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

Global warming exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/15/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,377 times Debate No: 24674
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (31)
Votes (1)




Global Warming - rising in global tempertures

We are NOT debating if it's man made. We ARE arguing if it exists. I argue it's happening, my opponent argues global tempertures from the date ~1900 - present has not been on a warming trend. BoP on my opponent, no negotiating here.

1st round acceptance by con, no semantics or trolling.



I accept this debate. You may begin.
Debate Round No. 1



There are many data sets one has to look into to determine whether global warming is real. There are three main ways of determining global temperatures, 1) Surface Scanners, 2) Satellites, 3) Air Balloons. Balloons and Satellites are considered the most accurate measurements, surface scanners pick up the same trends but to larger degrees. Many people blame this on the urban heat island effect, though using corrected data (i.e. only sea and rural scanners) you still get the warming trend. All three major USA sensor groups all find global warming, and I will discuss this later.

My points revolve mainly around data, if not on all data, from the three main stations. They will be discussed in order of accuracy, the most accuracy in question first.

===Surface Scanner Data===

Now there are three major governmental organizations that are considered "warmest" organizations, in other words their data shows warming and they therefore adopt the global warming hypothesis.

1. NOAA data[1]

We see consistent warming, like all temperature there is temporary flat lines/decreases but the overall trend is up.

2. British data

Using graphs, we see similar data. Except the warming trend from 2000 on is a slight decrease, the overall trend (which is my BOP to prove) is still upward. It is almost a carbon copy.[2]

3. NASA data

The NASA data is the most cited as its graphs look like the most warming has occurred (because of the 15 degree format they use). Their data states “[…]global cooling after 1940 was small, and there was net global warming of about 0.4°C between the 1880s and 1970s.”[3]

Their graphs look like this:

About a .4 degree increase since 1900, based on NASA.

Objection: Urban heat island effect

This is the most common objection for the surface scanner data, that’s why its “accuracy” is in controversy. So in order to end the controversy scientists followed these steps:

  • Using only data gained from buoys or ships
  • Instead of using individual data average it together to smooth over the “bumps”
  • Smooth the data to account for the urban heat island effect

Now the data gathered after these regressions where preformed got the same trend. In other words, the accuracy is not in question as the urban heat island effect failed to affect the overall trend. Here is a graph so you know I am not lying:[4]

As we can see from surface scanners, global warming likely exists.

===Balloon data===

The main type of balloon data is upper air, which is what I will look into.

  1. Upper air

The upper air data has lead most scientists to believe global warming is ”undoubtedly” real. The NOAA states, “Data collected and averaged between the 850–300 mb levels (approximately 5,000 to 30,000 feet above the surface) indicate that 1958–2011 global temperature trends in the middle troposphere are similar to trends in surface temperature; 0.13°C/decade (0.23°F/decade) for surface and 0.15°C/decade (0.27°F/decade) for mid-troposphere. Since 1976, mid-troposphere temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.17°C/decade (0.31°F/decade). For 2011, global mid-troposphere temperatures were 0.34°C (0.61°F) above the 1971–2000 mean—the ninth warmest on record.”[5] The graphs tell the same story:

Now this cannot have any little urban heat island effect, using the black line (surface scanners) and the red line (upper air data) we see the same trend and a little more warming from the upper air.


Although balloons and surface scanners are good measurements’, satellite data is still considered the most reliable data with over 80% accuracy in a 0.1-degree range. Satellites can quickly gather global data whereas the balloons target specific areas and are averaged together, and surface data is stationary.[6]

The most recent data shows the whole earth is warming. Satellite data, also, shows similar patterns of surface and upper-air data. A few works often cited by skeptics claiming satellites show cooling have been debunked by scientists as most data shows the satellites get similar trends to surface data. Also note this measurement cover 80% of the world, and within a few days’ gets data from 100%. Graphs from one 2005 study:[7]

And other data from skeptical science:[8]


As we can see, all major data sets indicate warming. This is irrefutable. Vote PRO.











smileydodge forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


I kinda wanna be CON now, so I could present the [semi] correct side.


smileydodge forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


smileydodge forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ADT_Clone 6 years ago
Sorry I didn't get time to properly reply, the burden of proof may be on both parties, the assumption I made was incorrect. The point being though there seems to be a scientific consensus on this issue, it's too late and I haven't validated these references, but here is something that I found that seems promising:

I know there is a lot of research that shows similar effects. So if the assumption of a consensus is correct and there are plentiful documents to show it, it sort of makes the debate pointless unless you have an alternate explanation on how the CO2 can sit in our atmosphere and defy science.

But if you want to debate purely whether anthropogenic warming is occurring, then sure, I'll take the BoP.
Posted by 16kadams 6 years ago
So just because im a minority I have the BOP?
Posted by ADT_Clone 6 years ago
The problem is Im pretty sure anthropogenic warming is generally agreed upon by most scientists. So if you were to debate against it being the case, you would have the bop as your opinion would be the minority opinion.

I will double check that and check my sources after work.
Posted by 16kadams 6 years ago
No, pro is the one making a statement. I think bio in this debate should be on me, I forgot to change that here. But the bop is always on pro.
Posted by ADT_Clone 6 years ago
I will respond to your other comment later as I am not on a suitable device.

Ill gladly debate anthropogenic warming, under the assumption that I would be taking the position of the Pro. The burden of proof will be largely on you as you will need to show not only that it is incorrect, but also explain why the earth is warming.
Posted by 16kadams 6 years ago
ADT, let's debste anthropogenic warming
Posted by 16kadams 6 years ago
I have read every one of the skeptical science posts, their scientific evidence is weak and unconvincing. I have seen 2000 skeptic peer reviewed studies and read 1200 pages of it, then looked into alarmist theory extensively. After thorough research I have found the skeptics have a better case. I recomend you look through more articles then "skeptical".

Warner tempertures, historically, have always helped humans.

All of those have "proper " sources.

The rest of my statements are supported by video
Posted by ADT_Clone 6 years ago
16kaadams, I'm ignorant?

"Warmer temperatures always has lead to more prosperous times. Another one degree would be great!"

I would like some sources for when globally warmer temperatures lead to more prosperous times. Or even some examples would suffice.

"Ore_Ele, hotter temperture = more rain. More co2 = more plants."

Cherry picking evidence won't help you either.

1. The source you quoted is a news article
2. The source used in the news article uses observational data which seems to contradict most of the scientific models that have been agreed upon in science.

Not to say the source isn't correct, but the source isn't reliable until the observations are repeated and supported in a peer reviewed paper. Cherry picking the two pieces of information you did("hotter temperture = more rain. More co2 = more plants.") in order to support your argument does not support it well.

Here is a whole cherry tree you can pick, with proper sources:

Here is some information on plant/animal adaptation, which is in relation to your "we're still in an ice age" argument:

Enjoy picking!
Posted by 16kadams 6 years ago
Numodious, it's easy to argue con. If no one accepts I might re-instate as con.

Ore_Ele, hotter temperture = more rain. More co2 = more plants.
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Higher temp may be good for mankind in general, but that does not mean that it would be good for individual people or particular groups of people. For one, Canada and Russia would warm, creating a lot more farmland. But the US would also warm and lose a lot of farm land. So while others may do better, the US may not.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: FFs.