args

Anthropogenic Climate Change Exists

My opponent claims that the "climate competitors" of CO2 account for an unknown portion of temperature anomaly. We actually have a comprehensive understanding of both chemical and physical factors of climate change. He is correct that if we compared a chart of barbecue emissions with a chart of atmospheric heating, it would be absurd to assume barbecuing causes global warming. However, if we measured the effects of shortwave radiation, longwave radiation, the manner in which each passes through clouds, the effects of vegetation, the net greenhouse effects of the oceans, and emissions of non-barbecuing greenhouse gases, we would be in a much better position to say whether barbecue emissions cause global warming. [5] Con correctly argues that the barbecue theory would be defeated by showing that the volume of charcoal is insufficient. So back to the discussion, what's the volume of CO2 output? The United States alone has a crude oil energy output of 19,420,000,000,000,000 British Thermal Units [6]. Is this comparable to backyard barbecues? [5] The fifth report by the International Panel of Climate Change [7] claims that "Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system." It presents evidence that the CO2 output of fossil fuels and anthropogenic land usage together total are nearly three times higher than the CO2 output of rock weathering, volcanic activity, total respiration of life forms, forest fires and freshwater outgassing combined. [5] Con offers a reconstruction of the last 650,000,000 years, but this is a discussion about the years 1900 to 2200. Geological time is slow enough to be irrelevant in the 3-century blip we are discussing. In this context, hundreds of millions of years is simply beyond a defensible scale. CO2 levels are not higher than what they were 100,000,000 years ago before the existence of humans, but they are higher than they have been in 400,000 years. "Current climate science has no explanation for the major climate variations of the past 2,000 years." I have BOP for my claims about modern climate observations, but Con needs to provide a source for this claim. "That's why the discredited global warming hockey stick attempted to prove there were no past variations." Source and specifics would be appreciated. Con claims that CO2 follows temperature rather than causing temperature, claiming the graphs are in a link. I would appreciate if Con could import these graphs into DBO and reference them as individual images, as I am unable to find an image that matches this description in the link provided. The Nature article quoted by Con demonstrates that solar insulation changed the Earth's climate more in 2,000 years than the human race has in 250 years. It does not suggest that the factors it discusses could compete with the human race during industrial and post-industrial ages. Again, this is a discussion about a 300 year timespan. [5] "Historically, Arctic ice melts when Antarctic ice increases in a cycle of 40 to 60 years called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)." The Pacific Decadal Oscillation has no relation to the absorption of energy by the oceans from the years 1970 to 2010, which have shown a strong increase in net energy both in the liquid oceans and in the polar ice caps. “The Antarctic surge is so big that overall, although Arctic ice has decreased, the frozen area around both poles is one million square kilometres more than the long-term average.” Both Arctic and Antarctic temperatures are supposed to be far below freezing, and neither will commence a serious level of shrinking until they reach the melting temperature of water. As the top of the ice caps melt, the water runs down and is cooled by the ice below, slightly reducing or maintaining the total mass of the ice while possibly increasing the total area. However, it also increases the average temperatures of the Antarctic and Arctic. 5. http://www.climatechange2013.org... 6. http://www.usdebtclock.org... 7. http://www.climatechange2013.org...

Anthropogenic climate change.

My opponent first makes the argument that man-made Co2 can't be the problem. The reason being is that Co2 is only a small part of the gases that make up the Earth's atmosphere. Secondly, that man-made Co2 emissions are much less than natural Co2 emissions. The problem with this is my opponent is only taking a small part of the picture. Trying to argue down main stream science with faulty logic and withholding information. My opponent's argument about man-made Co2 is a cherry picking fallacy. "Logical Form: 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." [5] My opponent withholds the fact that Venus has lots of Co2 and is much warmer than the Earth. " Carbon dioxide: 96 percent"[6] So, yes absolutely the Earth has a much lower amount of Co2 than Venus, otherwise we would all be cooked. [6] Therefore, my opponent's claim about Co2 only composing a small percentage of the Earth's atmosphere only helps prove man-made Therefore, person 1 presents only evidence A." [5] My opponent withholds the fact that Venus has lots of Co2 and is much warmer than the Earth. " Carbon dioxide: 96 percent"[6] So, yes absolutely the Earth has a much lower amount of Co2 than Venus, otherwise we would all be cooked. [6] Therefore, my opponent's claim about Co2 only composing a small percentage of the Earth's atmosphere only helps prove man-made climate change. Next, my opponent states that humans only generate a small portion of the Co2 compared to natural emissions. This is another cherry picking fallacy. [5] Yes, humans generate far less Co2 that natural, but the natural Co2 is absorbed by nature too, thus the naturally generated Co2 is canceled out by the natural absorption. The anthropogenic Co2 is not naturally absorbed and thus accumulates. For more information about the global carbon cycle follow link seven. [7] Furthermore, even small amounts of Co2 can cause an amplification effect also known as a positive feedback cycle. This is why even a small amount of Co2 increase can cause dramatic changes to the climate. "The authors derive a likely range for the feedback strength of 1.7-21.4 p.p.m.v. CO2 per degree Celsius, with a median value of 7.7." [8] My opponent then contends that climate change is political and has to do with corrupt industry. Yet, big oil is also powerful and politically influential. It would make more sense that the anti-man-made climate change movement is funded by a corrupt big oil and other fossil fuels interest groups. The 90th richest person on the planet owns 11.3 billion from oil alone. A person can only imagine how powerful and how much money all the oil in the world is worth and the oil industry is worth. "the vast formation of oil-bearing rock that sits beneath much of North Dakota and Montana. With his 72% ownership stake in publicly traded Continental, Hamm is now worth $11.3 billion, making him the 90th richest person on the planet, according to Forbes newly released annual ranking of the world’s billionaires."[9] Finally, my opponent suggests no alternative explanation for why the Earth's temperatures continue to increase. Whether my opponent thinks the temperatures are not increasing or are increasing but by non-made man causes is ambiguous. In contrast, I offer main stream science to tell how and why the Earth's temperatures are increasing. Sources 5. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com... 6. http://www.space.com... 7. http://www.skepticalscience.com... 8. https://www.sciencedaily.com... 9. http://www.forbes.com...

Climate Change is the most dangerous threat humans face.

Definitions: Climate Change: the warming of earth's climate that is caused by human activity. NOTE: global warming means the same thing. Greenhouse gas: a gas contributing to climate change Emission: the greenhouse gas output of a machine(car, factory, etc.) Good Luck!

Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

I have noticed that a surprising number of people still think global climate change is a hoax. I hope to destroy some of that myth. Pope Francis recognizes climate change and calls for swift action. [0] Impact: I think the Pope knows what he is doing and thus man-made global climate change is real and a threat. 0. http://www.nytimes.com...

Climate change is real and caused by humans

I will be arguing that climate change is real and caused by humans, and is an urgent problem for the world at large. Good luck proving me wrong, since it's been proven right.

Recycling paper is a good way to fight climate change.

I. Rebuttal At this point, demand (part of point 1.) is essentially pointless, it does nothing for either of our arguments. What I was saying is that not everyone cares whether their paper is recycled or not. So they aren't always competing. Apparently you concede my argument that demand for new paper exceeds that of recycled, and adding to that, even recycled paper must be mixed in with some new paper/pulp. A. http://en.wikipedia.org... In the "importance" section, there is a sourced claim that says: "Old growth forests also store large amounts of carbon gas above and below the ground. They collectively represent a significant pool of climate gases such as greenhouse gases. Continued liquidation of these forests may increase the risk of global climate change." Or in other words, when you cut a tree down, gases are released. Commercial forests become a zero sum for the climate, even if they do use up carbon dioxide, it will eventually be put back in the air. In essence, it means that trees that are planted, simply to be cut down, are worthless when it comes to preventing They collectively represent a significant pool of climate gases such as greenhouse gases. Continued liquidation of these forests may increase the risk of global climate change." Or in other words, when you cut a tree down, gases are released. Commercial forests become a zero sum for the climate, even if they do use up carbon dioxide, it will eventually be put back in the air. In essence, it means that trees that are planted, simply to be cut down, are worthless when it comes to preventing climate change. B. Indeed, I concede that trees use most of their carbon dioxide during growth. However, trees do continually use carbon dioxide, and since old trees are (or should) not be cut down, they will not eventually become a zero sum for climate change. C. Without a good root system, less photosynthesis will occur in the leaves (as there is less water), and there will be less regulation of carbon dioxide. 2. Biodiversity is important in preventing the climate change. Here in the benefits section, "other ecological services" http://en.wikipedia.org... It is stated that biodiversity plays a role in regulating the chemistry of the atmosphere and the water supply (which allows other plants to grow, more regulation, etc.), and it states that studies have shown that humans cannot artificially build ecosystems to replace it. Going on, you say that private ownership would not have erosion. Perhaps in the distant future, but not until the the root system has been well established (which can vary, but we'll be waiting at least half a century). As well, in many places where deforestation is occurring, there isn't a lot of private land ownership, so if these governments were to create the industry, they wouldn't be privately owned. D. I'll be honest with you, that's a pretty naive view of the worldwide ecosystem. Plants need animals, animals need plants. If all the animals died, what would pollinate the plants, what would spread the seeds, what would provide the natural fertilizer? Animals and plants are inter-related, if you take out one, you take out both. And all of the world's ecosystems are related in the same why, you take out one, it's going to hurt in other places too. A. http://news.bbc.co.uk...... That website says that the US, UK, and AUS are leading in per capita pollution. My point is that the developing world, as a whole, creates more pollution than the developed world. Your article does not tackle the total quantity issue, just per capita, and you're not considering the fact that there are more people living in developing countries than in developed ones. Per capita pollution is important, but in this case the toal is more important. You continue on about the wonders of tree farming, which I have already proven is zero sum for preventing climate change, it hurts none, yet it helps none. B. Countries are not going to magically get good crops from the developed world, developing countries have their own agricultural industries. And if they will do as you say, they will maximize their profit, and giving their engineered crops to developing nations is only going to decrease their profit. C. Sure, you'll plant trees over the dead ones, ignoring the other environmental costs which do indirectly contribute to climate change. And then you cut them down again, preventing those trees from being of any use in preventing climate change. Oh, and let's totally forget that these countries do not have commercial planting industries. D. I think it's quite obvious, if we recycle, we won't need to cut down as many trees. Even you support that, in your very first round. E. http://en.wikipedia.org... In the "Locations of remaining intact forests" cited section, the massive amounts of these "virgin forests" cut down is revealed. It is highly related to the demand for paper products. By not recycling paper, these countries are submitting to a commercial forest plantation system, which does nothing to prevent climate change. F. There are private companies that handle recycling, you haven't provided any source that says all recycling is done by the government. G. Recycling saves 40% of the cost of making new paper, so it's an industry. It may be taking away from parts of the industry, but that's not a big deal, as I'll solidify later. Because recycling saves costs, and is efficient, it will be prefered in places that are poor and need efficiency (the developing world). II. My Final Case 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... In the "importance" section, it is stated that old forests have a massive storage of green house gases. Cutting these trees down will further climate change. A. If old forests have these gases, then new trees would have a lesser amount. When they are cut down, the release of these gases nullifies any good they did to prevent climate change. The negative's argument that commercial forests are useful in preventing climate change is completely null. B. The only forests which can prevent climate change are those that stay rooted in the ground, permanently uncut. Commercial forests will always be cut down, and so will always be zero sum in preventing climate change. C. http://en.wikipedia.org... In the "Locations of remaining intact forests" section, the locations and percentages of old forests left is shown. As it states, the amount of land which these trees are constantly being cut down, in gigantic numbers. This is in part causing climate change. D. Recycling increases efficiency, the negative has made no attempt to challenge this specifically. Because recycling increases efficiency, we will be able to keep more trees rooted in the ground, and that is good for the environment. E. Around 70% of these remaining old forests are in developing countries, and could be protected with recycling. F. Protecting these trees not only directly benefits us by regulating green house gases, but their biodiversity and preventing of erosion indirectly helps prevent catastrophic change. 2. The negative's argument that commercial forests help prevent climate change is wrong, while the affirmative is right. A. From the earlier article, it is said that cutting down trees releases greenhouse gases. This will further climate change. This totally nullifies the negative point that commercial forests prevent climate change. They will constantly be cut down, constantly grown, and never contribute to slowing climate change. B. Since all the negative proposes for slowing climate change is the planting of commercial forests, it is clear that the negative does nothing to prevent climate change. C. I have not been proven wrong by the negative in that recycling increases efficiency. More efficiency means more trees left standing uncut, and less climate change. Voting To all the voters, I have proven that commercial forests is zero sum in preventing climate change. In order for trees to prevent climate change, they must stay there uncut. That's as simple as it gets. Recycling gives us more material, and allows us to keep more trees in place. Finally Great debate negative! I'm happy this didn't go to ad hitlerum, as internet debates so often do.

Man Made Climate Change Is Fake

My opponents first second and third points state, "My opponent has acknowledged that CO2 is a green house gas. Green house gasses cause global warming... humans are netting 15 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere that has no place in the carbon cycle. Prior to industry all carbon fit into the cycle... If CO2 causes warming, and humans are omitting extra CO2 that we are having an impact on climate. Thus I hold my claim that humans are impacting climate change." To respond to this, I would like to bring up the argument that there is not that much Co2 in the atmosphere compared to the Earths past. 15 gigatons sounds like a lot but it compared to the Earths past Co2 has been much higher. http://www.paulmacrae.com... In addition to this, historical evidence shows that Co2 has no correlation to temperature and most ice core data shows that higher temperature causes Co2 increase, not the other way around. My opponents next claim is that there are significant "fingerprints" caused by Co2 induced heating in the atmosphere. This is not a valid point because I am arguing that Co2 doesn't cause enough heat to significantly impact the atmosphere in the way my opponent is describing. This just brings us in a circle back to the argument that is if CO2 causes warming or not. My opponents next correlation is that since Venus has high Co2 concentrations and it is known that this is why venus is hot it would make sense that we would be seeing the same effects on Earth. My response to this is that Venus's atmosphere is 96% Co2. This is more then enough Co2 to have a significant impact on its atmosphere. This is drastically different from Earth where only about .03% of our atmosphere is Co2. I agree that humans are putting Co2 into the atmosphere My opponent then states that we are seeing rapid climate changes and that this is unnatural about the current climate change. While we are experiencing rapid rates of climate change, these changes are not unique to Earth. The entire solar system seems to be going through a sort of "climate-change phase." Within the last 20 years scientists at NASA and around the world have realized that the planets we are looking at now are different than those in 1900s. This indicates that the entire solar system is in some sort of solar-system wide climate change. For example, the ice caps on Mars are shrinking (indicating warming) and the atmosphere is gaining clouds and ozone, Pluto is experiencing a growth of its mysterious dark spots and is experiencing a 300% increase in atmospheric pressure (indicating warming), Saturn is giving off large amount of x rays and there are new appearances of "hot spots" in its atmosphere (indicating warming), there have been polar shifts on Uranus and voyager 2 picked up large storm spots In its atmosphere that were not there 50 years ago (indicating warming), Mercury is growing a magnetic field and polar ice caps, Jupiter"s plasma clouds melding together in its atmosphere and becoming brighter (this is theorized to have been caused by an 18 degree Celsius warming and this is supported by the new large storm spots appearing on Jupiter for the first time), Venus has had a 2500% increase in green glow which symbolizes oxygen in the atmosphere, and Neptune is experiencing changes in light intensity. A dramatic shift that may be the cause of all these weird interplanetary changes is that the suns magnetic field is increasing in strength. Over the last 100 years, the suns magnetic field has increased by 230%. This increase attracts stardust from the surrounding area and this overflow of stardust may have something to do with this solar-system wide event. This evidence shows how Earth is not the only planet going through a rapid period of climate change. This indicates that something solar-system wide may be to blame for the recent fluctuations in temperature, not Co2. In addition to this, compared to the past 100,000 years, the rate of temperature increase does not seem to be any more rapid then it has been in the past. For example, look at this graph. https://conscioustourism.files.wordpress.com... In fact, looking at this graph shows that we are seeing even less fluctuations in temperature then we have in the past. This means that the rate of change and increase is unnatural because it is slow, not fast. I have now disproven all of your claims and look forward to your next argument. No, thank you for the debate :)