustain life of some kind. And obviously I'm not saying we could safely stash everyone in one spot. That is a fallacious misinterpretation of my argument.

School of Logic informs everyone not to take an analogy too literal. I'm not saying put everyone in Texas, I was giving basic math to explain how little space human's actually take up.

Here's a thought: Earth does not have unlimited resources. For every person on Earth to have the standard of living of an average American, we would need the resources of ten Earths. You may be able to stash a million people in a skyscraper, but that doesn't mean you can necessarily feed them all.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2013 8:51:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/2/2013 2:21:44 PM, drhead wrote:
At 8/2/2013 1:37:19 PM, donald.keller wrote:
That made literally no sense.

There's a reason that most of the Earth is uninhabited: the land cannot support life for a variety of reasons e.g. soil, water, climate, etc...

Even though Africa could probably house many times Earth's population with a relative large amount of space for each person, very few portions of Africa are capable of supporting life. Same thing with Texas or any other place, which is an inherent problem with this way of thinking.

It make perfect sense. You are completely missing what I'm saying... I brought up the reference to explain that our quality of life is not hurt by overcrowding. It had nothing to do with sustaining life or the environment, that came after the point.

I'm saying we have plenty of elbow room, and aren't cramped or overcrowded. Our quality of life is not impaired. If you want to debate whether or not the Earth can sustain that amount of life, continue below the Texas example.

And you're wrong. Earth as plenty of livable space that can sustain life of some kind. And obviously I'm not saying we could safely stash everyone in one spot. That is a fallacious misinterpretation of my argument.

School of Logic informs everyone not to take an analogy too literal. I'm not saying put everyone in Texas, I was giving basic math to explain how little space human's actually take up.

Here's a thought: Earth does not have unlimited resources. For every person on Earth to have the standard of living of an average American, we would need the resources of ten Earths. You may be able to stash a million people in a skyscraper, but that doesn't mean you can necessarily feed them all.

American use a lot of resources, much more average, this has nothing to do with overpopulation since such an issue is easily fixed in time. Overpopulation means you're leaving behind such negative effects that you can't fix them.

Seeing as American =/= Average Person, and the average person does not consume as much as the average American, your argument is irrelevant to the current situation.

Does anyone even read my post? No one seems to make it to Environmental Deterioration.

If everyone ate around average (2lb a day) than it would take 2,584,400,000 tons to feed them.

That's good, because the world produces up to 4,000,000,000 tons of food.(a)

a) http://www.theguardian.com...

We could feed 11,000,000,000 people. The UN doesn't think we're reach that many by the end of TWO century from now (start of 2300). (b) This is good because you can feed that many people with just the land we are using for farms. Another good thing is that most city and town expansions do not intrude on the farm land we use. Most farmers in the world aren't using up-to-date technology either.

b) http://www.un.org... P.g. 27

The UN's High Estimate is merely an extreme assumption. They stick with the Medium Assumption.

It's important to remember that as population grows, so does farming technology and the number of farmers.

ANOTHER factor... Arable Land.
They believe 10.43% of all land is Arable.(c) Of all that land, they estimate only 37.5% of all Arable land is being used.(d) This means we could increase our population to 266.6% before needing a new way of farming (or better Technology, you have to remember that as time goes by, and number of people one acre can feed increases.) This is assuming we still throw away half our food. If we stopped throwing away so much food, we could increase our population to 514%. Of course some of that land is likely being used... But how much?

c) https://www.cia.gov...
d) http://data.worldbank.org...

No more than 30%. You see, Urbanized areas (Cities, Towns, Villages) take up 3% of Earth's land...(e,f) If all of the Urban Areas was, by some odd chance, on Arable land, it would cover 28.76% of all Arable Land. Leaving 33.74% left open. This means you could still almost double the population (assuming technology doesn't increase and Urbanization growth doesn't take up more Arable land.) Of course it's highly unlikely urban areas take up that much Arable Land. In fact, the 10.43% of the land that's Arable might exclude urban land, but I'm not sure.

e) http://www.livescience.com...
f) http://www.earth.columbia.edu...

To put this into realization for you... Off of open Arable Land, we could hold a population from... (I'm posting the year the UN's High Estimate believe we will reach this number.)

2175 = 18,888,660,000 (if we wasted half of our food still.)
2300 = 36,538,000,000 (if we used all our food by then)

Again, the dates are based on UN High Estimate, and the population is assuming we are using the same technology. It also assumes the same portion of Farmers are using up-to-date technology. Under the UN's actual estimate, we won't reach that number until LONG after 2300, if ever.

By the way, you say it would take how many earth's to sustain life if everyone were like Americans? I did the math... It'd take us not throwing away half our food, and increasing farming to 140%. Does that seem like a lot? To an extant... But that increase would leave Earth with 47.5% of it's Arable land left. That is far from needing 10 Earths... In fact, if each earth had the same amount of Arable land, it'd take 4.75% of that much land to feed everyone the same amount Americans eat.(g)

Current Food Production = Around 5 bn tons.
Production need to eat like Americans = 7 bn tons.

g) http://www.npr.org...

Of course, not everyone eats like an American, and America's eating problem is fixable. Only when you can't fix the problems, have Human begun to overpopulate.

Now leave the Texas example alone. It was an analogy to show people have elbow room still and aren't overcrowded. It had nothing to do with the Environment. If you want to argue the Environment, continue reading past Environmental Deterioration.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2013 9:57:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/1/2013 9:30:22 PM, donald.keller wrote:
more simplified version.

Why has it bee so scientifically proven that Human's are involved i Global Warming? Because scientists are usually only paid to find out how Humans affect Global Warming, and so only discover that we do. They never actually try to find how natural some of it is.

Completely irrelevant. If humans don't affect global warming, a study researching whether we affect global warming should turn up negative.

First flaw... Carbon Dioxide is not the largest Greenhouse Gas. It's only second largest, and human's only responsible for 0.117% of the Carbon Dioxide in the air.

Second flaw... Water Vapor. The largest Greenhouse Gas. By how much? 95% of all the Greenhouse Gases is Water Vapor. Human's responsible for only 0.001% of all Water Vapor.

So how much Global Warming is human's fault? Without Water Vapor, 5.53%... With Water Vapor? 0.28%.

Why is Global Warming here? Because it has always been here. It comes around every few centuries to refreshes things... Like Forests, and the Ice Caps...

Oh! The Ice Caps and the Rising Ocean! All fake. Ice Caps have increased 26% since 2007.... They have actually been increasing since we started observing them from space... 33 years ago. They have likely been increasing since before that too.

What about the images of melting ice? Summer photos, literally. Ice does that in the summer, and sometimes the ice near the far ends of Antarctica and the North Pole end up in the heats way. It all comes back during the Winter.

Sources? Because from the meta-studies I've read, almost every single thing you said is false.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2013 10:32:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It is a useless point that does nothing but make baseless accusations. I could say that global warming denialists only research things that help them conclude that global warming does not exist, it'd be just as true as your point, and we'd be back where we started.

It's not useless information. It's too explain why you only hear one side of the story from scientists. Had nothing to do with the following definitions...

Ad Hominem
appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect

marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

(a) http://www.merriam-webster.com...

It didn't appeal to feelings, and it didn't attack anyone's character. It explained something that might have otherwise been wrongly used against me.

Once again, you've allowed things to fly over your head. The natural CO2 cycle involves the addition and removal of atmospheric CO2. Human influence only ever adds CO2. The same natural geological processes can, over time, normalize CO2 levels, but the processes involved take a long time to work. Therefore, the CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a much longer time.

You are forgetting that Human-Made CO2 leaves the atmosphere too. In the end result, that is the percent (0.117%) of total CO2 in the air put there by people, period. Just that amount... After all the CO2 has come and gone and come and gone... Only 0.117%.

You are making Human-Made CO2 different from natural CO2 in the sense that only Natural CO2 can leave. Yes, we put in a constant amount of CO2, so does nature, and just like nature, a constant amount is leaving the Atmosphere.

The "one-second only point-of-view" is still quite important when determining how long it would take for artificial influence to correct itself. In addition, I should also mention that when CO2 causes more heat, more water evaporates (resulting in more atmospheric water vapor at any given time), causing a feedback loop, and potentially doubling or tripling the heating effect of CO2.

You were viewing it from only one cycle... It comes, then goes. You left out the part when as it's going, the cycle is repeating, and more comes in. As Water Vapor leaves, more takes it place, so at any time, there is X amount of Water Vapor, equaling 95% of all greenhouse gases at any given time, only 0.001% of which is from us at any given time, so in the end, 95% of all the gases that had entered the atmosphere was Water Vapor, and only 0.001% of it was every man-made.

The amount of water vapor released because of Human's 0.117% of total CO2 levels would be about as small as Humans 0.117% of total CO2 levels.

I'm also curious about where you got that 95% statistic for water vapor. By mass, water vapor makes up 0.25% of the atmosphere, and by mole percentage it can vary between 0.004% and 4% (for reference, CO2 is about 0.04%. Yes, we hit the 400 PPM milestone. Do you feel that you have succeeded in your mission yet?). I don't see how the hell you could have possibly gotten 95%. Maybe if we continue ignoring climate change to the point where our oceans boil from a runaway greenhouse effect, atmospheric H2O levels will be closer to 95%.

Your playing with unrelated statistics. This isn't about how much of the Atmosphere is Water Vapor, but how much of the Greenhouse Gas's is Water Vapor.

I got my information from my source...
http://www.geocraft.com...

Where is your source?

You are making fun of my case rather than facing it with your own sources, not that it would matter, because the sources you would use only backs up a completely unrelated fact, and doesn't actually relate to the argument.

Your source cites the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Here's the PDO compared with the observed temperature anomaly:
http://www.skepticalscience.com......

Pretty lines, don't prove they are dangerous though. Unlike you, my source actually explains this.

"Because small, chaotic fluctuations in atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems can cause small changes in global average cloudiness, this is all that is necessary to cause climate change. You don"t need the sun, or any other "external" influence (although these are also possible"but for now I"ll let others work on that). It is simply what the climate system does. This is actually quite easy for meteorologists to believe, since we understand how complex weather processes are."

Now, thin sea ice melts quickly. Once the ice is melted, any additional heat goes into the ocean, which speeds up the melting of other ice, which also causes a feedback loop. It may return, but if it goes away as quickly as it comes back, it might as well not be there at all. Thicker sea ice takes longer to melt, and will reflect heat while it is there, thus reducing global warming.

To start... The ice that melts is called Seasonal Ice. It's suppose to melt. It's meant to be thin ice that melts again in the summer. If it's coming back quicker in the winter than it's melting in the summer (causing growth) than it shows your reoccurring feedback loop argument as wrong.

The Ice is coming back, not thinner, but the same as it's always been coming back, there is just more of it.

To point it out for you in case you glossed over it in favor of it reassuring you that your actions have no impact on the generations to come:

To start, that's closer to Ad Hominem than anything I've said.

I used to believe in Global Warming and did a lot of research. The more research I did, the more I found out people don't effect the environment that much. With the total amount of Greenhouse Gas we make only being "0.28%" of total increase.

Your argument about the surface area of ice being increased is only useful in a semantic sense. All it does is present the data in a form where only the evidence that supports your case is shown. If you look at our arguments, you might notice that while you have been dismissing my points and restating your own, I have been only adding information when possible (the exceptions to this being when you are spreading obviously and hilariously false information, such as your 95% water vapor statistic). You are being very dishonest with your arguments

I've supported each of my claims. I have also argued against each of your claims.

I have replied to everything you said, while you batted around the bush on all mine. You even dropped half the claims you've made against my arguments, and ignored some I gave. You showed them with everything else, but never faced them.

"(the exceptions to this being when you are spreading obviously and hilariously false information, such as your 95% water vapor statistic)."

Fake? I've supported everything with sources, while you did not. I also proved above that you were only playing with unrelated facts to ineffectively disprove mine.

This isn't about how much of the atmosphere is Water Vapor, but how much of the Greenhouse Gases are made up of Water Vapor. Two very different statistics. It's laughable that you would use such an unrelated stat. I'd almost call it Red Herring, using a different resolution and/or moving slightly to a different, more easily provable case instead of staying on the actual case and facing it, but I'm not sure if it counts as that... Sure is close though.

I've upheld my case still. You seem to misrepresent my case or act like I didn't make one as your only way of keeping your case standing.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2013 10:39:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/2/2013 9:57:01 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 8/1/2013 9:30:22 PM, donald.keller wrote:
more simplified version.

Why has it bee so scientifically proven that Human's are involved i Global Warming? Because scientists are usually only paid to find out how Humans affect Global Warming, and so only discover that we do. They never actually try to find how natural some of it is.

Completely irrelevant. If humans don't affect global warming, a study researching whether we affect global warming should turn up negative.

No, it's not irrelevant.. It is exactly relevant to the case it was meant to show... We hear so such about how human's create Global Warming because we only fund projects to find ways humans create Global Warming. You see a different side altogether when you study how much of it is natural.

"Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming"it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade." - Roy Spencer, Ph. D. climatologist, author, former NASA scientist.


First flaw... Carbon Dioxide is not the largest Greenhouse Gas. It's only second largest, and human's only responsible for 0.117% of the Carbon Dioxide in the air.

Second flaw... Water Vapor. The largest Greenhouse Gas. By how much? 95% of all the Greenhouse Gases is Water Vapor. Human's responsible for only 0.001% of all Water Vapor.

So how much Global Warming is human's fault? Without Water Vapor, 5.53%... With Water Vapor? 0.28%.

Why is Global Warming here? Because it has always been here. It comes around every few centuries to refreshes things... Like Forests, and the Ice Caps...

Oh! The Ice Caps and the Rising Ocean! All fake. Ice Caps have increased 26% since 2007.... They have actually been increasing since we started observing them from space... 33 years ago. They have likely been increasing since before that too.

What about the images of melting ice? Summer photos, literally. Ice does that in the summer, and sometimes the ice near the far ends of Antarctica and the North Pole end up in the heats way. It all comes back during the Winter.

Sources? Because from the meta-studies I've read, almost every single thing you said is false.

it's funny that you would attack my simplified little post instead of face the actual argument above it.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2013 11:40:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the creationists of the next generation!
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2013 12:52:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Is this what Global Warming advocates have? Ad Hominem, a gross misrepresentation and simple denial of the opponents case and information to defend their own?

Why not simply provide sources, and a real case that relates to my argument? If it's really the only logical truth, it should be easy to defend? Or is it simply the only side you've ever heard?
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2013 1:10:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/3/2013 12:52:41 AM, donald.keller wrote:
Is this what Global Warming advocates have? Ad Hominem, a gross misrepresentation and simple denial of the opponents case and information to defend their own?

Why not simply provide sources, and a real case that relates to my argument? If it's really the only logical truth, it should be easy to defend? Or is it simply the only side you've ever heard?

I did in the post immediately before the one you addressed.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
rajun
Posts: 346
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2013 9:54:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I agree with donald.Keller....The max of what we hear in the big environmental reports is false. Actually the stats are low but exaggeration takes it over...sometimes for the good as to warn the citizens of the worsening condition.
Only cool guys can see this....
rajun
Posts: 346
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2013 10:07:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/3/2013 9:54:51 AM, rajun wrote:
I agree with donald.Keller....The max of what we hear in the big environmental reports is false. Actually the stats are low but exaggeration takes it over...sometimes for the good as to warn the citizens of the worsening condition.
And yes! nice debate going on here. Very nice...In fact the best one I saw here since I joined. cheers/.Keep on :-)
Only cool guys can see this....
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2013 11:57:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The case is a good one. The world population is expected to stabilize at about 9 billion of it's own accord, which is well within what the earth can sustain. Populations in Japan, Europe, and the United States are either dropping or would drop if it were not for immigration.

I think the global warming argument is something of a distraction. Let's grant for arguments sake that CO2 dominates climate. What happens when population increases? In countries that are poorly developed, CO2 per capita rises as the country develops. But then as the country becomes first-world, the per capita production of CO2 decreases. Basically, more efficient methods of energy production become economically desirable. China is now on the downslope of CO2 production per capita.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2013 12:12:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/2/2013 10:32:41 PM, donald.keller wrote:

It's not useless information. It's too explain why you only hear one side of the story from scientists. Had nothing to do with the following definitions...

Ad Hominem
appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect

marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

(a) http://www.merriam-webster.com...

It didn't appeal to feelings, and it didn't attack anyone's character. It explained something that might have otherwise been wrongly used against me.

And how is this relevant to the discussion besides to express the persecution complex of global warming denialists?

You are forgetting that Human-Made CO2 leaves the atmosphere too. In the end result, that is the percent (0.117%) of total CO2 in the air put there by people, period. Just that amount... After all the CO2 has come and gone and come and gone... Only 0.117%.

Yes, it does leave the atmosphere... after about a thousand years. In fact, I specifically acknowledged this in the last two sentences of this bit.

Furthermore, considering how CO2 levels never went above 300 ppm before the Industrial era and that they are now 400 ppm, I'd say 25% of the current atmospheric CO2 is man-made.

You are making Human-Made CO2 different from natural CO2 in the sense that only Natural CO2 can leave. Yes, we put in a constant amount of CO2, so does nature, and just like nature, a constant amount is leaving the Atmosphere.

You're not too good at reading comprehension, are you? I specifically said that human-made CO2 goes away through the same means natural CO2 does. I'm saying that it takes a thousand years for it to do so, since we are only adding to the atmospheric CO2.

You were viewing it from only one cycle... [removed for space] and only 0.001% of it was every man-made.

The amount of water vapor released because of Human's 0.117% of total CO2 levels would be about as small as Humans 0.117% of total CO2 levels.

I've already called bull on this statistic, but you haven't had a chance to respond to it yet. Does this 0.001 percent take into account all feedback loops?

Your playing with unrelated statistics. This isn't about how much of the Atmosphere is Water Vapor, but how much of the Greenhouse Gas's is Water Vapor.

"At any given time, Water Vapor makes up 95% of all gases in the Atmosphere."
Say greenhouse gases next time, then.

I got my information from my source...
http://www.geocraft.com...

Not taking into account feedback loop puts this source on shaky ground already. Furthermore, I question the "Natural additions" column - what "natural additions" would just happen and push us to the highest CO2 levels in the history of the planet, just as we start pitching in to help?

Moreover, your 0.117% is our contribution to CO2... as a percentage of all greenhouse gases. The real figure you're looking for is 3.22% of all CO2 currently in the atmosphere or 14.77% of all post-Industrial additions. (assuming your data is correct, which I have doubts for)

Where is your source?

For my 25% CO2 figure, I used this graph for a baseline: http://climate.nasa.gov...
And I used this for the current CO2 level: http://co2now.org...
And then I used a calculator.

You are making fun of my case rather than facing it with your own sources, not that it would matter, because the sources you would use only backs up a completely unrelated fact, and doesn't actually relate to the argument.

Your source cites the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Here's the PDO compared with the observed temperature anomaly:
http://www.skepticalscience.com......

Pretty lines, don't prove they are dangerous though. Unlike you, my source actually explains this.

http://www.skepticalscience.com...

"Because small, chaotic fluctuations in atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems can cause small changes in global average cloudiness, this is all that is necessary to cause climate change. You don"t need the sun, or any other "external" influence (although these are also possible"but for now I"ll let others work on that). It is simply what the climate system does. This is actually quite easy for meteorologists to believe, since we understand how complex weather processes are."

Any such change would average out.

To start... The ice that melts is called Seasonal Ice. It's suppose to melt. It's meant to be thin ice that melts again in the summer. If it's coming back quicker in the winter than it's melting in the summer (causing growth) than it shows your reoccurring feedback loop argument as wrong.

The Ice is coming back, not thinner, but the same as it's always been coming back, there is just more of it.

Since none of your sources used units of volume, you're going to have to cite one that does show that we are gaining ice. Include Antarctic land ice, too, since the land ice is what influences sea level rise.

To start, that's closer to Ad Hominem than anything I've said.

Sorry, but I begin to lose respect for people once I see them using blatantly dishonest tactics.

I used to believe in Global Warming and did a lot of research. The more research I did, the more I found out people don't effect the environment that much. With the total amount of Greenhouse Gas we make only being "0.28%" of total increase.

Greenhouse gases are good in moderation. If we didn't have enough, the planet would be too cold, and if we had too much, it'd be too hot. I can't be certain about your statistics. They would be more useful in the form of how much change in the total amount occurred between the averages of any specific year.

I've supported each of my claims. I have also argued against each of your claims.

I have replied to everything you said, while you batted around the bush on all mine. You even dropped half the claims you've made against my arguments, and ignored some I gave. You showed them with everything else, but never faced them.

Really? I address every single line of posts I reply to - I do this out of habit.

Fake? I've supported everything with sources, while you did not. I also proved above that you were only playing with unrelated facts to ineffectively disprove mine.

I simply misinterpreted your wording, since you clearly typed the wrong thing. You can't blame someone for reading something the way it is typed.

I've been assuming most of the stuff here is common knowledge (due to the usual trend of points refuted a thousand times in any debate), but for your reference I've been pulling most of my information from http://www.skepticalscience.com...

This isn't about how much of the atmosphere is Water Vapor, but how much of the Greenhouse Gases are made up of Water Vapor. [shortened for space]

Once again, I repeat:
"At any given time, Water Vapor makes up 95% of all gases in the Atmosphere."
This is what you said. You said that water vapor was 95% of all gases in the atmosphere, so I assumed you meant that it was 95% of all gases in the atmosphere. Upon checking your work, I determined that water vapor has an average concentration of 4022 ppm, which is consistent with your statistic of water vapor being 95% of all greenhouse gases. However, I still have reason to doubt your 0.001% statistic for man made water vapor due to not taking into account feedback loops, and I'm afraid you'll have to find a source which breaks down the composition of sources of CO2 - there is no reason why CO2 would 'naturally' go over 300 ppm.

I've upheld my case still. You seem to misrepresent my case or act like I didn't make one as your only way of keeping your case standing.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 8:43:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
And how is this relevant to the discussion besides to express the persecution complex of global warming denialists?

You are accusing me of Ad Hominem, that is how it is relevant. There is no persecution complex. You seriously can not call Ad Hominem every time someone is mentioned in an argument. Explaining why we don't hear counter-arguments is not Ad Hominem. Wrongly saying me and people who disagree with Global Warming have a persecution complex is.

Yes, it does leave the atmosphere... after about a thousand years. In fact, I specifically acknowledged this in the last two sentences of this bit.

This is irrelevant to how much we add in. Our 0.117% is not going to increase to 0.234% next year and then to 0.351% the year after... It would stay 0.117%.
This is because the amount of CO2 we add each year could only increase the Man-made : Nature-made ratio if Nature stopped producing so much. If Nature continues making it's same amount, and we continue making our same amount, after 1000 years, the ratio should be the same.

Furthermore, considering how CO2 levels never went above 300 ppm before the Industrial era and that they are now 400 ppm, I'd say 25% of the current atmospheric CO2 is man-made.

Now you are conducting a major fallacy...

A happens after B, Therefore B caused A.

You are making up your own stats now. You say 25%? Professionals say 0.117%. My sources say so too. You can not come up with your own statistics in a debate.

They research how much CO2 is naturally made, and it's 99.883%. If CO2 increased by 40% (as they say,) than about 99.5% of the extra CO2 is natural. That again, conforms my case that Global Warming is natural.

You're not too good at reading comprehension, are you?

Another case of Ad Hominem on your behalf.

I'm saying that it takes a thousand years for it to do so, since we are only adding to the atmospheric CO2.

Nature is a complex concept. To define it as one thing is only okay in broad conversations. In reality, Nature has many parts to it... The parts that add CO2 to the Atmosphere is also only ever adding CO2... About 853.7 times as much as humans are.

I've already called bull on this statistic, but you haven't had a chance to respond to it yet. Does this 0.001 percent take into account all feedback loops?

I did respond. You are, again, misrepresenting my argument and/or refusing to acknowledge I made one as a means to continue holding on to your own.

Yes, it does. And if it doesn't, the additional Water Vapor caused by raising CO2 levels caused by men will be relative in size to the additional CO2 levels caused by men.

You can call bull all you want. Us debaters are not the source of our knowledge in a debate... Our sources, links, and those we quote from are the source of our knowledge in a debate. Whether you accept my argument does not determine it's accuracy.

You have mostly been your own source in this debate.

Say greenhouse gases next time, then.

I shall. I figured since this debate was about greenhouse gases, it'd be easy to interpret. I can see how one would misinterpret, however.

Not taking into account feedback loop puts this source on shaky ground already. Furthermore, I question the "Natural additions" column - what "natural additions" would just happen and push us to the highest CO2 levels in the history of the planet, just as we start pitching in to help?

I've explained how little your Feedback loop effects this. You know... It's hard to tell, seeing as it's not often that research gets done on natural causes since everyone, like you, just assumes it's all man-made. But if human's are only responsible for 0.001% of all water vapor and 0.117% of all CO2, than it has to be natural. You can't deny something obvious and proven under the basic that you can't see it any other way.

We know only 0.117% of CO2 is men-made. Just because you can't see how nature is making the other 99.883% doesn't mean it's not.

Now your problem is... Your looking only at the historically collected data on Greenhouse Gas levels... how far do you think that data goes back? Research on historical warming periods show that warming simply happens over time, and goes away after a few decades or centuries or however long.

Obviously, if science believes there have been many Ice Ages in the last '2.6 million years', than it's acceptable knowledge that something natural can cause climate change on a massive scale.(1)

1) http://www.bbc.co.uk...

In fact, if scientist are correct, than the last Ice Age ended 11,500 years ago... Definitely not caused by Industry and people. But it does show that the planet can, on it's own, cause massive, and natural, warming and cooling cycles.

Actually, my source makes clear that some scientist believe that the Ice Age had to do with change in the composition of the atmosphere (the Greenhouse Gases)... Proving that the composition of the atmosphere can natural change to rapid degrees.

Moreover, your 0.117% is our contribution to CO2... as a percentage of all greenhouse gases. The real figure you're looking for is 3.22% of all CO2 currently in the atmosphere or 14.77% of all post-Industrial additions. (assuming your data is correct, which I have doubts for)

My 0.117% is simply the amount of CO2 that we add. I already did the math on this. We increased CO2 by 0.117%, but the amount of CO2 increased by 40%. This mean that CO2 increased 39.88% by itself... This means that nature is responsible for 99.5% of the 40% increase.

You having doubts is not an argument.

For my 25% CO2 figure, I used this graph for a baseline: http://climate.nasa.gov......

Seeing the amount of CO2 skyrocket doesn't mean it's man-made. If the Scientists doing research on natural causes of CO2 levels are right, only 0.5% of that spike is man-made, while the other 99.5% is natural.

Any such change would average out.

That Ex-NASA Scientist seems to disagree with you.

The PDO and GTA would increase and decrease differently. When PDO pushes GTA up, the GTA (based on your accusation that CO2 takes 1000 years to leave the atmosphere) would take longer to decrease than the PDO. This way, next time PDO increases, GTA still hasn't recovered. This causes an overall rise in GTA.

According to scientists, Ice Ages and Great Warm Periods (such as when the Dinosaurs existed) were likely caused by the Ocean(b). With this, we can assume that GTA doesn't always manage to average itself out that quickly.

b) http://oceanservice.noaa.gov...

Since none of your sources used units of volume, you're going to have to cite one that does show that we are gaining ice. Include Antarctic land ice, too, since the land ice is what influences sea level rise.

I never mention Volume because both sheets of ice are so large and complex that is nearly impossible to measure the exact volume. No source can give you that information. Only records on Sea Ice volume.

NEW CASES since I have some room left.

Prior Global Warmings...
1- Eocene Thermal Maximum 2 (c)
2- Older Peron (d)
3- Roman Warm Period (where they believed it to be as warm as today)

c) http://ftp.nioz.nl...
d) Baker, Robert G. V.; Haworth, Robert J.; Flood, Peter G. (2004). "An Oscillating Holocene Sea-level? Revisiting Rottnest Island, Western Australia and the Fairbridge Eustatic Hypothesis". Journal of Coastal Research 42: 3"14.

I feel like the conversation on Overpopulation is over :(

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The evidence say that only 0.001% of water vapor currently in the air is man-made, and only 0.117% of CO2 currently in the air at this moment is man-made... No playing with math and statistics is going to change that. There is no loophole or way around those numbers. Stop swinging for a hit.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2013 3:30:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm clipping out the repeating sections to make this easier.

At 8/4/2013 8:43:22 PM, donald.keller wrote:

Yes, it does leave the atmosphere... after about a thousand years. In fact, I specifically acknowledged this in the last two sentences of this bit.

This is irrelevant to how much we add in. Our 0.117% is not going to increase to 0.234% next year and then to 0.351% the year after...

The CO2 accumulates, you know.

Furthermore, considering how CO2 levels never went above 300 ppm before the Industrial era and that they are now 400 ppm, I'd say 25% of the current atmospheric CO2 is man-made.

Now you are conducting a major fallacy...

A happens after B, Therefore B caused A.

So the CO2 level suddenly decided to skyrocket on its own? I'm sorry, but if you tried using this argument in a room with anyone but the most fringe climate denial groups, you'd get laughed out of the room. CO2 concentrations don't just increase 33% because they feel like it.

You are making up your own stats now. You say 25%? Professionals say 0.117%. My sources say so too. You can not come up with your own statistics in a debate.

They research how much CO2 is naturally made, and it's 99.883%. If CO2 increased by 40% (as they say,) than about 99.5% of the extra CO2 is natural. That again, conforms my case that Global Warming is natural.
...
My 0.117% is simply the amount of CO2 that we add. I already did the math on this. We increased CO2 by 0.117%, but the amount of CO2 increased by 40%. This mean that CO2 increased 39.88% by itself... This means that nature is responsible for 99.5% of the 40% increase.
...
Nature is a complex concept. To define it as one thing is only okay in broad conversations. In reality, Nature has many parts to it... The parts that add CO2 to the Atmosphere is also only ever adding CO2... About 853.7 times as much as humans are.

For the love of god, I already explained how you are misusing that statistic. Let me outline it for you again, in big bold letters so that you might be able to actually read it this time around:

0.117% = human contribution to CO2 sources as a percentage of all greenhouse gases
25% = percentage of CO2 in the air that is there because of human industrial processes


Your statistic is measuring this: Out of all emissions of all greenhouse gases, what percentage is both carbon dioxide and caused by humans?

Mine measures this: Out of all CO2 in the air currently, what percentage is there due to human activity?

The main problem is that you are including other greenhouse gases in your 0.117 statistic. My 25% statistic focuses only on CO2. Read your own sources next time.

And once again, even if your statistic was true, consider this. Natural processes take out all the CO2 that they produce. It is a balanced process. When we start putting out gigatons of CO2, nature isn't guaranteed to match our production with removal. Meaning, it accumulates.

I've already called bull on this statistic, but you haven't had a chance to respond to it yet. Does this 0.001 percent take into account all feedback loops?

I did respond. You are, again, misrepresenting my argument and/or refusing to acknowledge I made one as a means to continue holding on to your own.

Yes, it does. And if it doesn't, the additional Water Vapor caused by raising CO2 levels caused by men will be relative in size to the additional CO2 levels caused by men.

[citation needed]

You can call bull all you want. Us debaters are not the source of our knowledge in a debate... Our sources, links, and those we quote from are the source of our knowledge in a debate. Whether you accept my argument does not determine it's accuracy.

Your statistic doesn't even take into account the water vapor released by combustion reactions. Just because you read something on the Internet, it doesn't make it automatically true. When your arguments hold as much water as a sieve, expect them to be treated as such.

You have mostly been your own source in this debate.

I haven't needed many sources since the things I am using are common knowledge that could be confirmed by a variety of sources. Hell, I've even been using your sources to debunk your horridly misinterpreted statistics. You don't need to cite a source to say that the sky is blue.

I've explained how little your Feedback loop effects this.

No, you really haven't, beyond insisting that it doesn't have that much of an effect.

Now your problem is... Your looking only at the historically collected data on Greenhouse Gas levels... how far do you think that data goes back? Research on historical warming periods show that warming simply happens over time, and goes away after a few decades or centuries or however long.

It goes back several hundred thousand years. Is this not enough for you?

Obviously, if science believes there have been many Ice Ages in the last '2.6 million years', than it's acceptable knowledge that something natural can cause climate change on a massive scale.(1)

1) http://www.bbc.co.uk...

In fact, if scientist are correct, than the last Ice Age ended 11,500 years ago... Definitely not caused by Industry and people. But it does show that the planet can, on it's own, cause massive, and natural, warming and cooling cycles.

Actually, my source makes clear that some scientist believe that the Ice Age had to do with change in the composition of the atmosphere (the Greenhouse Gases)... Proving that the composition of the atmosphere can natural change to rapid degrees.

You having doubts is not an argument.

Could you explain why it happens consistently in a predictable pattern, then?

Also, it *still* doesn't explain why we've never seen CO2 levels going above 300 historically.

For my 25% CO2 figure, I used this graph for a baseline: http://climate.nasa.gov......

Seeing the amount of CO2 skyrocket doesn't mean it's man-made. If the Scientists doing research on natural causes of CO2 levels are right, only 0.5% of that spike is man-made, while the other 99.5% is natural.

Okay, then. Please explain what natural sources decided to suddenly put a bunch of CO2 in the air, then.

As far as we know, CO2 has never gone to 400 PPM on its own. You have the burden of proof, here.

Any such change would average out.

That Ex-NASA Scientist seems to disagree with you.
...
b) http://oceanservice.noaa.gov...

From that paper:
"The fact that natural factors caused climate changes in the past does not mean that the current climate change is natural"

I must admit, you have some great sources!

I never mention Volume because both sheets of ice are so large and complex that is nearly impossible to measure the exact volume. No source can give you that information. Only records on Sea Ice volume.

Unfortunately for this baseless assertion of yours, I can point to the exact system used to measure sea ice volume: http://psc.apl.washington.edu...

NEW CASES since I have some room left.

Prior Global Warmings...

Refer to the earlier quote.

No playing with math and statistics is going to change that. There is no loophole or way around those numbers. Stop swinging for a hit.

You're the one who is playing with statistics. Look at this graph again:
http://www.geocraft.com...
It says 0.047% for misc., but we know that CFCs are certainly man-made. If you can't read your own sources properly, I see no point in arguing with you.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2013 5:06:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The CO2 accumulates, you know.

So does the Natural CO2. So after a 100 years of accumulating, we would still only equal 0.117%.

So the CO2 level suddenly decided to skyrocket on its own? I'm sorry, but if you tried using this argument in a room with anyone but the most fringe climate denial groups, you'd get laughed out of the room. CO2 concentrations don't just increase 33% because they feel like it.

Obviously they did. You are clearly the only one in denial here. If CO2 rose 33%, and humans only equal 0.117% of it, than the rest is natural.

History shows us that the atmosphere can, and does, own it's own, change massive degrees (Ice Ages) unless you want to blame the last Ice Age on humans. You know what caused the Ice Age? CO2 levels raising. I'll explain later.

So the CO2 level suddenly decided to skyrocket on its own? I'm sorry, but if you tried using this argument in a room with anyone but the most fringe climate denial groups, you'd get laughed out of the room. CO2 concentrations don't just increase 33% because they feel like it.

Emissions will be equal to or lesser than what is currently there. If human's only make up 0.117% of CO2 emissions, than they will only equal or be less than 0.117% of what is in the atmosphere right now.

0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity

You're right, I misread the note. What it said was that Humans CO2 emissions only account for 0.117% of all the Greenhouses gases affect... All our gas emissions put together account for 0.28% of all Greenhouse Gases effect.

Total CO2 in the air from people is... 3.225%. Albeit higher than mine, it's much smaller than your unsupported 25%. It also proves how little effect 3.225% has. This hurts your case that human's emissions are causing Global Warming, when it only causes 0.28% of Global Warming...

You corrected my mistake, but hurt your own case doing so. You proved not only does adding 3.225% extra CO2 cause very little Global Warming, but that human's do not make up 25% of all CO2 as you said.

You mostly hurt your case by further showing how little we effect Global Warming.

[citation needed]

Don't need citation. It's logic. The size of the effect is relative to the size of the cause. The larger the cause, the larger the effect.

Global Warming has risen temperatures by 1.33"F(a) over the last century. If we effected Global Warming by +0.28%, than we are responsible for 0.28% of that rise...
This equals +0.003"F.

Your statistic doesn't even take into account the water vapor released by combustion reactions. Just because you read something on the Internet, it doesn't make it automatically true.

You know how bad that argument was? Just because your source is your source and not my source, it's not true! I had more sources backing my first post than you had this whole time, and I've added to the number every round.

If that is your attitude about someone's sources, than don't come here. Here, we source our stuff, and those sources are held true until proven false through logic, not denial.

Of course it includes combustion... What do you think it means by man-made? All man-made sources, combustion, boiling water, Nuclear Power plants, etc...

It goes back several hundred thousand years. Is this not enough for you?

Our actual recordings (with weather balloons, etc..) go back only so far. You know what our data on the hundreds of thousands of years worth we collected from the Ice Caps say?

They say that without man, massive climate change can still occur(a) and that the Ice Caps has, throughout history, decline and grew on mass scale with this climate change(b)

(a)http://www.debate.org...
(b)http://www.geocraft.com...

If you review both of them, you will see that Climate Change on a massive scale is possible. (top image credited to Utahjoker.)

The top picture also shows that much of the reason we are having record hot years is because we are returning from a miniature Ice Age. Although not really an Ice Age, it was colder than average, and took place long into when we started recording temperatures, so our 'record hot' summers are only record hot in proportion to prior temperatures. This Ice Age was know as the Little Ice Age.

Could you explain why it happens consistently in a predictable pattern, then?

Also, it *still* doesn't explain why we've never seen CO2 levels going above 300 historically.

We have found is that it's far from the highest levels in history. Carbon Dioxide reached nearly 1000 - 2000 ppmv in the Mesozoic Era (without the help of men). This is only one example. In fact, Carbon Dioxide measurements are fairly low right now compared to Earth's History.(c)

c) http://www.sonoma.edu...

As for pattern, the Earth has always had some pattern... It's how life can even exist. It's a loop... Global Warming causes X to happen. X causes Global Cooling... Global Cooling causes Y to happen. Y causes Global Warming to happen.

Here's an example... Global Warming causes CO2 levels to rise naturally. CO2 is actually a Global Coolant. It doesn't heat things up.(d,e) The CO2 and Nitrogen get to such a level that the Earth begins to cool off, entering a miniature Ice Age, this corresponds with scientists belief that an Ice Age may be coming.(f)

d) http://principia-scientific.org...
e) http://www.purdue.edu...
f)http://www.express.co.uk...

Okay, then. Please explain what natural sources decided to suddenly put a bunch of CO2 in the air, then.

As far as we know, CO2 has never gone to 400 PPM on its own. You have the burden of proof, here.

Denial is not an argument. Human's only produce 3.225% of all CO2, and Nature is producing the rest. It could be a volcano, or monkey's growing advanced, and burning away at the forest... It doesn't matter... Nature is still producing 30% more CO2 on it's own, and denial will not changing that.

For starters, a growing Earth with many growing populations. You now how much CO2 termites produce in a year? And those population's dying.

"Most sources of CO2 emissions are natural... For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands and the action of forest fires results in the release of about 439 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide every year..." - Wikipedia.org, Sourced from: http://www.ipcc.ch...)

I already proved it did. You also have BOP. This is a two sided debate.

"The fact that natural factors caused climate changes in the past does not mean that the current climate change is natural"

Also does not mean it's man-made. Especially when only 0.28% of it is shown to be man-made.

That's a Government website, it doesn't want to pick sides, but it's article does still back me up.

Unfortunately for this baseless assertion of yours, I can point to the exact system used to measure sea ice volume:

I do have a link above that compares current Ice volume across a much longer period of time.

You're the one who is playing with statistics. Look at this graph again:

It says CFC are only 65.7% is man-made. Albeit more Man-made than nature, it still implies nature produces it, and is not 'certainly man-made'. This accounts for 0.072% of the Greenhouse effect, so it's irrelevant.

You bring up an unrelated gas we've never talked about (CFC) listed in my charts to describe how I misread complete other gas. Red Herring.

Prior Global Warnings still prove nature can produce it's own rising Greenhouse effect and cause Global Warming on it's own.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2013 5:10:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You seem to be ignoring Roy's argument.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2013 2:15:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Next half!

I am present a stronger case against Global Warming being a man-made process.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How do we know Global Climate Change is a natural process?

Because research as shown us how often and even how systematic it is. Global Warming and Global Cooling (Glacial periods, aka Ice Ages) cycle every 100,000 years. This can be seen in the cycle that Temperature and CO2 seem to follow.(1) It hasn't always been this way. The cycle used take 41,000 years. This was changed by the "Mid-Pleistocene Transition" (MPT).(2) How far back do those records go? 1.5 million years.

1) http://www.grida.no...
2) http://www.sciencedaily.com...

The cycle is seen in many studies. Reviewing these studies, it becomes evident that Global Warming and Cooling are extremely natural. If the studies are correct, we can see where a cool period lasts through out the 100,000 years between the Warming Periods. After these cooler periods, Global Warming takes affect almost immediately, with a sudden spike up.

If those charts hold up, we can see where our prior Ice Age (ending 11,000 years ago(3)) ends, and at the 11,000 year mark too. This means we are in the Global Warming stage of the cycle, as we should be. Actually, we are going rather slow, with every other Global Warming cycle on the chart spiking to the top immediately. Our's seem to have cut off early, and only now is it finishing the rise in temperature, matching prior Global Warming.

3) http://library.thinkquest.org...

With this, we can assume man's position in this is coincidental. The cycle had been set, whether men were here or not, at this moment, Global Warming would still be taking affect. Period. Obviously man weren't around to systematically cause the last 1.5 million years of the Global Warming-Cooling pattern.

Are men making this Global Warming worse? Let's talk about that.

The case that man are responsible simply because it's worse this time around is simply unwarranted. It is completely possible for nature to raise Carbon Dioxide past 400+ ppmv. In the Mesozoic Period, Carbon Dioxide had naturally rose to 2000 - 4000 ppmv. It stayed there for quite a while.(4, 5) Temperatures rose equally as high.

4) http://www.sonoma.edu...
5) http://www.pnas.org...

Temperatures can move naturally, and on a massive scale, beyond anything we have witness in our race's lifetime.

But are Human's responsible for this one? No, this one is purely natural too, and is occurring at the right time in the cycle (albeit slowed down for most this cycles run). Now the question is, is this time being worse than the last few proof that's it's because of humans? Well technically, no. The Mesozoic Period's Global Warming was likely worse than the Global Warming before it, being worse is as natural in nature as being normal.

We know this incident is natural as well. Human CO2 emissions only account for 3.225% of all emissions. This leaves 96.775% of all emissions being natural. Most CO2 comes from things decaying in nature. Human Water Vapor emissions equal 0.001% of all Water Vapor. With Global Warming Potential (GWP) of each gas added in, we get the following case on the total Greenhouse Effect of each gas...

GAS -- GREENHOUSE EFFECT -- HUMAN EFFECT
Water Vapor -- 95.000% -- 0.001%
Carbon Dioxide -- 3.618% -- 0.117%
Methane -- 0.360 -- 0.066%
Nitrous oxide -- 0.950% -- 0.047%
CFC's (and misc) -- 0.072% -- 0.047
Total -- 100% -- 0.278%

At 0.278%, or rounded to 0.28%, human's add what amount of an increase of 0.003*F, tiny compared to the other 99.883% of Greenhouse Gas produced naturally.(6)

I should note, denying the statistics under the pretense that you can not imagine it any other way or under the pretense that you have questions regarding it that you can't answer, isn't grounds to build a case.

6) http://www.geocraft.com...

If Human's 0.28% added to normal Greenhouse Gas amount is enough to push it over the edge, than the 33% natural increase in normal Greenhouse Gas level mentioned in the opponent's argument would have destroyed the environment by now. No, if our contribution to temperature increase is relative to our contribution to the Greenhouse Effect, and it is, then we are responsible for an increase of 0.003*F. Literally, if human's never existed, temperatures increase would drop from 1.33*F to 1.327*F... Aka, drop to 1.33*F .

What about the Ice Caps?

Everything I said is true, Sea Ice is growing. While it's true Land Ice is not growing, what did you expect? Does Global Warming have to be man-made before it'll melt ice?

Global Warming will naturally melt the ices before cooling off again. Then we begin the long slope into an ice filled Glacier Period.

Ice Caps melting isn't evidence that men is causing Global Warming, it's evidence that the world didn't break, and heat still melts ice.

Ice has always melted with warming, then increased again.(7) Earth has never had a specific condition it's meant to be in, and then anything else is a deviation. It has always ran a cycle like this. Running that cycle is Earth's only pre-set condition.

7) http://www.geocraft.com...

They say we encountered a spike in CO2 like never before. While that last part is already wrong, there was a spike. This isn't because human's are pushing it up. We have actually took 10,000 years longer than normal for that spike in CO2 to come.

Everyone like's focusing on that CO2 spike. Really, the only reason for all the attention to CO2 is because human's produce 29 Gigatons of CO2 a year. This is actually small compared to the 439 gigatons that Land nature produces and the 332 gigatons that the Ocean produces. This means human's are producing only slightly above 3% of all CO2 (as I said...)

So are we burning too much Fossil Fuels for the ecosystem? No. We outsource our additional CO2 though man-made CO2 Sinks. The biggest one that Global Warming Advocates never admit to is Landfills.(8)

8) http://www.wisegeek.com...

So how bad is CO2 levels raising? Right now, not very. Making up nearly 3.618% of the total Greenhouse Effect, despite it's inflated state right now. CO2 only has a GWP multiplier of 1, and is only brought up in discussions because human's produce so much. We have records connecting CO2 levels to Global Warming and cooling, but this doesn't imply CO2 is the only, or even the main, cause. There is still Water Vapor that makes up around 95% of the total Greenhouse Effect after multipliers are applied.

------------------------------------------------------------

CO2 levels have reached 400 ppmv before, and they have went 10x higher before, and on it's own. The Mesozoic Period and the last 1.5 million years proves it's completely natural, and completely NOT man-made.

Historical records show that Global Warming and Glacier Periods are both highly natural, and on a massive scale. Our's is no different, except that for the 10,000 year lag.

With human's contributing only 0.28% to the whole Greenhouse Effect (with GWP applied,) we are making no noticeable impact on this cycle.

Global Warming and Glacier Periods are needed to refresh the forests, ice caps, and build biodiversity. They also help bring nutrients into the ground.

EXTRA READING:
a) http://en.wikipedia.org...
b) http://www.drroyspencer.com...
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2013 2:25:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'll add more to my cases later.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --