The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

Global Warming has not accelerated the Water Cycle in the last 115 years

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 8/23/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,561 times Debate No: 78783
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (21)
Votes (2)




Resolution:Global Warming has not accelerated the Water Cycle in the last 115 years.

Global Warming - A process of climate change frequently associated with the warming of the environment due to man made pollution.

115 Years - For statistical limitations to be 1900 to 2014 and early 2015

Accelerating the water cycle - A sustained increase in water evaporation, or precipitation beyond the first 30 years of the 115 year range, or 1900 to 1930.

Round 1: Acceptance, and Definitions
Round 2: Presenting all argument, Cons Response
Round 3: Defense, Cons Reponse
Round 4: Closing statments.

BOP: Pro unless Con presents an argument then Shared

This will be a repeat of


Global warming is bad! I agrre that golbal warming is bad for all of us. Water evaporating is bad as well, but i think that golbal warming has made it happen. Global warming makes everything bad in the eviroment happen.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank my opponent. Since this is a repeat of my prior debate I'll start off with that.

I will be presenting a controversial view that Global Warming has not accelerated the water cycle. This will have actual analysis of weather station data from NOAA. It is a large dataset, and I am willing to show anyone who asks how to begin analysing it. The Evaporation data is small enough to analyse in excel, but precipitation data would require a database or custom tools to work with.

Analysis Method:

In order to estimate precipitation, and evaporation levels I will be utilizing the NOAA GHCND weather station dataset. If you wish to download and verify the dataset can be found here:

1) To process this data the first step is to convert each stations monthly 31 day values into a single monthly median value for each station.

2) Then each stations monthly median values are averages to create the average median for the life of the station.

3) The station average median is then subtracted from the station median to create a delta that represents that stations change away from the average median.

4) Stations are then selected based on the date of operation. For analysis starting in 1900 all weather stations that were operational in 1900 and operational at the end of the analysis must be used. Weather stations that were not operational at the start of the analysis cannot be used because they will induce an unknown bias that cannot be accounted for.

5) From there the data can be graphed, or each months delta for the year can be averaged to create a yearly change for a simpler graph.

1900 to Present Precipitation

The Figure 1 below shows the change in precipitation from 1900 to 2015. As shown the precipitation for 1900 to 1930 stays consistently above the average median by about 1mm. The graph of SO2 emissions is there to demonstrate the correlation found in Global Dimming is present in this data. SO2 impedes precipitation by blocking the amount of light that reaches ocean organisms like Phytoplankton that create critical rain cloud compounds[1]. It also cutbacks on plant life by reducing light which also means less water in the air from plant transpiration which is what 90% of the water a plant gets is used for[5].

As SO2 emissions were successfully cut back in 1990 there is a clear indication of an increase in precipitation. At most it increased to similar levels in the 40’s and 50’s up until around 2005. It is my burden to prove that the radical increase post 2005 in precipitation is clearly caused by factors not created by man.

Figure 1:

1971 to Present Pan Evaporation Rate:

Fortunately, NOAA’s dataset does provide additional detail to see what may have changed in Figure 2. If evaporation increased due to additional heat it should appear in the Pan Evaporation rate. Regretfully there is an insufficient number of stations with pan evaporation rate data going back to 1900 so to increase the number of stations to a sufficient number for analysis the start date has been moved to 1971 allowing us to use 124 stations.

Rather than show a gradual increase evaporation from gradual warming the pan evaporation stays constant from 1971 until about 2010-2011 where it then makes a radical change which correlates to the radical change in precipitation.

Figure 2:

1980 to Present Precipitation and Evaporation

In order to get a better idea of what is happening the date range will need to be compressed further to allow the number of stations to be increased for further analysis. This way we will have 10,209 stations for precipitation, and 156 stations for evaporation for monthly analysis. We can see in Figure 3 better detail what a 20% decrease in SO2 pollution did to the precipitation rate. Unfortunately the increase in 2005, and later, was due to China, and India having increased SO2 pollution[7].

Now we can see a mild increase in evaporation starting in 2005, and the shift in 2010 can be isolated to October 2010 using a box and whiskers analysis on the dataset to flag outliers.

Figure 3:

Solar Forcing of Evaporation:

October 2010 is a very important time period. It marks a violent beginning of the Sun’s solar cycle 24 approach to solar maximum[8]. By graphing the Sun’s Sunspots it is possible to see if cycle 24 had an actual influence on the evaporation rate. Clearly the increase in evaporation has many of the same features as cycle 24 in Figure 4. However, none of the prior cycles appear to have any significant influence. However, in 2008 NASA announced that they had discovered the Earth's Electromagnetic Field was weakening[2], and that solar cycle 24 would subject the Earth to more solar storms. This weakening most likely began before it was detected leading one to believe that higher than normal levels of light, and radiation began to leak in explaining the small increase during the previous solar minimum. As the field began weakening further evaporation accelerated. This also feed more plants, and phytoplankton allowing for more rapid development of rain clouds post 2005.

Now that the Earth's field is weakening 10 times faster[3] than before explaining the continued increase even thow sunspots are on the decline. None of the increases above 1900 to 1930 norms can be attributed to any man made causes, and is entirely separate from any global warming claims. The accelerated water cycle is caused by the complex machinations of the Sun, and Earth's Magnetic Field.

Figure 4:




Hey medv4380, unfornatly I cant read graphs and that stuff, i always had a problem with it in scool :/ but cool debate! I still think that global worming is bad, and should be stopped! Watre cycles are good but not if they are bad for the enviroment!
Debate Round No. 2


I would like to remind my opponent that they had ample time to review what the arguments would be long before even accepting the debate.

My opponent makes the claim that global warming is bad, and should be stopped. However, this is contingent on the existence of global warming. One of the claims of global warming is that it has accelerated the water cycle, and my claim is that global warming has not. If one of the claims of global warming is in doubt that it is reasonable to doubt that global warming exists as claimed.

As for the quality of the water cycles nature as Good, or Bad that is irrelevant to this debate, and subjective. An accelerated water cycle would mean more fresh water, and many people are in need of more fresh water. However, it could also make large storms more prevalent for others. It is irrelevant since this debate is about global warming having caused it, and not about if it is good, or bad.


Come on you weak fool, it's time you stopped roaming the web for articles and data you can copy and paste, and delve into that shallow brain of yours. And least that way it would be more fun when I destroy you. Ah well, this will have to do.

I enjoyed the quote you chose on your profile; "Chaos is inherent in all things." It's most certainly inherent in your spectacle of foolery. You're a programmer. Pathetic. Why don't you go program another child for you to debate, which, based on this tragic show, is clearly your suited demographic. Not only in debating, but in sexual preference as well I presume. You're a twisted little creature, copying and pasting articles that you have no sense of, posing as an erudite man when instead you could be freeing the boys from your basement.

You're worthless.
I win.
Debate Round No. 3


My opponent appears to be under the mistaken impression that I've plagiarized my argument, and my chart data. No evidence is provided, and no proof could ever be provided because the chart data, and analysis is my own analysis of the publicly available Global Historical Climatology Network Data. I've also cited the pertinent NASA, and NOAA sources that support the analysis of my data, but they are only pieces of the whole.

It's interesting that my opponent has spent the time trolling though my profile looking for personal attacks. Why my opponent thinks the career or Programmer is some how a negative for this debate I can only defer to my opponents claims to their own schooling in Round 2. In order to process the GHCN Data the skills of a programmer are critical. The data consists of just over 98 thousand files, and is about 14 gigs compressed into a single 3 gig file. Oracle would call what I do the work of a Data Scientist, and my employer prefers the moniker Research Analyst. I just happen to prefer Programmer to all the other possible titles.

Perhaps my opponent would have had more fun had they used their real profile rather than one a throw away one.

But that is neither here nor there. I welcome my opponents rebuttal.


missjones forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by medv4380 3 years ago
@roguetech No you've been on a fishing expedition in search of an excuse. You're clear misunderstanding of the word approach, and other complaints, indicates that you only skimmed the debate, and never had any intention of an honest vote. But it's good to see just how someone such as yourself will attack irrationally rather than attempt to debate.
Posted by roguetech 3 years ago
Oh, well, you should have mentioned you have a source for your sourced picture of the sun, for if anyone doubted it was actually a picture of the sun!

If you had mentioned that, I totally would have cared.
Posted by medv4380 3 years ago
@roguetech You must have a basic comprehension problem. I said no such thing. My statements were completely truthful, and I was fully prepared to back up any errant attack if someone doubted the basics of the data.
Posted by roguetech 3 years ago
Gotcha. You INTENDED it to be dishonestly meaningless. Fair enough.

Wasn't that my original point? (<- that's a rhetorical question)
Posted by medv4380 3 years ago
@roguetech There is no ambiguity in my statement. Had I said 2005 I'd have been wrong since the data clearly shows it moving away from Solar Maximum. It's also doubtful any reasonable person could ever read my statement as you have since you can never approach the air port while you're at the air port, and that your approach begins when you move towards it. The source primary was to show that indeed the sun was beginning solar flare activity in October 2010 which it very well does.

Had any of my opponents attempted to attach the data with such a weak argument I'd have simply generated the graph of the 6 months of sun spots prior and post October 2010. There is a very clear and unmistakable move upwards.

What more may you do is entirely up to you.
Posted by roguetech 3 years ago
Apparently your approach is to make a claim containing an implication of being fact, while hiding behind the vague claim "beginning" of "approach" which could mean anything from the exact opposite - solar minimum, to just a completely arbitrary unstated standard. Your approach to citing a source for that claim, where perhaps your meaning could be made clear, is to link to a picture of the sun" Seriously, you are arguing the point that the "beginning of the approach" to solar maximum was determined by you looking - not even at the sun itself - but a picture of the sun.

Regardless, I fail to see why you think I should care"? You've already convinced me to change my vote. What more may I do for you today?
Posted by medv4380 3 years ago
@roguetech In that statement there is no date for solar maximum. Do you misunderstand the word approach?
Posted by roguetech 3 years ago
>October 2010 is a very important time period. It marks a violent beginning of the Sun"s solar cycle 24 approach to solar maximum[8].
Posted by medv4380 3 years ago
@roguetech Still avoiding addressing your false claim of my argument? Where did I state the date of Solar Maximum?

I have no need to lean on others to support my claims. I'm fully capable of reasoning out stats and figures on my own.

You however claimed to be incapable. You started off claiming that it couldn't be seen due to the noise in the data. You couldn't know that unless you were capable of reading the data. Which your claim is that you cannot even read a basic graph, or replicate it due to a lack of education. Hence you're only appealing to others and not your own reasoning.
Posted by roguetech 3 years ago
>How hard is it living your life as an Appeal to Authority Fallacy?

You going to answer your question, or just leave me hanging?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Unbelievable.Time 3 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: A clear win for Pro. Con has no any argument.
Vote Placed by roguetech 3 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: *sigh* Giving Con the win based primarily on conduct, as per the comments.