The Instigator
Pro (for)
21 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 8/30/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 957 times Debate No: 79050
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)




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

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 of arguments(Pro)
Round 3: Refutation
Round 4: Closing Statements

BOP: Pro unless Con presents an argument then Shared

This will be a repeat of this debate:


Yes it has, Penguin.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this challenge.

I'd like to remind the audience, and my opponent, before we get to far on the definition of Global Warming, and clarify any ambiguity. The round 1 definition should be sufficient, but to clarify Global Warming is the changes to the environment caused by manmade pollution. Pollution would be excess CO2, SO2, and so on. My opponent did not object, or provide an alternative definition in round 1 so I assume he accepts the definition.

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 as shown with NASA's October 18th 2010 image of the Sun ramping up for a Solar Flare[8]. Note in the Figure 4 October 2010 is not solar maximum, but the significant shift upwards in sunspot. 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]. 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:



Ok. That's not true.
Debate Round No. 2


Unfortunately my opponent has decided to go with only a contradiction, and not actually an argument. I extend my argument.




Failure---->You lose

I win.
Debate Round No. 3


Unfortunat. It looks like my opponent isn't even active anymore.


gokuFNAF2 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Unbelievable.Time 3 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: FF. Con did not even try to refute any content being raised up by Pro.
Vote Placed by Lexus 3 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: No arguments presented on con's part and forfeiture
Vote Placed by 16kadams 3 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't say anything of worth.