args

Climate Change Is Not an Imminent Danger

I would like to thank Citrakayah for this great debate. I. Natural Factors Point to Little or No Change in Climate I.A. The Sun My opponent claims that solar activity has diverged from temperatures since the 1980s. He, however, is making an incorrect conclusion. Between raw solar activity (solar irradiance) and temperature, temperature lags about 7.5-10 years behind solar irradiance because of the heat capacity of the oceans. A better representation of the sun/temperature correlation is the length of the solar cycle. "This new parameter not only indicated a remarkably high correlation coefficient between solar activity and temperature (on the order of 0.95), but it also eliminated the problem of the 7-year lag encountered by Reid."[1][2][3] When looking at all of how the sun affects the climate: "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.'"[4][5] In other words, using the better formulation produces an almost perfect correlation between solar activity and temperature. "If the Scafetta and West analysis used the uncontaminated satellite data since 1980, the results would show that the Sun has contributed at least 75% of the global warming of the last century."[6][7] That is at least how much the sun has contributed to recent warming. I.A.1 Solar Flux Predictions "From all that, for Solheim’s predicted temperature decline of 0.9º C over the whole of Solar Cycle 24 to be achieved, the decline from mid-2013 will be 1.2º C on average over the then remaining twelve and a half years of the cycle. No doubt the cooling will be back-loaded, making the further decline predicted over Solar Cycle 25 relative to Solar Cycle 24 more readily achievable."[8] Solar activity is expected to decline, and as a result of that, so is temperature. I.A.2. Cosmic Ray Flux Cosmic rays cause cloud formation: "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."[9] More clouds causes global cooling: "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."[10] The change in cloudiness corresponds to the change in climate: "A scarcity of muons can be linked to elevated global temperatures by a reduction in low cloud cover and low cloudiness was indeed at a minimum around 1992-93."[11][12] Cosmic rays cause cloud formation which cools the planet. As solar activity decreases, cosmic ray penetration will increase, thereby increasing cloud formation and cooling the planet. I.A.3. Ocean Currents It is when we look at the oceans that we see a clearer pattern between solar activity and temperature. Because the oceans have an enormous heat storage capacity, it takes several years for a warming of the oceans to be transmitted to the surface (hence the 8 year lag in solar activity and air temperatures). Solar activity and ocean currents correlate directly.[13] "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."[14] The oceans have already flipped into a cool cycle, as I mentioned, because of the decrease in solar activity. I.B. The 1500-Year Cycle These are global events. Take, for example, the Medieval Warm Period. Various temperature estimates say that locations as far flung as Greenland, Africa, New Zealand, and South America reported temperatures 1-4 degrees C above their current temperatures. Not only is the Medieval Warming seen. A Vostok Glacier ice core revealed the 1500 year cycle over 400,000 years, and correlates with glacial movement all over the globe, and at the same time. The same goes with seabed data.[15] Overall, "Based on this, the Earth is about 150 years into a moderate Modern Warming that will last a few centuries longer. It will essentially restore the fine climate of the Medieval Climate Optimum.”[15] This cycle coincidences with the increase in temperature. II. Positive Effects of the Current Interglacial and Warm Period II.A. Health Benefits Actually, "The only global study suggests that this is true internationally: by 2050, there will be almost 400,000 more heat-related deaths a year, and almost 1.8 million fewer cold-related deaths. Warmer temperatures will save 1.4 million lives each year. The number of saved lives will outweigh the increase in heat-related deaths until at least 2200."[16] Yes, while it is easier to make fire than an air conditioner, heat is, overall, better for the body than cold (to a point). People in the Middle East are healthier (when controlled, that is) than people in, say, Siberia. What my opponent cites is not an increase in deaths from warming per se, but in temperature variability: "The claim that warming increases morbidity rates is a myth. This isn't the case, according to Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, an environmental economist from Yale University. Mendelsohn argues that heat-stress deaths are caused by temperature variability and not warming. Those deaths grow in number not as climates warm but as the variability in climate increases."[17] Overall, if temperatures rose 2.5 degrees Celsius, deaths in the United States from respiratory diseases such as pneumonia and influenza, diseases of the circulatory system and even infectious diseases would drop by about 40,000 per year. Warming might reduce medical costs by about $20 billion annually.[18][19] II.B. Economic Benefits Con­sequently, the more CO2 there is in the air, the better plants grow, as has been demonstrated in literally thousands of laboratory and field experiments. As a result, the amount of carbon gained per unit of water lost per unit leaf area —or water-use efficiency—increases dramatically as the air’s CO2 content rises; and this phenomenon has been well documented in CO2 enrichment experiments with agricultural crops. In addition, CO2 concentration increases make plants hardier against dangers such as UV radiation and soil salinity. And finally, health promoting substances found in various food crops and medicinal plants have been shown to benefit from rising atmospheric CO2.[20] (Other sources to studies in that link) Overall, increased CO2 concentrations help plants a lot more than hurt them. Plants feed on CO2, and more of it should make plants better. Conclusion This is a version of next century’s climate forecast using the information I provided: Built in cooling trend until at least 2024 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035 - 0.15 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100 – 0.5 General Conclusion – by 2100 all the 20th century temperature rise will have been reversed.[21][22] The next few centuries should see temperatures go up slightly, albeit with fluctuations in between by the climate contributors I provided. Health effects should be positive as a slight warming and increased CO2 concentrations increase agricultural production and optimal plant temperature (corresponding to the slight increase in temperatures). Climate change is not an imminent danger. Sources Various reference charts and graphs may be found here: http://www.debate.org... in any of the sources in my link below. http://tny.cz...