args

Anthropogenic global climate change.

R3 Rebuttals Opponent's statements will be in bold and italics, mine in plain text. "Dr. Michael E. Mann said, "One of the simplest relationships in all of atmospheric science is that as you warm the surface, you will get more evaporation."[1]" medv4380 Correct, here is why. "Evaporation is one of the two forms of vaporization. It is the process whereby atoms or molecules in a liquid state (or solid state if the substance sublimes) gain sufficient energy to enter the gaseous state. It is the opposite process of condensation. The thermal motion of a molecule of liquid must be sufficient to overcome the surface tension and evaporate, that is, its kinetic energy must exceed the work function of cohesion at the surface. Evaporation therefore, proceeds more quickly at higher temperature, at higher flow rates between the gaseous and liquid phase and in liquids with lower surface tension (i.e. higher vapor pressure)." [6] "Imagine Mann has made a mistake" medv4380 This paragraph is conjecture. My opponent has not proven Mann has made a mistake. In the next paragraph notice my opponent's word choices. Dissenters and alarmists. There is a reason why climate change deniers are called deniers. This is because deniers use a thought process called denial. Denial is when a person comes to a conclusion and then looks for facts to reinforce the conclusion. Skeptics take the full body of evidence and then come to a conclusion. Scientists are skeptics. Therefore, the correct language is deniers and scientists. I'm skipping some sections because either the argument is truthful or so vague I don't see how it related to the debate. "Why didn't the explosion of CO2 in the 70's show any increase in Precipitation?" medv4380 Temperature, precipitation, and evaporation are all linked. The link between temperature and evaporation is already shown. [6] Higher temperature also increase precipitation. Rain forests are known for being hot and humid. The east Antarctica ice sheet is increasing in sea ice mass due to increase precipitation which is due to increased temperatures. Therefore, higher temperatures increase both precipitation and evaporation. " However, as air temperatures warm, the amount of rain and snowfall also increases." [7] Now that warming temperatures causes an increase in both evaporation and precipitation has been established, the temperature in the 70's is where to look. "Most mentioned is Rasool 1971 which projected that if aerosol levels increased 6 to 8 fold, it may trigger an ice age. While Rasool underestimated climate sensitivity to CO2, its basic assertion that the climate would cool with a dramatic increase of aerosols was correct. However, aerosol levels dropped rather than increased." [8] Man-made aerosols was responsible for the cooling trend in the 70s. Thus the temperature decreased despite Co2 increasing, lowering evaporation and precipitation. This is a cherry picking fallacy on my opponent's part. By focusing on the period of cooling caused by aerosols in the 70's and ignoring the overall trend that more Co2 increases temperature which increase precipitation and evaporation. Cherry picking "Evidence A and evidence B is available. Evidence A supports the claim of person 1. Evidence B supports the counter claim of person 2. Therefore, person 1 presents only evidence A." [9] "It even explains the Antarctic glacial anomaly where Antarctica has Gained more Ice than it has lost[10] because the amount of fuel is much higher now due to an increase in precipitation." medv4380 You are correct, that some glaciers are gaining mass. Yet, the overall trend is that glaciers are losing mass. The graph above shows that overall glaciers are losing mass. [10] Here's a graph of the temperatures to further prove that temperatures were low in the 70's but the overall trend is upwards after the 1950s. [11] "Shortly after NASA launched its THEMIS probe, they observed unpredicted phenomena where a North Polarity Coronal Mass Ejection hit the Earths North Pole and ripped it open rather than be deflected[12]. The second is the spike in Precipitation correlates to start of Solar Cycle 24 ejecting two X-class flares and interacting with the Earths EM Field[12]. This would explain why the spikes in the data occur when they do, and why they don't appear in the previous century worth of data." medv4380 This last paragraph is jumping to conclusions. My opponent does not sufficiently explain how these phenomena effect climate change. Fact: Increases in Co2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels is the primary driver of climate change. Myth: Other causes are the primary driver. Fallacy: Jumping to conclusions. [12] My opponent uses various sources. One is the low crediblity Heartland institute. "Factual Reporting: LOW Notes: The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank founded in 1984. " [13] "The Heartland Institute is a stock-issue conservative/libertarian "think tank" based in Chicago and founded by Joseph L. Bast. It has ties to Richard Mellon Scaife, Exxon, and Philip Morris (the usual suspects). " [14] Another source is wikipedia. "Nevertheless, when you're doing academic research, you should be extremely cautious about using Wikipedia. As its own disclaimer states, information on Wikipedia is contributed by anyone who wants to post material, and the expertise of the posters is not taken into consideration. "[15] Finally, my opponent uses Ivar Giaever. "While Giaever is certainly a highly accomplished physicist, that does not automatically make him a climate expert as well. As Giaever himself has admitted, he has spent very little time researching the subject, and it shows." [16] Ivar Giaever is a fake expert. Giaever lacks the credential and experience in climate change. Sources 6. https://www.sciencedaily.com... 7. https://www.skepticalscience.com... 8. https://skepticalscience.com... 9. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com... 10. https://www.skepticalscience.com... 11. https://www.climate.gov... 12. http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com... to conclusions 13. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com... 14. http://rationalwiki.org... 15. isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k70847&pageid=icb.page346376 16. http://www.snopes.com...