args

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

I hope you are joking, "I have seen many a great things, inspirational things, miracles even, BUT never have I seen evidence of an Ozone layer." The ozone layer is not a literal sheet/dome of ozone covering the entire planet it is just huge quantities of Ozone (O3) in the upper atmosphere. The ozone holes are more of areas with less ozone, much less, so much less in fact that it does seem to be a whole in the ozone protection from UV and ionizing rays! We are able to get a hole as ozone is near the top of the atmosphere, not much is above it, and of course sinks down into that hole, therefore you are right it's not a vacume in the atmosphere, its a hole, a void without ozone. Ozone is what protects the planet for a most part from harmful rays such as UV and ionising rays (Gamma and x-rays)! With the hole missing, half of the green house effect is put into place. These rays aren't just cancerous and dangerous in other ways to use, but they also heat up the surface of the planet, which normally if fine, NORMALLY when heat enters it just leaves, but green house gasses such as methane and carbon dioxide (which in small amounts are fine and needed, but we are pumping much more) block this extra heat/energy from the Sun from escaping back out into space! The ozone layer again as you seemed to not understand, is a layer of ozone (not only ozone) in the upper atmosphere, this ozone is in addition to what makes up the atmosphere, and this ozone usually stays in the upper atmosphere (on the rare occasian or it drops into the lower atmosphere or is created here, he get sick has it is poisonous to breath) along with the other ingredients in our atmosphere, helium, carbon dioxide, air, nitrogen..... The ozone hole is just an area of the upper atmosphere lacking ozone, which again is what protects the planet from much of the electromagnetic spectrum (light, including gamma and x-rays, UV and Infrared rays, Microwave and Radio waves). You said you have never "seen" this part of climate change, of course you don't do you see trees taking in CO2 and putting out Oxygen, NO, so it "must" not be true. The almighty, non-scientist nobody doesn't beleive it to be true, we must just take his word for it! The ozone hole is over the southern pole, so if you were in Antarctica right now you would likely feel the rays, as in you would get sun burns and a tan (yes even in the arctic as long as there is sun and rays, you would also likely get skin cancer after a couple years of exposure, why don't you test your theory out that it doesn't exist, maybe you can prove skin cancer to be a myth made by those evil athiests too). You asked how do we know that the climate is changing at a un-natural rate, good question, this held us back from acting on climate change for a long while, until we figured out the answer. We know that the planet's temerature has changed over thousands and millions of years, ice ages are proof of this (we know those happened due to glacier fossils which cover the earth meaning that the temp would of had to be much lower), and there have been times in history where we beleive it was so hot that the poles melted completely, but all of these events happened over hundreds of thousands if not millions of years (ice ages being the exeption, they happened over a number of thousands of years). We know that the Earth's temperature hasn't been changing in the past due to the effects that climate change has on weather, el nino (a storm caused by disrutption of wind currents, caused by climate change) has only came to exist in the last 20 years and is definetly caused by climate change. You do not understand that this is a debate on climate change and not evoultion. Also you talked about extintion, extintion does not prove evolution false, animals die when things like you said happen, but when effects take place over long periods of time such as a forest eroding into a savanna or desert, the best of the species living there will survive and pass on their traits over and over again the best wills survive passing on the best traits to survive their changing habitat, if they don't change fast enough they die, like you said, but often they aren't faced with such imiediet threats! An example of evolution is tictalic, the ancestor of all land vertebrates. The tictalic species evolved slowly overtime, fins that were able to push themselves up out of the water, this happened as the members of the species with the strongest fins would pass on there genes and the ones with weaker fins would die out. These fins over thousands of years would get so strong they could act as primitive arms that drag tictalic onto land to escape predators. The air bladder of the fish evolved to act as a single lung and this way, over time through many mutations that helped the species survive, they evolved legs, then they got bigger, spread out across the planet, and the species we have today evolved. WHAT THE F*CK IS WRONG WITH YOU DONT PUT SO MUCH FAITH IN YOUR LORD WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN YET THE ONLY PROOF THERE IS FOR A GOD IS THAT SOME THINGS CANT BE EXPLAINED WITH OUR CURRENT TECHNOLOGY, DONT EXPECT SOMEONE TO SAVE THE PLANET (GOD) ONCE YOU SCREW IT UP BY EXPECTING IT TO BE SAVED, WITH THE IDEA THAT SPECIES WILL CARE FOR THEMSELVES, OUR ENTIRE PLANETS ECOSYSTEM WILL COLAPSE AND GOD WONT BE THERE TO SAVE IT, IF HE IS REAL HE WOULD NOT HELP SOMEONE WHO ISNT HELPING THEMSELVES HE IS NOT YOUR MOTHER!

Donald Trump thinks climate change is a hoax.

Thank you for accepting the debate. If you want me to have burden of proof sure, 51% for me versus 49% for you burden of proof. In your own link there If you want me to have burden of proof sure, 51% for me versus 49% for you burden of proof. In your own link there is further proof that Donald Trump is not a believer in climate change and thus thinks its a hoax. "Trump, who is now the GOP"s presumptive nominee, has said he"s "not a big believer" in man-made climate change, and has vowed to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency if elected president. " [2] Vowing to eliminate the EPA? Come on this proves that Donald Trump believe climate change is a hoax. 2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Anthropogenic global climate change.

I will contend that anthropegenic global climate change exists. The contender will contend that anthropegenic global climate change is non-existent. Structure R1 Acceptance & definitions R2 Arguments R3 Rebuttals R4 Defense Burden of proof Burden of proof will be shared equally. This is because I am making the affrimative claim and the instiagator, yet am arguing for what is normally accepted in the scientific community. Therefore, the burdens of proof cancel each other out resulting in neutral 50/50 burden of proof. Further explanation of r1 setup. First round is just for acceptance and definitions if need be. Common definitions are assumed, unless otherwise stated and agreed upon. Anthropogenic " Caused by humans" [1] Round two each person will make their argument, but no direct responses to the other person's argument. Focus on making a convincing argument that if not for your opponent's rebuttal would sell your audience. This is the only round to make new arguments for your case. Round three each person will respond directly to their opponent's round two argument pointing out any logical fallacies and attempt to find flaws. Round four each person defends their round two argument against their opponent's round three argument. For example if I say that is a cherry picking fallacy as a rebuttal in round three against my opponent round two argument, my opponent would explain in round four as a defense why me calling their argument a cherry picking fallacy is incorrect. Thank you in advance for accepting the debate. Previous debate for reference. [0] Try to stick to the structure please, makes it much easier for voters to follow the debate. Sources. 0. http://www.debate.org... 1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Anthropogenic climate change.

I will contend that anthropegenic climate change exists. The contender will contend that anthropegenic climate change is non-existent. Structure R1 Acceptance & definitions R2 Arguments R3 Rebuttals R4 Defense Burden of proof Burden of proof will be shared equally. This is because I am making the affrimative claim and the instiagator, yet am arguing for what is normally accepted in the scientific community. Therefore, the burdens of proof cancel each other out resulting in neutral 50/50 burden of proof. Further explanation of r1 setup. First round is just for acceptance and definitions if need be. Common definitions are assumed, unless otherwise stated and agreed upon. Round two each person will make their argument, but no direct responses to the other person' argument. Focus on making a convincing argument that if not for your opponent's rebuttal would sell your audience. This is the only round to make new arguments for your case. Round three each person will respond directly to their opponent's round two argument pointing out any logical fallacies and attempt to find flaws. Round four each person defends their round argument against their opponent's round three argument. For example if I say that Common definitions are assumed, unless otherwise stated and agreed upon. Round two each person will make their argument, but no direct responses to the other person' argument. Focus on making a convincing argument that if not for your opponent's rebuttal would sell your audience. This is the only round to make new arguments for your case. Round three each person will respond directly to their opponent's round two argument pointing out any logical fallacies and attempt to find flaws. Round four each person defends their round argument against their opponent's round three argument. For example if I say that is a cherry picking fallacy in round two, my opponent would explain why me calling their argument a cherry picking fallacy is incorrect. Thank you in advance for accepting the debate.

Climate Change Is Already Here, Says Massive Government Report

Climate change is no longer a distant threat but a real and present danger in the United States according to a government report issued Tuesday.

Human-Caused Climate Change is Impossible

"There was never plastic before humans arrived - is that not a new variable? Emissions from gas-powered vehicles have never been around until we invented them, Is that not a new variable? " You and everyone else who debates this topic insists that humanity has a separate and individualized existence, Apart from it's prerequisite form. . And you fail to see how this stance is actually an argument for MY side. Plastic never would have existed without humans, Humans never would have existed without the Earth, Therefore Plastic would never have existed without the Earth. Any human activity. . . From the invention of plastic, To the utilization of fossil fuels, To the catastrophic change in Climate conditions is all a naturally occurring process of the Earth's evolution. Everything is predetermined unless humanity DOES have a separate and individualized existence, Which IS apart from the prerequisite form which resulted in it's existence (assumedly). "Then you say we ARE a foreign entity. Even if I don't agree with you, You've already destroyed your own argument. " This Even if I don't agree with you, You've already destroyed your own argument. " This is the whole point of my debate. I'm showing "Human Caused Climate Change" proponents how it is impossible for them to believe in purely "Human Caused Climate Change" unless those proponents acknowledge the necessity for humanity to be an unnatural, Foreign, And separate entity within the Universe. Science and Mathematics do not make mistakes. They are inherent laws of nature that are DISCOVERED by humanity, Not invented. They exist as a latticework of spacetime laws irrespective of Human presence. Prior to the introduction of humanity the Universe was a sterile, Predetermined scientific process. Humanity changed that. Pardon me for utilizing the fish hook.

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...