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...

Climate Change is caused by Humans

Point 1- There is an undeniable spike in CO2 levels in our atmosphere. To deny this is just simply foolish.In a matter of roughly 50-60 years, Co2 levels have spiked from 280 parts per million to over 400. To put that into perspective, in the past 800,000 years, Co2 levels have fluctuated between 180 ppm to 280 ppm. A change of 100 ppm would usually take 5,000-20,000 years, however, the current spike took a mere 120 years. While Co2 levels have certainly been higher than this previously in the history of the Earth, never before has Earth experienced such a rapid spike in Co2, the current increase is 100 times faster than at the end of the last ice age [2]. Point 2 - There is a human fingerprint on the carbon that we release. Carbon from different sources has different amounts of neutrons (called isotopes), for example, Carbon from the ocean is "0" (normal) while atmospheric carbon tends to be from -5 to -9 (meaning 5-9 neutrons removed). However, carbon from fossil fuels is an even lighter form of carbon; -20 to -35 [1]. Using this information, scientists can accurately identify the source of carbon that we find in our atmosphere. It is not coincidental that there’s a rapid spike in Co2 while humans are polluting the air with tons upon tons of fossil fuels, the problem with this is, unlike plants and the ocean, factories don’t take Co2 “back in”. The natural cycle balances the Co2 level by constantly adding and removing Co2, while humans are simply just adding Co2 without removing any [3] as shown by this chart. Point 3 - Using computers, scientists have shown that natural factors simply can't account for the changes we have seen. As shown by the following charts, without accounting human activity, these simulations can’t explain the data we have been receiving. Point 4 - Since Co2 is inevitably a greenhouse gas, such a rapid spike in Co2 will cause temperature changes throughout the Earth. These temperature changes can provide a variety of consequences that scientists and the general population have observed; from rising surface temperatures to rising sea levels to the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere shifting up in recent decades. I won't go to the trouble to prove each of what has been observed for this debate is not about whether or not climate change is real, but whether or not it is caused by humans; both Pro and Con agree that climate change is real. In conclusion, scientists have recorded one of the biggest Co2 spikes in Earth history. Using the fingerprints that come with burning fossil fuels, scientists are able to record how much of the Earth's atmospheric carbon comes from the burning of fossil fuels. While the carbon cycle creates more carbon than factories, the carbon cycle is just that... a cycle, meaning it's constantly balancing the concentration of Co2 in Earth's atmosphere. However, factories, cars, and humans as a whole are just adding carbon to the Earth's atmosphere without ever using atmospheric carbon like the carbon cycle does. On top of that, recent computer simulations have shown that in order to get the type of changes we are currently experiencing... human activity has to be included or else the data we get back is not the one we have observed. The absence of human activity in these simulations results in completely wrong data, while the presence of human activity brings back accurate data; meaning human activity plays a large role in the climate of the earth. Since Co2 is proven to be a greenhouse gas and is proven to be directly correlated with temperature (as Co2 goes up so does temperature), a rapid spike in Co2 means rising temperatures across the globe, leading to a variety of consequences that we have recently observed. If not dealt with, these problems can only escalate and cause severe problems/destruction. Links [1] http://www.ucsusa.org... [2] http://globalwarming-facts.info... [3] https://www.skepticalscience.com...

Climate Change Is Not an Imminent Danger

I would like to thank Citrakayah for accepting this debate. I. Natural Factors Point to Little or No Change In The Climate I.A. The Sun The sun is the main driver of the global climate. The level of activity from the sun correlates with the average global temperature. The sun is currently decreasing in activity, meaning that the warming of the 1970s-1990s will soon be erased. "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."[1] The sun can account for most of the warming experienced over the past century, and correlates well with the rising and falling of temperatures when compared to 20th century temperatures: [2] I.A.1. Solar Flux Predictions Solar activity has been declining for a little over a decade and will continue to do so for at least the foreseeable future. "'Normally, the conveyor belt moves about 1 meter per second—walking pace,' says Hathaway, 'That's how it has been since the late 19th century.' In recent years, however, the belt has decelerated to 0.75 m/s in the north and 0.35 m/s in the south. 'We've never seen speeds so low.'"[19] This means that solar activity has been declining recently. The next solar cycle, number 25, is projected to be one of the lowest in centuries.[19] "Storms from the sun are expected to build to a peak in 2013 or so, but after that, the long-range indicators are pointing to an extended period of low activity — or even hibernation."[3] In fact, we are already beginning to experience this lowered solar activity.[5][6] This graph illustrates the recent decline in solar activity. Note the downward trend in solar activity overtime: [4] With solar activity leveling off, temperatures will go back down to normal. In addition, there will be fewer hazardous rays coming from the sun and fewer solar storms, meaning fewer disruptions to the satellite systems we rely on so heavily. I.A.2. Cosmic Ray Flux With decreased solar activity, there is increased cosmic ray penetration of the Earth's atmosphere. Cosmic rays are inversely proportional to solar activity and proportional to cloud cover; and greater cloud cover means cooler temperatures.[19][10][11] I.A.3. Ocean Currents Ocean currents are the main internal drivers of the global climate. They have an R-squared correlation of 0.83, which is pretty significant (the highest score is 1).[7] Here is a chart showing ocean current's correlation to temperatures: [7] The sun is the main driver of ocean current temperatures, "This [solar activity] is the single most important cause [of ocean currents and their temperatures]. The Sun provides the bulk of the energy which drives the circulation of water in the oceans, either directly or indirectly (through winds). The uneven distribution of solar energy across the globe (highest at the equator, decreasing towards the poles) produces an uneven heating of water in the ocean."[20] When plotted together, solar activity and ocean current activity correlate well (notice the decline in solar activity after WWII, and the subsequent fall in ocean current activity around the same time).[2][7][8] Ocean currents, because of the sun's cooling and because of its natural three-decade cycles of warm and cool, ocean currents are projected to cool down further than today and to continue that pattern for at least another few decades. "Because PDO cycles last 25 to 30 years, Easterbrook expects the cooling trend to continue for another 2 decades or so."[9] Here is a graph showing ocean current's temperatures since 1900: [8] Note how all three currents are experiencing decreasing temperature trends, which, due to their current short duration, should continue for at least two more decades, and then another few decades to get back (possibly) to a peak. With decreased solar activity causing lower ocean current temperatures, the Earth will cool somewhat over at least the next few decades, albeit it shouldn't be that much. The climate will stay around normal. I.B. The 1500-Year Cycle There exists a 1500-year climatic cycle of peak-trough-peak (or vice versa) temperature cycles. "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."[12] Here is an illustration of this cycle: [13] This warm trend is projected to continue for around a few more centuries, and then the cycle will flip into a cold pattern.[12] This warm period will help counterbalance some of the effects of a diminishing sun. As solar activity does its ups and downs, the counterbalance between the Earth and the Sun will help keep Earth's climate systems in check. The various natural factors contributed by solar activity and the Earth's 1500-year cycle point to an insignificant change in the Earth's climate. Temperatures should not be much higher or lower than they usually are on average over the next few centuries. While the sun is cooling, the Earth will continue to heat the planet somewhat until solar activity returns and we have another temperature rise. It's a rise-and-fall situation. II. Positive Effects of the Current Interglacial and Warm Period A moderately warm period is better than a cold period. If the temperature is not too warm, a warm climate can have positive effects on both the Earth as a whole and on everyone. II.A. Health Effects In moderation, warm temperatures are better for the body than cold temperatures. People cannot get enough heat, infections are rampant, and hospital admissions will rise in the cold. From 1979 to 1997, extreme cold killed roughly twice as many Americans as heat waves [coincidentally when the Earth was heating up].[14][12] In Germany, heat waves were found to reduce overall mortality rates slightly, while cold spells led to a significant increase in deaths.[15][12] In addition, warmer weather decreases incidences of strokes, respiratory diseases, and the flu.[12] In general, life expectancies are higher in warmer climates, and there are fewer incidences of disease and other health problems. A warm period would be beneficial to human health. II.B. Economic Benefits Some of the major industrial sectors, particularly agriculture, tend to work better in a warmer environment than they do in a cooler environment. "The book [The Impact of Climate Change] finds that a moderate warming will have a positive economic impact on the agriculture and forestry sectors. Since carbon dioxide is used by plants to capture and store energy, there may be a fertilizing effect as levels of the gas rise. This, combined with longer growing seasons, fewer frosts and more precipitation, among other factors, could benefit some economic sectors."[16][17] CO2 increases, a byproduct of temperature increases ([12]), naturally help to stimulate plant growth as well, further helping agriculture. "For a 300 ppm increase in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration above the planet's current base level of slightly less than 400 ppm, for example, the productivity of earth's herbaceous plants rises by something on the order of 30%, while the productivity of its woody plants rises by something on the order of 50%."[18][21] This further helps humans by increasing food yields, lowering rates of starvation and hunger. Conclusion There should be an insignificant change in the climate over the next couple of centuries as the sun continues its cycles and the Earth is in a moderately warm period. In the short term, the major factors in the climate show a decrease in temperature, but the long term shows a stabilization of temperatures to a reasonably warm level. This increases humans' life expectancies and increases crop yields, reducing the incidence of hunger, thereby further aiding in the increases in life expectancies. There is no rational reason to worry about the climate going off the deep end in the near future. On the contrary, our current climatic state seems to be helping us. Sources http://tny.cz...

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 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...

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 :)

Climate Change is real and caused by humans and can/should be stopped!

I am surprised that such a novice at debate and at fact, yet you have such a large vocabulary. Your arguments seem to fly all over the place, I can only compare it to the videos on "illuminate confirmed" that to be funny try to find connections between pretty much everything and the illuminate. You explained that Your arguments seem to fly all over the place, I can only compare it to the videos on "illuminate confirmed" that to be funny try to find connections between pretty much everything and the illuminate. You explained that climate change is not real by explaining evolution isn't real and you explained ozone isn't real by saying the earth isn't more than a couple thousand years old. When you are wrong or made a mistake in your argument instead of admitting it (a mistake about how you formed your argument), you are arrogant and reply with some vulgar word. You seem to believe that nothing can exist without you or the church seeing it, or without someone physically seeing it. This is false, if a tree falls in the forest with no one there to hear it, does it still make a sound? YES. If there is a lightning storm, and no one is there to hear the clap of thunder, does it still happen? YES! I refuse to argue with someone that cannot argue against the current subject with any tactic besides somehow changing the subject or by saying you don't see it so it can't be real or by forming something from your imagination or form somewhere you read online (such as your fire example, fire needs oxygen, but it does not take in unlimited amounts, unless the planets atmosphere was for the most part lacking oxygen, fire would not be attracted to leaves as they don't need a new source of oxygen, they are getting there need).