args

Anthropogenic global climate change.

R3 Rebuttals Opponent's statements will be in bold and italics, mine in plain text. "Dr. Michael E. Mann said, "One of the simplest relationships in all of atmospheric science is that as you warm the surface, you will get more evaporation."[1]" medv4380 Correct, here is why. "Evaporation is one of the two forms of vaporization. It is the process whereby atoms or molecules in a liquid state (or solid state if the substance sublimes) gain sufficient energy to enter the gaseous state. It is the opposite process of condensation. The thermal motion of a molecule of liquid must be sufficient to overcome the surface tension and evaporate, that is, its kinetic energy must exceed the work function of cohesion at the surface. Evaporation therefore, proceeds more quickly at higher temperature, at higher flow rates between the gaseous and liquid phase and in liquids with lower surface tension (i.e. higher vapor pressure)." [6] "Imagine Mann has made a mistake" medv4380 This paragraph is conjecture. My opponent has not proven Mann has made a mistake. In the next paragraph notice my opponent's word choices. Dissenters and alarmists. There is a reason why climate change deniers are called deniers. This is because deniers use a thought process called denial. Denial is when a person comes to a conclusion and then looks for facts to reinforce the conclusion. Skeptics take the full body of evidence and then come to a conclusion. Scientists are skeptics. Therefore, the correct language is deniers and scientists. I'm skipping some sections because either the argument is truthful or so vague I don't see how it related to the debate. "Why didn't the explosion of CO2 in the 70's show any increase in Precipitation?" medv4380 Temperature, precipitation, and evaporation are all linked. The link between temperature and evaporation is already shown. [6] Higher temperature also increase precipitation. Rain forests are known for being hot and humid. The east Antarctica ice sheet is increasing in sea ice mass due to increase precipitation which is due to increased temperatures. Therefore, higher temperatures increase both precipitation and evaporation. " However, as air temperatures warm, the amount of rain and snowfall also increases." [7] Now that warming temperatures causes an increase in both evaporation and precipitation has been established, the temperature in the 70's is where to look. "Most mentioned is Rasool 1971 which projected that if aerosol levels increased 6 to 8 fold, it may trigger an ice age. While Rasool underestimated climate sensitivity to CO2, its basic assertion that the climate would cool with a dramatic increase of aerosols was correct. However, aerosol levels dropped rather than increased." [8] Man-made aerosols was responsible for the cooling trend in the 70s. Thus the temperature decreased despite Co2 increasing, lowering evaporation and precipitation. This is a cherry picking fallacy on my opponent's part. By focusing on the period of cooling caused by aerosols in the 70's and ignoring the overall trend that more Co2 increases temperature which increase precipitation and evaporation. Cherry picking "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." [9] "It even explains the Antarctic glacial anomaly where Antarctica has Gained more Ice than it has lost[10] because the amount of fuel is much higher now due to an increase in precipitation." medv4380 You are correct, that some glaciers are gaining mass. Yet, the overall trend is that glaciers are losing mass. The graph above shows that overall glaciers are losing mass. [10] Here's a graph of the temperatures to further prove that temperatures were low in the 70's but the overall trend is upwards after the 1950s. [11] "Shortly after NASA launched its THEMIS probe, they observed unpredicted phenomena where a North Polarity Coronal Mass Ejection hit the Earths North Pole and ripped it open rather than be deflected[12]. The second is the spike in Precipitation correlates to start of Solar Cycle 24 ejecting two X-class flares and interacting with the Earths EM Field[12]. This would explain why the spikes in the data occur when they do, and why they don't appear in the previous century worth of data." medv4380 This last paragraph is jumping to conclusions. My opponent does not sufficiently explain how these phenomena effect climate change. Fact: Increases in Co2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels is the primary driver of climate change. Myth: Other causes are the primary driver. Fallacy: Jumping to conclusions. [12] My opponent uses various sources. One is the low crediblity Heartland institute. "Factual Reporting: LOW Notes: The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank founded in 1984. " [13] "The Heartland Institute is a stock-issue conservative/libertarian "think tank" based in Chicago and founded by Joseph L. Bast. It has ties to Richard Mellon Scaife, Exxon, and Philip Morris (the usual suspects). " [14] Another source is wikipedia. "Nevertheless, when you're doing academic research, you should be extremely cautious about using Wikipedia. As its own disclaimer states, information on Wikipedia is contributed by anyone who wants to post material, and the expertise of the posters is not taken into consideration. "[15] Finally, my opponent uses Ivar Giaever. "While Giaever is certainly a highly accomplished physicist, that does not automatically make him a climate expert as well. As Giaever himself has admitted, he has spent very little time researching the subject, and it shows." [16] Ivar Giaever is a fake expert. Giaever lacks the credential and experience in climate change. Sources 6. https://www.sciencedaily.com... 7. https://www.skepticalscience.com... 8. https://skepticalscience.com... 9. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com... 10. https://www.skepticalscience.com... 11. https://www.climate.gov... 12. http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com... to conclusions 13. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com... 14. http://rationalwiki.org... 15. isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k70847&pageid=icb.page346376 16. http://www.snopes.com...

Climate change is a fraud

You haven't addressed the issue of scientists not being asked if the problem was urgent or important. You haven't addressed the fact that 90% of the scientists who did the survey were not included in the results. Note - Plate tectonics is total nonsense. See Expanding Earth video. Note - A pulling gravity is total nonsense. See Robert Distinti website. Thus, My opponent is using one lie as evidence to promote another further lie. Note - Multi-layering of lies doesn't equal truth. 2. Quote - The human species has created enough nuclear weapons to wipe out all life on Earth even though we are a relatively small portion of the total mass Reply - A totally unrelated analogy. This debate is about have much heat each human produces which is nothing like an atomic explosion. Thus, My opponent is fear mongering and creating unrealistic analogies. Quote - Viruses and bacteria are microscopic but can cause big effects (including death) in us. So being small does not mean you can have no effect. Reply - More lies to protect other lies. Viruses don't exist. I know, Because I have worked in a biology lab and I know the truth about these things. Germs have never been a threat to humans. It is only a bad diet which can cause disease. See my other debates on The Corona Virus Fraud. Quote - That's actually a faulty analogy because humans don't release the heat that warms the globe. That comes from the sun, Which has a mass over 300, 000 times that of the Earth. Reply - Good! That's the first sensible thing you have written so far. It's the sun which creates the Earth's climate and humans have nothing to do with it. Imagine if the sun suddenly disappeared. What would happen? Answer- The Earth would freeze to 4 degrees above absolute zero. Could the tiny humans prevent this from happening with all their fossil fuels? Answer - No chance. Thus, This little logic exercise proves that the puny human race is totally defenceless against what the sun does or doesn't do. 3. Quote - That's not the same as a saturation point because the heat trapped is still increasing, Just more slowly. I linked a graph in my last argument showing a clear linear increase on a graph with a logarithmic scale for CO2 concentration. Reply - The increases in reflectivity after the saturation point are so minute that they are not worth consideration. I have seen the graphs. Quote -Leading to greater evaporation of water and creating a positive feedback loop which exacerbates the warming. Reply - Water vapour causes a thermostatic effect. The more heat creates more water vapour which creates more cooling. Thus, The Earth is a self regulating thermostat which can cool itself if it does happen to get a tiny bit warmer. Note - There is no warming feed back which my opponent falsely claims without any evidence. 5. Quote from NOAA - Tree ring data have been used to reconstruct drought or temperature in North America and Europe over the past 2, 000 years. For example, Tree ring based drought reconstructions for the American Southwest indicate a period of prolonged drought in the late 1200’s. Archaeologists believe that the drought was a contributing factor in the Ancestral Pueblo People abandoning the famous cliff dwellings at Mesa Verde, Never to return. Reply - This only tells us that it was drier and has nothing to do with temperature. Thus, My opponent is making false claims about tree ring data as being able to determine previous temperatures. Quote - An inverted graph is an example of fraud--and one which can easily be caught by the process of peer review to stop such a study from ever making it into a reputable journal. Reply - It depends more on whether the information is pro-climate change or against climate change. If it is pro-climate change, Then the peer review system will endorse it as being valid regardless of how irrational, Corrupt, Evil, Conniving, Underhanded, Evasive and deceptive that the information is.

Human caused climate change is total nonsense

CO2 1. CO2 is an odourless and colourless gas. It has properties similar to glass, In that it can reflect some heat radiation. CO2 is also limited in its reflection of radiation in the same manner that glass is limited. Like glass, Is ceases to reflect heat radiation after it reaches its saturation point. In the case of glass - glass which is 2 feet thick will retain or reflect the same amount of heat that which a 1/4 inch glass will reflect. In the case of CO2, Will reach it's saturation point at around 80 parts/ million. Thereafter, CO2 will not reflect any further heat radiation. Therefore, The alarmists nincompoops who keep telling us to not to burn coal so as to avoid increasing the CO2 don't know or understand what the properties of CO2 really are. The main arguments about the cause of global warming concern CO2 as being the main culprit. Yet, The real science doesn't agree with this knee jerk type layman science that we hear from the media. My opponent will say that thousands of scientists agree with climate change principles. This is only because their careers depend on it. It they disagreed with climate change they would find themselves being black listed and unemployed. Thus, It is very unlikely that you will hear any scientist disagree with climate change. 2. Mass relationship with human body and machine weight, Verses Earth size and weight. If you compare the mass and weight of the Earth and compare that mass with the total mass and weight of humans and their machines you will find that the differential ratio is trillions x trillions x trillions x trillions x trillions to one. Thus, It doesn't matter how much heat that humans give out it will always be totally insignificant in relation to the size and mass of the Earth. The laws of physics and heat dissipation in relation to mass tell us that humans just can't affect the global climate of the Earth because humans are way too insignificant and small in relation to the size of the Earth. To put this into the correct perspective - humanity represents 3 grains of sand on a beach while the Earth represents the remainder of the beach. Thus, It doesn't matter how hot those 3 grains of sand get because they are never going to make the rest of the beach any hotter. 3. Corona virus, Climate change, World War I, World War II, Spanish flu, Holes in the ozone layer, Sars, BSE, Influenza, Ebola, Polio, Zika, HIV, Hong Kong flu, Dengue fever and swine flu. These are all propaganda exercises to make money out of gullible fools. There is only one human disease which is vitamin deficiency disease. The world did not enter a new human caused ice age in the 1970's as predicted by all the world governments. The two world wars were securing oil in Iraq and not about freedom. Ebola, BSE, Zika and Polio are about pesticides and are not about viruses. Thus, The world governments constantly produce an endless stream of nonsense science to trick and fool the masses into believing all their nonsenses. This is done to herd the masses into a frenzy of confusion. A confused mass of people hasn't got time to look at the people who are causing all this confusion because they are so preoccupied in running and hiding form the invisible monsters that the governments creates to scare them.

Donald Trump thinks climate change is a hoax.

In other words you claim Donald Trump is a compulsive liar who will say anything to turn heads. The fact that Donald Trump words suggest that Donald Trump thinks Climate Changeis a hoax does not matter. I'll accept that. Politicians are know to lie. I know its the 3rd round, but you literally have not given me any option, other than to create a new argument in the 3rd round, so here it goes. Actions speak louder than words Donald Trump destroyed a scientific area of interest and natural habitat in order to build a golf course in Scotland. [3][4] Clearly, both in actions and words Trump has no respect for the environment. My opponent has shown that Trump is a compulsive liar, so his words should not matter. I think the only out for my opponent now is to prove that Trump knows that climate change is real and a threat, but is so greedy that he destroys the environment anyway. Thanks for the debate. Sources 3. http://www.imdb.com... 4. http://www.nytimes.com...

Climate change is a real thing, And we could be in danger if we don't act fast.

Climate change is very real, As proven by numerous studies, (Which I will provide if it becomes relevant), And it is largely our fault as a civilization, More importantly, Our carbon emissions. If we want to pave a good future (or at this rate, Any future at all) for the next generations, We need to act up about all this now.

Anthropogenic Climate Change Exists

"NASA data, which I cited in [6], shows there has been no global warming for 17 years." So how do we have two competing sources for what should be the same information? PRO [5] - IPCC CON [6] - NASA? If we look closely, CON's [6] doesn't actually reference NASA, it references wattsupwiththat.com. The wattsupwiththat article uses RSS data, not NASA data. RSS, or Remote Sensing Systems, does not measure temperatures using a thermometer, it takes readings of microwaves, as explained on its homepage http://www.remss.com...; The data demonstrates that microwaves are not "net heating" the earth, but CON and the wattsupwiththat article argue that the earth itself is not being warmed. When measured by thermometers throughout the globe, IPCC and NASA sources have shown that the earth clearly is being warmed. CON's [6] is a particularly ironic source in the context of this debate, during which CON has advocated sunspots as an alternative temperature explanation to CO2. CON argues that "decadal average" means that the meaning of "anomaly" is reset every decade. The IPCC actually addressed this concern by setting every decadal average relative to the same constant (in this case, "Anomalies are relative to the mean of 1961−1990."[7]). "My primary reference for the claim that that IPCC models cannot explain the 17 year lack of global warming is Tinsdale's book “Climate Models Fail” [7]." - CON The existence of a book title is not an argued debate point. If CON has read Tisdale's book, he should be able to explain and present what he learned in this debate. Otherwise, I should be having this debate with Bob Tisdale. "Tinsdale provides a book length comparison of IPCC model results showing that what actually happened in climate was outside of the error band of model predictions." - CON Which model predictions do CON and Tisdale speak of? Because when the IPCC compared model predictions to observations, the temperature observations were outside the 'natural forcings' band of model predictions, and well withing the 'natural and anthropogenic forcings' band of model predictions. This was part of what I presented in round 4. "Tinsdale also referenced the Mauritsen paper, which I linked in [7]" - CON CON [7] references Tinsdale, not Mauritsen. "Temperature was supposed to rise sharply after 2000, as the figure shows, but it did not. Models proved wrong cannot be relied upon for future predictions." Perhaps CON missed this: the blue shading is the natural, absence-of-man prediction; the pink shading is the natural + anthropogenic predictions; and the black line is the reading taken by the thermometers. The black line is consistent with the blue shading for the antarctic region, seems indecisive for the Southern Ocean, and correllates with the pink shading for the Arctic, North America, Europe, Asia, the North Pacific, the North Atlantic, Africa, the South Pacific, South America, the South Atlantic, the Indian Ocean, Australia, and Antarctica. "Pro's initial contention was that vanishing Arctic sea ice proves that CO2 dominates climate." - CON PRO's initial contention was actually that temperature anomalies correspond to a rise in CO2 as predicted by the greenhouse effect, and demonstrated by sea ice temperature, sea ice mass, climate temperature, ocean temperature, and ocean PH. "Correlation does not prove causation." - CON PRO [3] http://climate.nasa.gov...; /> 20th century physics consisted of bombarding particles into each other and measuring the deviation of their paths. This was well-tested far beyond being a correlation argument, to the point that physicists predict photonic behavior with laser precision (literally). It is by this mechanism that greenhouse theory exists. It's not a correlation argument, it mathematically calculates that visible photons have no trouble passing through the earth's atmosphere to warm the surface, but upon bouncing back upwards and losing energy (increasing wavelength), are prone to be deflected back at the earth by greenhouse gases. This re-warms the earth. "Global warming is global, so it cannot be that Arctic ice measures warming but Antarctic ice does not." - CON They both measure warming, but remember - it's global, so we cannot use Antarctic ice to ignore temperature observations from the Arctic, North America, Europe, Asia, the North Pacific, the North Atlantic, Africa, the South Pacific, South America, the South Atlantic, the Indian Ocean, Australia, and - yes - even the temperature readings of the Antarctic (as I pointed out in round 3, ice and temperature cannot have a linear relationship except at temperatures near freezing point - this is why 'absorption of energy' is more relevant than short term temperature). "In the last round, Pro changed his position and argued that total ice is important and not sea ice" - CON I argued that deuterium levels from the last ten thousand years were less relevant than energy readings from the last century. CON's narrative of my position is unrecognizable to me, so my most objective route at this point is to request of voters that they actually find the "PRO" arguments that correlate with the "CON" narrative before either agreeing or disagreeing with it - and vice versa. "total ice has been decreasing since the early 1800s, well before any claim of anthropogenic warming." - CON Deforestation has actually increased net CO2 emissions since before 1750 [9], http://zfacts.com...; /> but in negotiating this debate, CON chose "temperature anomalies from 1900 to 2200 are / will be predominantly anthropogenic" from a number of other possible Anthropogenic Climate Change Exists subtopics, so we'll have to save that discussion for another day. As I have explained at least three times in this debate, ice represents two out of seven continents to measure, and as CON has explained, this is a discussion about global temperature. "Pro claimed that melting land ice in Antarctica caused the increase in sea ice." - CON I discussed three measurements - temperature, volume, and area. These were ALL in regards to land ice in Antarctica. PRO Round 3: 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. "Future CO2 levels are unknown" - CON Solar, volcanic, botanic, and other alleged hidden variables in century-measured climate change would have to accelerate hundreds of times over in the next two centuries if anthropogenic CO2 is to become a 'secondary' driver of climate anomalies. This can even be deduced from CON's use of geological data, which covers up to 600 million years at a time. Current physical predictions indicate that anthropogenic global warming will be steady and lingering for several centuries, and statistically comprehensive climate data corresponds to this theory. 9. http://zfacts.com...

Ice Ages versus Man Made Climate Change.

Resolved: Ice Ages are real, we are currently in an interglacial period and the Earth will warm further with or without the influences of mankind. Round 1: acceptance only Round 2: opening arguments (Thou shall not refute current round) Round 3: refutation of opponent's Round 2 argument. Round 4: closing arguments & response to R3 refutations if you so desire. Any sources used must be linked to directly. Linking to WWW.climate.com will not be considered quality sourcing unless you link DIRECTLY to a specific article within the webpage. (WWW.climate.com was just an example.) As Pro I shall argue as Resolved above. As Con (if you accept) you shall argue in support of man made global climate change.