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...
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
