args

That Humans Are Causing Climate Change

My opponent has not made a single argument for his position or a refutation of my arguments. His entire argument in round 3 is a source war (when the debate revolves around the number of sources each debater can put forth). Not only does it not satisfy his burden of proof, it is no way to argue. In this argument, I will first consider his introductory points, then proceed to refute the relevant arguments he made from his first argument, and finally show how his source war does not prove his point, especially on scientific topics. My opponent has not shown how his arguments are relevant, as he hasn't addressed my arguments as to how they aren't relevant. Also, from the resolution and the arguments you have put forth, you have been arguing that humans have been a significant, if not the main cause of the modern global warming. I've been showing how they're not. Refutations Climate Models Climate models are far from perfect. In fact, they have consistently overestimated warming. "The computer models predict that the 20th century temperatures should have increased by 1.6 to 3.74 Celsius, while the actual observed 20th-century temperature increase was about 0.6 Celsius. A model that fails to history match is useless for predicting the future."[1] Here is a graph showing various climate model predictions to actual temperatures: "The IPCC models projected the global 17-year SST trend ending August 2011 at 0.15 C/decade, but the observed rise was only 0.02 C/decade... The quoted error on a single measurement is 0.05 C. The probability that the IPCC projections overstate the warming in greater than 90%." I could go on more about this, but since my opponent has provided no proof of the validity of climate models, this will suffice.[1] To conclude, here is a prediction made by a climate model: 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.[2] Why should we believe the models that predict excessive warming instead of models that predict a decrease in temperatures. Water Vapor Feedback Once again, the predictions to not match up with the observations. The feedback predicts relative humidity to remain constant so that the atmosphere can hold more water vapor with increased temperatures. However, humidity has actually fallen. This doesn't only negate the supposed positive feedback, but if the decrease is large enough, it may actually become a negative feedback. Here is a graph showing relative humidity over the last 60 years: "This shows that the actual water vapor content in the upper troposphere has declined by 13.7% (best fit line) from 1948 to 2012 at the 400 mb pressure level. The climate models predict that humidity will increase in the upper troposphere, but the data shows a large decrease; just where water vapor changes have the greatest effect on global temperatures."[1] Ocean Acidification Actually, claims of ocean acidification have been greatly exaggerated and misinterpreted. The mean drop in pH levels as a result of CO2 increases is around 0.3, but the sea can experience changes of almost 1.4 in as little as just a day. "On a monthly scale the pH varies by 0.024 to 1.430 pH units.""At Puerto Morelos (in Mexico"s easternmost state, on the Yucat"n Peninsula) the pH varied as much as 0.3 units per hour due to groundwater springs.""Even the more stable and vast open ocean is not a fixed pH all year round. Hofmann writes that 'Open-water areas (in the Southern Ocean) experience a strong seasonal shift in seawater pH (~0.3"0.5 units) between austral summer and winter.'"[3][4] This is the paper's hypothesis: "This natural variability has prompted the suggestion that an appropriate null hypothesis may be, until evidence is obtained to the contrary, that major biogeochemical processes in the oceans other than calcification will not be fundamentally different under future higher CO2/lower pH conditions"[3][4] The Consensus This argument has employed by pro in both his first argument as an argument, and in this round to support his position. However, both instances commit both a fallacy and a gross inaccuracy. First, the fallacy. Science does not work by consensus. The number of researchers or organizations has little bearing on whether what they believe is actually true. Michael Crichton has said, "Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus." My opponent has said that petroleum companies supporting climate change deniers is a conflict of interest, but so are governmental organizations, because legislators want them to provide information that will support the legislation will support. Politics in science hardly makes for objective conclusions.[1] Even so, the consensus doesn't even exist in the first place. Over 31,000 scientists (with at least a Bachelors' degree in relevant fields) have signed a petition saying that global warming is not anthropogenic. The Heartland Institute has conducted an international survey of 530 climate scientists in 2003. The survey asked if the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases. Two-thirds of the scientists surveyed (65.9 percent) disagreed with the statement, with nearly half (45.7 percent) scoring it with a 1 or 2, indicating strong disagreement. Only 10.9 percent scored it with a 6 or 7, indicating strong agreement. Most of the organizations my opponent lists are governmental, meaning that they have that conflict of interest I mentioned earlier.[5][6] The graphs my opponent provides are either irrelevant, are refuted by my argument against the consensus above, or show a rough correlation between CO2 and temperature that I have already shown to not exist. It is also relevant to note that the r^2 correlation between CO2 and temperature over the last century is only 0.44, which is considered poor.[7] Also, as for the other greenhouse gases, my opponent has not argued for them specifically, concentrating on CO2 in his arguments. Regardless, I will simply refer to my fourth argument in the last round on greenhouse gas absorption. Methane has an absorption band (at 8 micrometres) that largely overlaps with water vapor, so an increase in methane has little effect on temperature. In addition to methane, the wavelengths of light that nitrous oxide absorb largely overlap with that of water vapor, so an increase in nitrous oxide also has little effect on temperature. Those are the main greenhouse gases. I will address these more if my opponent considers them any more than he has.[1] Conclusion My opponent's entire argument in this round is a fallacious attempt to make his position seem valid when he can't refute the arguments I made in the first round. Again, science does not work by consensus, and even so, there really is no "consensus". Pro has never gotten near satisfying his BoP that humans are causing climate change. Sources [1]: http://www.friendsofscience.org... [2]: http://wattsupwiththat.com... [3]: http://www.plosone.org... [4]: http://wattsupwiththat.com... [5]: http://www.petitionproject.org... [6]: http://heartland.org... [7]: http://wattsupwiththat.com...

Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

I heard they don't let just anyone become Pope." You're right. The Holy Father must be holy and very wise. But keep in mind he's the head of a Church, not a Climate Committee. " I do see his opinion as having more weight than the average person." On spiritual matters, yes; he's the Pope. On climate change, not so much. He might have an edge, but he's no expert. He IS a chemist tho. "2. I disagree, it shows I am determined to defeat as many climate change deniers as possible." I'm a climate change agnostic. I don't think pumping carbon dioxide can be good, but I seriously wonder if humans really can change the weather. I think we're overestimating our influence. "3. ???" I know. "4. That's because of ozone destroying products like hairspray being phased out." Science is all about controls and variables. While it's true products like hairspray came around when the ozone hole began to shrink, other natural events were going on that could have been the cause. In a sense, if we look back on this as an experiment to find out what hairspray products do, we know our experiement would be tainted by other natural events, (climate involves the whole Earth) given that it has more than one variable Lastly I'm a dude. Have a good day

Climate Change Is Not an Imminent Danger

http://www.youtube.com... (For reasons that I cannot determine, the picture embed function continues not to work. My apologies.) I.A. The Sun: Well, I have no argument with saying that the Sun is the main factor on climate. Without it we'd be freezing--below freezing, in fact. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it's the main factor causing climate change. Since the Sun is, indeed, emitting less energy compared to what it used to, we're left with the question of why the globe is still warming (I'll get to his argument, the 1500 year cycle, later). The Sun's contribution to the temperature trend since the late 1980s is, actually, negative. Lockwood said in his 2008 paper "Recent changes in solar outputs and the global mean surface temperature" that the best esitmate is -1.3% of the temperature rise, with uncertainty placing it in the range of -.7% to -1.9%[1]. Clearly the Sun can't be invoked to explain recent temperature rises, since it should be causing us to cool. Further evidence that it isn't the Sun can be found in the fact that the equation http://www.debate.org...... where, to quote Lockwood: "S is the solar input variation; V is the volcanic aerosal effect (quantified by the global mean atmospheric optical depth, AOD); ΔE is the anomaly of energy exchange between the deep ocean and the surface mixing layer (Willis et al. 2004), here quantified by the N3.4 ENSO index; L is a linear drift term to allow for anthropogenic grenhouse gas and aerosol emissions (and associated feedbacks); and kE, kV and kS are the appropriate weighting (sensitivity factors)." In plain English, that means that the equation is the result of what we think we know about how climate works, and was derived basically by combining a bunch of factors (including how sensitive we think the climate is to carbon dioxide/greenhouse gases--this is important) and seeing how we think that'll affect the climate. And as we see from the below graphic, it's not a bad prediction. http://www.debate.org...... Recently, the predicted values are actually too low, which basically means that if anything we're current underestimating climatic sensitivity, or have missed a factor influencing climate.[1] Observed is blue, predicted is red. Now, it is theoretically possible that the equation could still be completely wrong, and it just happened to fit well. But I regard it as a very small possibility. Certainly claiming that it is just a coincidence strains credulity. I.A.1. Solar Flux Predictions Pro is mistaken: The solar irradiation we are receiving has been declining for significantly longer. In fact, it has been decreasing since the 1980s, and would have been decreasing from the 1960s if not for a much larger drop that lasted a very short period of time. See below: http://www.debate.org...... I.A.2. Cosmic Ray Flux Cosmic rays induce aerosols, of that I have no doubt. But that does not necessarily lead to an increase in cloud cover, at least not a noticeable increase. There are various barriers to forming a cloud if one is a cosmic ray[2]. Mathematical models, meanwhile, put cosmic ray flux at two orders of magnitude too small to cause the observed cloud cover variation[3]. I.A.3. Ocean Currents Ocean currents can't heat themselves, though. They can only shift heat around. The ocean itself is heating[4]: http://www.debate.org...... I.B. The 1500-Year Cycle The 1500 year cycle my opponent refers to is, rather than an example of the globe increasing in temperature, an example of a bipolar see-saw, with the amount of heat remaining relatively constant but flowing to different places. My video explains this in more detail; increases in the North are offset by decreases in the South[5]. In climatology, these are called Dansgaard-Oeschger events[6]. Redistribution of heat is radically different than an increase in heat. The term "global warming" indicates that, rather than heat flowing, the entire planet is warming--this is based up by graphs of total heat content[4]. II. Positive Effects of the Current Interglacial and Warm Period II.A. Health Effects I would simply like to reiterate that extreme heat does not behave the same as extreme cold. The predicted increase in deaths due to heat wave is approximately four times larger than the decrease in deaths due to cold snap[7]. The reason is simple: Easier to make fire than an air-conditioner. Similarly, there is an upper limit to heat adaptability: Beyond about 35 degrees humans will start to experience the effects of hyperthermia, since we won't be able to dissipate heat[8]. An increase in seven degrees would cause large areas to experience this heat stress. This is about as the most reasonable value for the predicted temperature increase[9]. II.B. Economic Benefits Plants that have more carbon dioxide and are experiencing more growth because of it also need more water to sustain that growth[10]. They are also more vulnerable to pests[11], and plants such as wheat can become less nutritous[12]. 1. http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org...... 2. http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net...... 3. http://www.leif.org...... 4. http://www.agu.org...... 5. see video 6. http://en.wikipedia.org...... 7. http://oem.bmj.com...... 8. http://www.pnas.org...... 9. http://www.skepticalscience.com...... 10. http://www.skepticalscience.com...... 11. http://www.sciencedaily.com...... 12. http://www.sciencemag.org......

Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change.

Resolved: Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change. My partner and I stand in firm negation of the resolution. We feel it necessary to define the following terms: Developed Country- is a sovereign state which has a highly developed economy and advanced technological infrastructure relative to other less developed nations. Moral Obligation- an obligation arising out of considerations of right and wrong. Morals are assessed based on the cost and benefits of a situation. Climate Change- Climate change, is a change in the typical or average weather of a region or city. Climate change is also a change in Earth's overall climate. This could be a change in Earth's average temperature. -NASA Contention 1: Humans have little effect on climate change and yet take on much of the blame for the situation. Subpoint A:Contrary to popular belief, humans have very little effect on Earth"s changing climate. Most changes to climate are a result of geological or natural events, which we have ZERO control over. These include Solar output, Volcanism, Earth"s orbital changes, and Plate tectonics. These might seem like they make minor differences, but these are responsible for short and long term climate fluctuations, including ice ages; and it can be agreed on that a massive cooling of the Earth for ten thousand years is a major change in climate. The earth has been going through cycles of cooling and warming for the last ten thousand years, and we have evidence which shows we are actually in a global cooling, which is part of Earth"s natural patterns. Why would us humans have any sort of obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change. Climate change is a natural process which we have no control over. Trying to change a natural cycle that has been going on for million of years is completely impossible, and we have no moral obligation to do something impossible. Subpoint B:Humans are incorrectly accused of the recent warming of the climate. However, this cycle of heating has been happening since humans weren"t even fully evolved. A quote from an article of Climate Physics states "About 450 million years ago the temperature dropped significantly even though the CO2 concentration was about 12 times higher than today. This disproves the hypothesis that CO2 causes global warming." This is also backed up scientifically. A graph titled "As carbon dioxide increases it has less warming effect" shows and explains how we can DOUBLE the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere with an almost unnoticeable increase in temperature. Increasing carbon dioxide levels also does not affect the atmosphere. This is because as the concentration of Co2 increases, so does the rate of photosynthesis, resulting in equal amounts of oxygen and carbon dioxide. Contention 2: Climate change won"t have a major impact on human lives Climate change as a result of human activities doesn"t have a major impact on human lives. Conclusion: Why we aren"t obliged Because humans are such a minor influence in climate change, we have no obligation to mitigate climate change. Why would we spend money to change the weather, and a lot of money at that. A book on globalizing renewable energy by 2030 states the cost to do so "might be on the order of $100 trillion worldwide, over 20 years, not including transmission." Alternate forms of energy also have major drawbacks, besides being very cost heavy, and these drawbacks do developed countries more harm than good. we have no control over climate change, and even if we did there is no need to worry, as the climate is just following natural patterns.

Human caused climate change is nonsense

Thank you for your arguments. I will now rebut your points. First of all, CO2 is indeed used by plants to grow. And it is true that one effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is more vigorous plant growth. However, CO2 also does something else very well. That something is holding on to heat. It is an extremely powerful greenhouse gas: that is to say that it traps heat, Just like the glass roof of a greenhouse. Your next point is a myth, Based on a misunderstanding of how climate change works. You are correct that adding more CO2 will not absorb much more IR (infra-red) radiation at the surface. The reason it is false is because air loses heat as well as gaining it, And thus the saturation point is much higher than 80 ppm. I accept that you may not wish to admit your error on this matter, But don't worry, It is a very common misconception. Your final point is false as well. You are correct that the number of humans on the Earth is equivalent to 3 grains of sand on a 100 kilometre beach, But CO2, Amongst many other greenhouse gases, Are very strong greenhouse gases, And can affect the climate disproportionately. Akhenaten may not understand this, But I hope the voters will. Thank you Akhenaten for this debate. Please make any rebuttals you have, And then we shalt move on to the rest of our arguments.