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

Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming

Do you like this debate?NoYes+10
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 6 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/30/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,342 times Debate No: 29687
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (25)
Votes (6)




I would like to thank Magic8000 for agreeing to this topic. Please read everything below before accepting.

Full Resolution

I will be arguing that mankind is the not main cause of global warming. We will not be arguing if global warming exists or not, it will be assumed that it does; only if global warming has an anthropogenic cause.

BoP is shared.


Mankind: "The human race; human beings collectively without reference to sex; humankind."[1]

Main: "Chief in size, extent, or importance; principal; leading;"[2]

Cause: "A person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect."[3]

Global Warming: "Global warming is the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century, and its projected continuation."[4]


1. The first round is for acceptance.
2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.
3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.
4. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be posted in an outside link.
5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.

Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.

Debate Structure

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con)
Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)
Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)




I accept. A question about R2 though, can I present my rebuttals in R2?
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank Magic8000 for accepting this debate.

I. The Universe and Global Warming

The current state of the Galaxy and our Sun is affecting our temperatures.

I.i. The Rest of the Solar System

The Sun clearly is in a warmer phase, because all of the other planets have increasing temperatures as well.

"In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun."[1]

"'Global warming on Neptune's moon Triton as well as Jupiter and Pluto, and now Mars has some [scientists] scratching their heads over what could possibly be in common with the warming of all these planets … Could there be something in common with all the planets in our solar system that might cause them all to warm at the same time?'"[2]

Two things can be drawn from this. One, that if other planets are warming, that it is only natural for the Earth to be warming as well. And second, that even if all these planets did have natural causes, then that is a sign of Earth's natural climatic change, instead of man-made.

I.ii. The Position of the Milky Way Galaxy

Every approximately 135 million years, Earth enters a more populated area of the Milky Way, and as a result, more cosmic rays hit the Earth, which causes cooling. Currently, we are in a less populated area of the Milky Way, which means that less of these cosmic rays will be hitting the Earth, which means less cloud formation, and of course, warming.

[3] for the source on this hypothesis. The sun can also cause this through evaporation.

II. Earthly Causes

There are many internal causes of Global Warming as well.

II.i. Ocean Current Anomalies

Ocean temperature anomalies seem to be rising-along with the temperature.

" can model past temperatures as a linear trend (that started well before CO2 was added in any substantial quantity) and periodic bumps... ...temperatures over the last 100+ years look a lot like a linear trend plus ocean cycle-driven bumps"[4]

What is causing all the bumps?:

Reflects the correlation between ocean oscillations and temperature.

As shown in the graph, the PDO, or ocean currents, temperature has affected the average Earth's temperature.

II.ii. Clouds: A Continuation of Point I.ii.

I mentioned about the position of the Milky Way Galaxy and the Sun in regards to these "cosmic rays". Here is a more in depth look at the effects of position.

"The implications, if true, had potentially enormous implications for the debate about natural causes of warming. When the sun is very active, it can be thought of as pushing away cosmic rays from the Earth, reducing their incidence. When the sun is less active, we see more cosmic rays. This is fairly well understood. But if Svensmark was correct, it would mean that periods of high solar output should coincide with reduced cloud formation (due to reduced cosmic race incidence), which in turn would have a warming effect on the Earth, since less sunlight would be reflected back into space before hitting the Earth.

Here was a theory, then, that would increase the theoretical impact on climate of an active sun, and better explain why solar irradiance changes might be underestimating the effect of solar output changes on climate and temperatures."[4]

"Since he first suggested his hypothesis over a decade and a half ago, Svensmark and other researchers have slowly been putting together research to test it." The results were: "Scientists found that when shielding was removed and natural cosmic rays allowed to hit the chamber, cloud seeding increased dramatically, and it increased substantially again when additional artificial cosmic rays were added. Svensmark appears to have gotten it right."[5] Proof here is in the next points.

III. The 1500-Year Cycle

This has to do with a cycle of the climate that can explain the warming.

"Through at least the last million years, a moderate 1500-year warm-cold cycle has been superimposed over the longer, stronger Ice Ages and warm interglacials."[6]

Here is a graph related to this:

Shows that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today.

There are two things we can conclude from this graph. First, that up-and-down cycles are normal for the long-term climate. This century's global warming is nothing new. The second thing we can conclude, is that today's global warming is not as bad as the Medieval Warm Period's peak yet, and the Medieval Warm Period was less than the Holocene Maximum Period.

"Even more important, the earth is not "the warmest it has ever been." In fact, the earth was much warmer during the Medieval Warm Period when human agriculture flourished!"[7]

"The scientists found evidence that on average, every 1,470 years, plus or minus 500 years, cold, ice-bearing waters, which today circulate around southern Greenland, pushed as far south as Great Britain."[8]

There seems to be a full cycle of up-down-up temperatures of the climate every 1470 years. And this goes as far back as at least 1 million years ago. Currently, we are in an upswing of temperatures, just coming off of the Little Ice Age, the peak to be in a few hundred years, making the peak-to-peak difference between today's global warming and the Medieval Warm Period a little less than 1500 years. So today's Global Warming is a natural, cyclical occurence.

IV. The Sun: The Proof of Theories I.ii and II.ii

The sun's cycles have a lot to do with temperatures also.

"In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and thus cooler it will be. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth."[9]

"Svensmark matched the data on cosmic rays from the neutron monitor in Climax, Colorado, with the satellite measurements of solar irradiance from 1970 to 1990. Over the period between 1975 and 1989, he found cosmic rays decreased by 1.2 percent annually, amplifying the sun's change in irradiance about four-fold"[6]

So, as the sun's activity increases, so does the temperature.

This below graph shows the correlation:

Considers the correlation between temperature and solar activity.

This graph clearly shows that temperature goes up and down with solar activity, because an increase in solar activity directly correlates with an increase in average temperature 1-2 years later.

And as a final side note, I would like to present this graph that helps disprove the anthropogenic cause theory, regarding again, ocean temperature anomalies:

Shows that two periods of warming are the same, yet one is blamed on humans.

So "nature" created the same temperature trend as "humans" did.


[3]: MacRae, Paul: "Alarm: Global Warming-- Facts versus Fears."
[6]: Singer, S. Fred, and Dennis T. Avery: "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years."


"On the rebuttals, apologies. I misworded the debate structure. It should be "no rebuttals by pro." Just present your arguments affirming the resolution. Thanks."

As said by Con, I will present my arguments

The typical argument is like this [1]
  1. The Earth's atmosphere keeps the planet much warmer than it would be without an atmosphere.
  2. The main gases which contribute to this are carbon dioxide, methane and water vapor. Collectively these are called greenhouse gases.
  3. The ability of these gases to act as greenhouse gases can be shown in a laboratory.
  4. The quantity of these greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution, and their concentration continues to do so.
  5. The concentration of these gases has increased as a consequence of human activity.
  6. The temperature of Earth's atmosphere has been increasing and continues to increase.
  7. The increase in global temperature correlates with the increases of greenhouse gases.

Just about every scientist agrees with these 7 premises. Even some skeptics do too and I believe Con does (although I could be wrong). The following premise is the disputed one

8. The increase in temperature has been caused by the increase in greenhouse gases from humans.

We know the climate on Earth has changed before. We must understand that in order for a climate to rise naturally, A forcing must exist to force the climate to change. There's no known forcing that fits the fingerprint of the evidence we see, except one, anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

We know that humans are producing 30 billion tons of Co2 a year in the atmosphere [3]. Let's see evidence that follows from this.

I will paste 6 evidences from “10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change” [2]

1. When we measure the type of carbon accumulating in the atmosphere, we observe more of the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels [4]

2. This is corroborated by measurements of oxygen in the atmosphere. Oxygen levels are falling in line with the amount of carbon dioxide rising, just as you'd expect from fossil fuel burning which takes oxygen out of the air to create carbon dioxide [5]

3. So we know humans are raising CO2 levels. What's the effect? Satellites measure less heat escaping out to space, at the particular wavelengths that CO2 absorbs heat, thus finding "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". [6]

4. If an increased greenhouse effect is causing global warming, we should see certain patterns in the warming. For example, the planet should warm faster at night than during the day. This is indeed being observed [7]

5. With the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) warming and the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) cooling, another consequence is the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere, otherwise known as the tropopause, should rise as a consequence of greenhouse warming. This has been observed [8]. This also contradicts the hypothesis that the earth is warming because of solar activity.

6. ....A closer look at the downward radiation finds more heat returning at CO2 wavelengths, leading to the conclusion that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming." [9] [10]

The resolution is affirmed

[1] From all references for the premises are within that
[5] Ibid
Debate Round No. 2


I would like to thank Magic8000 for presenting his arguments.

My opponent begins by stating seven premises of global warming that he claims almost all scientists believe. I will leave 1-5 as is, but I will first attempt to counter premises 6 and 7 because those simply aren't true.

I. The Temperature of Earth's Atmosphere Has Been Increasing Slightly, but No Longer Continues to Increase

Looking at the bare temperature statistics, there has now been no net warming since 1997 - 15 years with CO2 rising with no global temperature increase. Since 2003, the trend has actually been negative."[1]

Then why is it that the 2000s had the warmest years on record? "The “hottest year” claim depends on minute fractions of a degree difference between years. Even NASA's James Hansen, the leading proponent of man-made global warming in the U.S., conceded the "hottest year" rankings are essentially meaningless. Hansen explained that 2010 differed from 2005 by less than 2 hundredths of a degree F (that's 0.018F)."[2]

Here is a graph showing the last 35 years of temperature records, including a trend line:

As shown, temperatures are actually beginning to trend downward as the ocean cycles reverse.

This trend is actually set to continue for the next two decades: "Because PDO cycles last 25 to 30 years, Easterbrook expects the cooling trend to continue for another 2 decades or so. Easterbrook, in fact, documents 40 such alternating periods of warming and cooling over the past 500 years, with similar data going back 15,000 years. He further expects the flipping of the ADO to add to the current downward trend."[3]

Even though this contradicts both many computer simulations and the IPCC's official claims, it is clear that they have not been so right before:


That's a negative 0.1 degree C decrease in the last 10 years, contrary to my opponent's claim.

II. The Increase In Global Temperature Does Not Correlate With the Increases of Greenhouse Gases

Looking back at history, premise 7 is simply not true:


In fact, CO2 seems to lag behind temperature. "In fact, the air's CO2 content did not begin to rise until 400 to 1,000 years after the planet began to warm. Ice cores provide a detailed record of local temperature and CO2 concentrations. A study finds that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 +/- 200 years. CO2 does not seem to be following that well."[5]

This can be illustrated in this graph:


It is easy to see that CO2 correlates with temperature increases, not the other way around.

On a more modern frame, "In the last decade, there has been no clear warming trend. In the last century, much of the warming occurred prior to 1940, when human emissions of CO2 were relatively small compared to today. During the post-war economic boom (when one would have expected the temperature to rise) the world cooled, from the 1940s till the mid-70s (again, this is evident from accepted data used by the IPCC)."[8]

This graph shows the non-correlation of temperature and CO2 in the same timeframe:


Or to take a hot topic of conversation, the Arctic. This century's Arctic temperatures do not really correlate with CO2 increases:


In conclusion, ice core data also shows CO2 count is rising. When examining the temperature and CO2 data, the correlation is striking. CO2 only correlates on a .44 scale (r = .44). This means the correlation rates from “fair” to “poor”, which is bad news for an alarmist. It shows the correlation is not very strong.[10][11]

In addition, by the greenhouse theory, both poles should be warming. However, the Antarctic is not (I'll leave the Arctic alone for space reasons): "If the greenhouse thoery were valid, temperatures in the Arctic and the Antarctic would have risen several degrees Celsius since 1940 due to the huge emissions of man-made CO2... Recently, a team led by the University of Chicago's Peter Doran published a paper in Nature saying, '...our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000'. The data from 21 Antarctic surface stations show an average continental decline of 0.008 degrees C from 1978 to 1998, and the infrared data from satellites operating since 1979 show a decline of 0.42 degrees C per decade. They report that satellite imaging shows increases in Souther Ocean sea ice parameters from 1978 to 1996 and an increase in the length of the sea-ice season in the 1990s"[12]

III. My Opponent's Main Points

I will attack each of my opponent's points one by one.

III.i. This is irrelevant, because I already showed that CO2 does not correlate with temperature.

III.ii. Again, irrelevant.

III.iii. Maybe, but, "A short-term correlation does not imply that the CO2 increase caused the temperature increase. Causation can be inferred if there is a correlation over several cycles of CO2 concentration changes, with the CO2 change preceding the temperature change. The actual climate history shows no such correlation, and there is no compelling evidence that the recent rise in temperature was caused by CO2. Temperatures have been variable over time, and do not correlate to CO2 concentration. When CO2 concentrations were 10 times higher than they are now we were in a major ice age. As a greenhouse gas, CO2 is vastly outweighed by (natural) water vapour and clouds, which accounts for over 70% of the greenhouse effect. Human-related CO2 emissions soared after 1940. Yet most of the 20th century's world-wide temperature increase occurred beforehand."[5] This point isn't really relevant either because it's having no effects on the climate.

III.iv. Explain further how this is important.

III.v. Actually, this is not happening: "...satellite and high-altitude balloon data confirm that the lower atmosphere is not trapping lots of additional heat due to higher CO2 concentrations. It is hard to know how fast the Earth's highly variable surface is warming, but it is warming faster than the lower atmosphere where the CO2 is accumulating. This is strong evidence that CO2 is not the primary climate factor."[12] Neither has CO2 caused cooling happened in the stratosphere: "...stratospheric cooling is predicted to occur due to both greenhouse gasses and ozone depletion. The ozone concentration in the stratosphere has declined from 1970 until 1995, and has not declined at all since then due to the implementation of the Montreal Protocol, which limits the emission of ozone reducing CFCs... The lower stratosphere temperature has not declined at all since 1995 (when the ozone levels are stable or slightly increasing), so the data does not indicate any greenhouse gas cooling of the stratosphere. In fact, it appears that there has been a slight warming of the lower stratosphere since 1995, the opposite of what is predicted by computer models of the greenhouse gas effects. The stratosphere cooling indicated by the radiosonde data is caused by the changing ozone concentration, not by greenhouse gases."[5] In the end, a comparison of the records show that the surface has warmed faster than the troposphere, the opposite of what is predicted by the theory of CO2 warming. Observations agree with the Sun-Cosmic ray warming theory.[5] Actually, on wavelengths, "Comparing the CO2 and H2O absorption spectra shows that much of the CO2 spectrum overlaps with that of water. Parts of the CO2 spectrum are already fully saturated. Adding more CO2 will result in ever diminishing effects as more of the available wavelengths become saturated. The temperature effect of increasing CO2 concentration is approximately logarithmic. This means if doubling the CO2 concentration from 300 ppm to 600 ppm, a 300 ppm increase, causes the temperature to rise by 1 degree C it would take another 600 ppm increase to add a further 1 degree C temperature gain."[5] Meaning that CO2 cannot have a 1-to-1 linear relationship with temperature, even though most correlation graphs show that.



To save on space I will summerize my opponents arguments
1. The sun is warming since other planets are warming.
2. The sun via cosmic rays are causing global warming.
3. Oceans are causing global warming.
4. We’re going though a 1500-Year Cycle
4a. The Medieval Warm Period
5. Temperature of 1895-1946 vs 1957-2008

1. The sun is warming since other planets are warming.

The sun isn’t warming at all, in fact it’s cooling. A study by Usoskin in 2005 debunks the claim that the Earth is warming due to a warming sun. He writes

"...during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source." [1]

In fact, the sun has been contributing to some cooling in the past few decades. [2]

Other studies have also debunked the claim

A study by Erlykin says
We deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to solar activity is 14% of the observed global warming." [3]

"Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century." -Ammann [4]

"The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years."- Foukal [5]

So what about the other planets? First off Con commits the fallacy of composition, his reasoning is “if 1 planet is warming naturally all planets are warming naturally”. You must agree other planets are very different from Earth.

Mars: Observations show Mars is experiancing short term regional warming, but not long term global warming. [6]

Pluto: MIT scientists explain “Pluto’s orbit is much more elliptical than that of the other planets, and its rotational axis is tipped by a large angle relative to its orbit. Both factors could contribute to drastic seasonal changes.” [7]

Jupiter: Global warming isn’t happening on Jupiter, it’s predicted. It's said to warm not because of the sun, but because “the loss of these atmospheric whirlpools, the average temperature on Jupiter will change by as much as 10 degrees Celsius, getting warmer near the equator and cooler at the poles," [8]

Neptune: Neptune is warming. Its orbit is 164 years, our observations are less than a third of Neptune's year. The climate modeling of Neptune says Neptune is undergoing a seasonal change into summer. [9]

This also would cause Triton's atmosphere to become thinner, causing warming. [10]

2. The sun via cosmic rays are causing global warming.

Looking at the data disproves this hypothesis. While cosmic rays are high the temperature is also high.

Annual average GCR counts per minute (blue - note that numbers decrease going up the left vertical axis, because lower GCRs should mean higher temperatures) vs. annual average global surface temperature (red, right vertical axis)

From NOAA [11], The Neutron Monitor Database [12], and Skeptical Science [13]

"between 1970 and 1985 the cosmic ray flux, although still behaving similarly to the temperature, in fact lags it and cannot be the cause of its rise. Thus changes in the cosmic ray flux cannot be responsible for more than 15% of the temperature increase"- Krivova [14]

"galactic cosmic rays appear to play a minor role for atmospheric aerosol formation events, and so for the connected aerosol-climate effects as well."- Kulmala

Correlations between low clouds and cosmic rays broke in 1991, then cloud cover began to lag cosmic rays by 6 months [15] ,even though cloud formation should happen within a few days [16]

Svensmark said the loss of correlation was because of long term calibration drift in ISCCP satellites, but the ISCCP themselves disagree

Sloan and Wolfendale pointed out Chernobyl disaster should've produced increased cloud cover according to this hypothesis, but there was none

"In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds,”

This was based off a false understanding of the CERN paper
See the first video.

3. Oceans are causing global warming.

The oceans would cool when its heat goes to the atmosphere. Observations show oceans are warming [17]. The oceans are actually good evidence for the resolution.

"the observed ocean heat-content changes are consistent with those expected from anthropogenic forcing, which broadens the basis for claims that an anthropogenic signal has been detected in the global climate system." [18]

4. 1500-Year Cycle

Con makes another category error here. There’s defiantly a 1500 year climate cycle. We know that from ice core data from Greenland -as Con cited-, but these events known as the “Dansgaard-Oeschger events” don’t increase the global temperature. It’s only a temperature shift or a see-saw temperature change in the 2 hemispheres. [19]

Also see the second video.

4a. The Medieval Warm Period

Con cites the Medieval Warm Period to try and prove his claim about the 1500 year cycle. However there’s no evidence that shows the MWP was as warm globally as it is today.
NOAA says

“In summary, it appears that the late 20th and early 21st centuries are likely the warmest period the Earth has seen in at least 1200 years.” [20]


“The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect.” [21]

Here’s the differences

5. Temperature of 1895-1946 vs 1957-2008

At the very end Con posts a chart of the temperature of 1895-1946 and 1957-2008. Both are very similar and seem to prove climate change is by nature. Based on data from Hadlet, GISS, NOAA, NCEP R1, NCEP TCR, ERA-40, and AMTI, Skeptical Science formed these 2 charts around those time periods. It’s close enough to see the claim is wrong

Back to Con

Sources in link below

Debate Round No. 3


I would like to thank Magic8000 for this great debate.

I. The Sun Is Warming Since the Other Planets Are Warming

I admit, the sun is cooling currently, but the correlation between the sun and the climate is reinforced by this by my earlier proof that the Earth's temperature is stabilizing, and thus beginning to cool.

The sun is warmer now than at any time in the last 11500 years.[1]

"Moreover, changes in the heliospheric magnetic field have been linked with changes in total cloud cover over the Earth, which may influence global climate change. Here we report that the measurements of the near-Earth interplanetary magnetic field reveal that the total magnetic field leaving the sun has risen by a factor 1.4 since 1964."[2][3]

This can be seen in this graph:


Recently, the sun has cooled compared to recent times. But one, climate lags behind solar activity, and two, this is being seen in the recent temperature slowdown. "... the Sun is now changing from its Solar Grand Maximum to its Solar Grand Minimum. The Earth heats up after a Solar Grand Maximum, lagging a bit after the peak. With a Solar Grand Minimum now on its way, a "global cooling" may be on the horizon--a natural oscillation occurring in much longer solar cycles."[4]

Changes in the Sun can account for major climate changes on Earth for the past 300 years, including part of the recent surge of global warming, 300 years, including part of the recent surge of global warming.[5]

This can also be seen in climate data:

[6]. Longer term, here is a correlation of a solar proxy to a temperature proxy for a period of 3000 years. Values of carbon-14 (produced by cosmic rays, hence a proxy for solar activity) correlate extremely well with oxygen-18 (temperature proxy). The lower graph shows a particularly well-resolved time interval from 8,350 to 7,900 years BP. The above graph summarizes data obtained from a stalagmite from a cave in Oman.

Finally, we see the correlation between temperature and CO2 & solar activity:

[7]. It's easy to see the sun is more determinent.

On the planets, here are some solar system wide effects:
  • Sun - "Recent Activity Highest in 8000 Years [meaning it's not just the 11-year cycle] and magnetic field has decreased in size by 25%
  • 300% increase in galactic dust entering solar system
  • Mercury - magnetosphere experiencing significant increases
  • Venus - 2500% Increase in Green Glow
  • Mars - Rapid Appearance of Clouds, Ozone and"Up to 50% Erosion of Ice Features in one year alone
  • Jupiter - Plasma Torus increasing and"Jupiter"s Disappearance of White Ovals since 1997 " recent increase in storms
  • Io - "observing same changes -" 200% Increase in Density of Plasma Torus
  • and Ionosphere 1000% Higher
  • Europa - Much Brighter Than Expected
  • Ganymede - 200% brighter
  • Saturn's - Plasma Torus 1000% Denser and"Aurora First Seen in polar regions in recent years
  • Uranus - featureless in 1996, now exhibiting huge storms since 1999 and markedly brighter in 2004 than in 1999
  • Neptune - 40% Brighter, Near Infrared Range " 1996 " 2002
  • Triton - Severe atmospheric changes, warming
  • Pluto - 300% increase in atmospheric pressure.
[8]. You can't be telling me all of this is a coincidence. Also, on Pluto, it is moving further away from the sun despite the fact it is warming.

II. The Sun Via Cosmic Rays Is Causing Global Warming

Looking at the Earth's long climatic history, it is easy to see the correlation:



Low clouds means warmer temperatures: "Cloud cover has decreased over the past 39 years globally, and temperatures have risen during that time. This global decrease in cloud cover alone could account for all surface warming observed since the 1970s."[11]

So more solar radiation (and galatic positioning) causes fewer cosmic rays, which cause the creation of fewer clouds, which leads to warming. This was confirmed with the Svensmark experiement: "Preliminary results show that these faux cosmic rays indeed have an effect on the atmosphere: When high energy protons stream in, production of nanometer-sized particles in the atmosphere increases by more than ten times."[12]

In addition, for the predictions made by the AGW theory and the cosmic ray/solar theory, the latter is the effects currently being experienced.[6] For example, the AGW theory predicts the fastest tropospheric warming will be in the tropics, and the cosmic ray/solar theory predicts the warming will be uniform. The surface warming is similar or greater than troposphere warming. The latter theory wins.[6]

Finally, it is clear the cosmic ray/temperature correlation:

[6]. "The graph below a correlation between the cosmic ray counts and the global troposphere temperature radiosonde data. The cosmic ray scale is inverted to correspond to increasing temperatures. High solar activity corresponds to low cosmic ray counts, reduced low cloud cover, and higher temperatures. The upper panel shows the troposphere temperatures in blue and the cosmic ray count in red. The lower panel shows the match achieved by removing El Nino, the North Atlantic Oscillation, volcanic aerosols and a linear trend of 0.14 Celsius/decade."[6]

III. Oceans Are Causing Global Warming

"Current research also shows that Earth's oceans are now beginning to cool. It is also now clear that temperatures over the last century correlate far better with cycles in oceans than they do with carbon dioxide; and, the temperature cycles in oceans are caused by cycles of the sun."[4]

The PDO correlates extremely well with global warming, and is not caused by humans.[13] Ocean currents correlate better than CO2:


In fact,

Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature, and 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.[18]

IV. The 1500-Year Cycle

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was globally warmer than today, and in both hemispheres:
  • "Chinese temperatures were 2 to 3 degrees C higher than present during China's climate optimum."
  • "...during the Medieval Warming... . Temperatures may have been as much as 2.5 degrees C warmer [than today] due to a southward shift of the climate belts."
  • "...the central Argentinean area had more precipitation during the Medieval Warming than today. Temperatures may have been as much as 2.5 degrees C warmer due to a southward shift of the tropical rainbelts."
  • "The largest anomaly was a rapid warming-4 degrees C-between 350 B.C and A.D 450, reflecting a warmer climate in equatorial East Africa."
  • "On Signy Island, halfway between Antarctica and the southern tip of South America, there clearly shows the Roman Warming..., the Dark Ages [cooling]..., the Medieval Warming, the Little Ice Age, and the 20th century warming-which is cooler to date than the Medieval Warming."[15]
From Medieval manuscripts, it is easy to confirm that Europe was warm during the MWP, but so was the southern hemisphere:

[16]. This means it was a global event, and not a see-saw hemisphere event. "Indirect evidence suggests that the average temperature was as much as 1.5 degrees Celsius warmer [during the Medieval Warm Period] than today."[17]


V. Three Equal Warmings

Period Length Trend
(Degrees C per decade)
1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes
1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes




Putting this all together, "For example, the authors of a paper by NASA's JPL remark '...has compared the minimum aa [index of geomagnetic activity] values with the Earth's surface temperature record and found a correlation of 0.95 between the two data sets starting in 1885. The solar irradiance [solar activity] proxy developed from the aa minima continues to track the Earth's surface temperature until the present.'"[21] There. Cosmic rays, the sun, and all the Earth's natural cycles have a .95 correlation.



I would like to thank Subutai for this debate.

My opponent rebuttals summarized.

1. Warming stopped in the 90s
2. No correlation with CO2 and temperature
2a. CO2 lags temperature
2b. Antarctic isn't warming
2c. Climate in the 40s
3. My main points
1. Warming stopped
Con says James Hansen claimed the hottest year records are meaningless. We need the context here, just what Con posted it seems like Hansen was saying the differences between 2005 and 2010 were meaningless and small, not that it wasn't the warmest year. So it's a red herring and does nothing to rebut the actual record.

Con commits 2 fallacies to prove his claim here, category error and a sweeping generalization. You can't make long term signal claims based on short term noise and this is exactly what Con is trying to do. A large impact on short term temperatures can happen, such as El Nino (Con posted a chart that points out El Nino, but Con doesn't seem to take this in account and still claims that global warming stopped.) El Nino is an oceanic cycle that can suppress global warming for a while, but these cycles do nothing about long-term trends. [1]

Foster and Rahmstorf used several tools to filter out short term noise to show the true long term trend [2] [3]

You can see the complete removal process in the first video

I'm curious why Con posted the first chart, as it actually proves my point. Skeptical Science explains [4]

Trend lines showing the sudden jump in temperatures in the 1995 La Niña (Green lines) and the 1998 (Pink lines) El Niño events. Brown line indicates overall increase in temperatures.
The chart above clearly shows that temperatures have gone up...The overall trend from 1979 through November 2010 (Brown line) shows an unmistakable rise.

Air temperatures are not the only or even the best way of determining the trends of warming. Most of the heat goes into our oceans [5]. So if Con's claim is correct, we should see a drop in the ocean’s heat records too. However the records show that the Earth is indeed warming, as if 1995 was nothing special.

[6] [7]
The claim is unsubstantiated and debunked.

2. No correlation

As said above, there can be short term cooling over long term trends -such as La Nina- because CO2 isn’t the only forcing that exists. It's a well established fact in physics that Co2 does cause warming. To claim there can’t be a correlation is a contradiction to well established physical discoveries. [8]

2a. CO2 lags temperature

CO2 doesn't always initiate warming, as I said in my opening statement a forcing can naturally change climate. Co2 did however amplify the warming in times past, in fact roughly 90% of the global warming happened right after the CO2 increase.

The Antarctic ice core data does show changes in the CO2 does follow the changes in temperatures by about 800 years. However, we can't conclude that CO2 always lags temperature, as to do so would be another compositional fallacy. The changes in the temperature at that time are because of the changes of the Earth's orbit causing the Earth to obtain more seasonal sunlight.
Why a lag?
The lag is easily explained. As it’s just the Milankovitch effect. When ocean temperatures rise, the oceans will release more CO2, then this release will contribute the warming trend, causing more CO2 to be released . Thus CO2 can lag and lead [9]

Shakun et al has shown that historically CO2 has mostly led temperatures

“...Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation...These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2... [10]

See the second video for more information

2b. Antarctic isn't warming

A paper produced by nature concluded "Central West Antarctica among the most rapidly warming regions on Earth" [11]. The Arctic argument can be debunked with what was already said above.

2c. Climate in the 40s

The cooling was because of global dimming by aerosol emissions. This argument assumes a strawman, that CO2 is the only thing that controls climate. No proponent of A.G.W. claims this. The claim is that CO2 is the main driver of today’s warming.

Take Mount Pinatubo for example. It dropped temperature, but this doesn't debunk CO2 correlations. Same in the 40s. There was a lot of aerosol pollution, volcanic activity, and solar forcing. All together this explains the cooling and doesn’t debunk my contention.


This is a well known effect called global dimming [15]

3. My main points

Since I’ve debunked Con’s claims, 1-2 are now relevant

3. I don't understand why Con says this is a short-term correlation or that it's irrelevant. As the source studied the heat loss since 1970 and it’s relevant as the heat would come back causing warming. Con then repeats what's already been debunked. CO2 is the main driver of climate today. Some things such as water vapor isn’t a forcing agent, it’s a “feedback loop” as when CO2 levels go up, more water vapor gets in the atmosphere [16]. Con’s rebuttal is not really relevant to the argument.

4. Skeptical Science explains it better than I could.

“If an increased greenhouse effect was causing warming, we would expect nights to warm faster than days. This is because the greenhouse effect operates day and night..if global warming was caused by the sun, we would expect the warming.. to be greatest in daytime temperatures.... we observe is a decrease in cold nights greater than the decrease in cold days, and an increase in warm nights greater than the increase in warm days... This is consistent with greenhouse warming.” [17]

5. From what I found on google the source of what Con posted is from the book "Every 1500 years, Unstoppable Global Warming" [18]. However it's a poor source, since I couldn't find the actual paper that's referenced.

I do know there's a paper by John Christy and Roy Spencer that showed the troposphere was warming slower than the surface [19], which would be a problem in our current models. The information in these papers soon turned out to be false, as there were several errors made during the study. The adjustments that Christy and Spencer used at first was incorrect, but when the data was adjusted correctly, it was shown to be no problem in the climate models. [20] [21]

All data now shows warming in the troposphere and cooling in the stratosphere. [22]

The lead authors (including John Christy) said this on the first page

“Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming... This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite... New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies."

Con is clearly using outdated sources.

6. The claim has actually already been refuted by my argument 6 and 3. In order for CO2 to be saturated, more CO2 shouldn't add an additional greenhouse effect.
"What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane... The change in outgoing radiation over CO2 bands was consistent with...expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect...This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using the latest satellite data... the observed differences in CO2 bands matched the expected changes based on rising CO2 levels. Thus we have empirical evidence that increased CO2 is preventing longwave radiation from escaping out to space.[23]

Thanks again Con! Let the voting begin!

Debate Round No. 4
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Magic8000 5 years ago
lol, just saw it after I posted
Posted by Subutai 5 years ago
Already did.
Posted by Magic8000 5 years ago
Posting on forums because of vote bomb
Posted by Subutai 5 years ago
Also, pro, sorry. Not all your sources are biased; in fact, most aren't. It's just that they did a few things incorretly or made an improper conclusion.
Posted by Subutai 5 years ago
Read this for a chart comparing the AGW theory and the cosmic ray/solar theory.[4] It affirms my point.

Also, A paper by Nicola Scafetta compares the historical records of mid-latitude auroras from 1700 to the surface temperature records. It shows that auroras record share the same ocsillation frequencies evident in the temperature record and in several planetary and solar records. The author argues that the aurora records reveal a physical link between climate change and astronomical oscillations. The abstract states "In particular, a quasi-60-year large cycle is quite evident since 1650 in all climate and astronomical records herein studied ... The existence of a natural 60-year cyclical modulation of the global surface temperature induced by astronomical mechanisms, by alone, would imply that at least 60 to 70% of the warming observed since 1970 has been naturally induced. Moreover, the climate may stay approximately stable during the next decades because the 60-year cycle has entered in its cooling phase."[1][5] There's your cooling cycle.

Moreover, the index of gemomagnetic activity and Earth's surface temperature record have a correlation of 0.95, about as strong as one can get.[6] Natural causes are clearly mostly in play here and the climate has little to do with human activity.


Posted by Subutai 5 years ago

It's interesting how you claim pro is overwhelmingly supported by sources when he only provided a few more than I did and they were all biased. Take for example "Skeptical Science". Here's a great aritcle on its fallicies: In addition all of the relevant sources I provided showed that natural causes (i.e. ocean currents, solar activity, comsic rays, etc...) correlated better with temperature than CO2. Read my sources if you don't believe me. While yes, pro did provide evidence for his arguments, so did I. You're basically assuming CO2 correlates with temperature 100%, while if you look at some of the graphs I provided, they don't.

On the Milanakovitch cycles, you're actually incorrect. This was a theory that the sun's cycles caused global warming. We should not be very cold right now; as I mentioned in the debate, we are experiencing the most solar activity in 8000 years; in other words the warming makes sense. "Currently the Earth's eccentricity is 0.016 and there is about a 6.4 percent increase in incoming solar energy from July to January."[1] In fact, "The rate of change of global ice volume varies inversely with the solar insolation due to orbital changes."[1] In other words, your conclusion makes no sense.

On cosmic rays, if you had read the debate, "Preliminary results show that these faux cosmic rays indeed have an effect on the atmosphere: When high energy protons stream in, production of nanometer-sized particles in the atmosphere increases by more than ten times."[2] And low clouds means warmer temperatures: "Cloud cover has decreased over the past 39 years globally, and temperatures have risen during that time. This global decrease in cloud cover alone could account for all surface warming observed since the 1970s."[3]
Posted by Skynet 5 years ago
KronckerDelta, I can't find enough detailed information about cosmic rays vs. the sun's radiation to suit my tastes, either. But what I have found says there is disagreement and confusion on the source of most cosmic rays, other than they don't come from the sun. Some people think supernovae. I agree with you that more testing needs to be done, but it also seems plausible that through all the different temp., humidity, and pressure ranges of the atmosphere from the top down, that many areas are going to have layers that replicate a cloud chamber. Combined with the reflective power of clouds, and the latent heat and abundance of water, it seems likely that water is the most powerful global temperature controller on the planet. The latent heat of water is so much greater than that of carbon dioxide, I can't really see carbon dioxide as contributing enough to matter.
Posted by Skynet 5 years ago
Well, Teleport, I think that's everyone's knee-jerk reaction to want to vote for who they agree with without reading the debate. But it's about how well they argued their case. I agree with Con, but don't think he did a spectacular job. This is the main reason why who you agree with before and after have no point value. If I can't stomach reading at least most of a debate, I don't vote on it, because I'd like the same consideration from those who may disagree with me to actually listen to my point of view before they vote.
Posted by Teleport 5 years ago
damn how can you lose this one dude sorry I'd vote but I can't seem to confirm my identity. I think am making the mistake of voting for who I believe to be right, not for the winning debater. I think I mixed up what we're supposed to be doing on this site. I'm not going to read all that nonsense! Obviously we are the MAIN cause you'd have to be extremely simple minded to truly believe otherwise... I'm not big on debate skills I mean who cares who makes a better argument when the truth is the best argument!
Posted by Magic8000 5 years ago

" Con used better sources; is highly biased blog."

And Con"s sources were completely unbiased?
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Billdekel 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: I read through this like 3 times. I think I can't award arguments to either side cause each debater would just provide contradicting evidence. Sources is the only voteable thing and i have to give it to magic. Subss were all from skeptic sites and magics were mostly from scientific places.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 5 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: counter jim loyd
Vote Placed by jimloyd 5 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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: how can you prove that global warming exists
Vote Placed by KroneckerDelta 5 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 Checkmark1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had better reasoning and is overwhelmingly supported by sources (no one can even argue that). Con gave many sources of warming/cooling but none of which could be showed to account for the current wearming better than GHGs. Pro points to evidence that warming is consistent with green house gas data--that is the proving point. The green house gases (mainly CO2) are put in the atmosphere by humans and thus the humans are the cause of global warming (which Con seems to not deny, but then does deny).
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 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 Checkmark1 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: The Pro affirmative case was weak, spending too much time on a "correlation proves causation" arguments. That weakness ran throughout the debate, while con showed historical counterexamples. Overall, Con used better sources; is highly biased blog. With the last 15 yeas of cooling to be explained, CO2 causation is not proved.
Vote Placed by Skynet 5 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 Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Con has truth on his side, and some of Pro's links to sources didn't work. I think in an debate this complex, single points, like cosmic ray effects on global temperatures, or ice core evidence alone could take up the entire debate. Entire books have been written about global warming from both sides. So I feel that Con glossed over too many points that I wish he would have gone into more depth on. Pro used too many government links for sources, too. I have a personal mistrust of such things. Both had good conduct and grammar wasn't bad.