Have you got any other arguments, or have you only got...
Climate change is real.
Have you got any other arguments, or have you only got your silly theory?
Topic space view
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
-
PRO -
CON Accept.
Climate change is real.
Accept.
-
PRO If we are a simulation and are unreal, how am I conscious?
Climate change is real.
If we are a simulation and are unreal, how am I conscious?
-
CON http://www.debate.org...... ... 1....
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......
-
CON Subpoint A:Contrary to popular belief, humans have very...
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.
-
PRO Climate data fraud. ... Good luck.
Climate change is a fraud
Video evidence - The In-depth Story Behind A Climate Fraud. The 97% consensus fraud. 2. It's mathematically impossible and against the laws of physics that a tiny human mass verses huge Earth mass, That the former can effect the latter. 3. The properties of CO2 are such that it can't create global warming on the scale indicated by scientists. This is because CO2 reaches it's saturation point at 80 parts / million and doesn't reflect any significant amount of heat after this point is reached. 4. Maurice Strong is the main person that started this whole climate frenzy movement and was found to be corrupt and fled to China to hide from the global police. 5. Climate data fraud. Tree rings used as evidence when it is known that tree ring growth is not an accurate measurement of temperature. "Hide the decline" email by Phil Jones. Mike's trick. Hockey stick nonsense. Inverted graphs. Etc. There, That should keep you busy for a while. Refute all these points. Good luck.
-
PRO Long-lived gases, remaining semi-permanently in the...
Climate Shift
I thank my opponent for accepting my debate. Pros Case Point A: Climate shift is real Sub point 1: Scientific consensus "Carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants are collecting in the atmosphere like a thickening blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm up. Although local temperatures fluctuate naturally, over the past 50 years the average global temperature has increased at the fastest rate in recorded history. Scientists say that unless we curb the emissions that cause climate change, average U.S. temperatures could be 3 to 9 degrees higher by the end of the century." Scientists are undoubtedly sure that climate shift is indeed a real threat. As is corroborated by a collection of scholarly articles. 97% of climate scientists are in agreement.(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7) Point B: Climate Shift is influenced by Humanity Sub point 1: Scientific Consensus "The United States Global Change Research Program (which includes the Department of Defense, NASA, National Science Foundation and other government agencies) has said that 'global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced' and that 'climate changes are underway in the United States and are projected to grow.'"(3) "The climate change denial machine has been working hard to discredit the latest UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which confirms that climate change is occurring and that human activity is primarily responsible."(5) "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."(6) Again this is a case of overwhelming scientific consensus. Sub point 2: Carbon Emissions are a major cause, and a product of humanity "The only way to explain the pattern [of climate shift] is to include the effect of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted by humans."(2) "Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space. Certain gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping. Long-lived gases, remaining semi-permanently in the atmosphere, which do not respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are described as "forcing" climate change"(7) Scientists agree that humanity has altered the balance of greenhouse gases on the earth, which is a direct major cause of climate shift. Point C: Climate shift threatens the future, and is therefore a legitimate concern of those who care about the future of humanity. Global climate change leads to: -Increased temperatures -Changing landscapes -A higher number of droughts, fires, and floods -Endangered wildlife habitats -Rising sea levels -Greater damage from extreme storms -More heat-related illness and disease -Economic problems (4) Sub point 1: Climate shift encourages natural disaster "Hurricanes and other storms are likely to become stronger."(2) "Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause hurricanes globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size."(8) With storms like sandy become more common and much stronger, Humans living in coastal regions face a very serious threat. Already hurricanes such as sandy and the recent Typhoon in the Philippines are costing billions of dollars in damages, and thousands of human lives. (9)(10) Climate shift is likely to cause these storms to become even more intense, therefore threatening to cost even more lives and money. These death counts and damage costs are not small, by any stretch of the imagination; with climate shift left unchecked, these counts will grow. Sub point 2: Rising sea levels/flooding "Sea levels are expected to rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 and 59 centimeters) by the end of the century, and continued melting at the poles could add between 4 and 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters)."(2) "Floods and droughts will become more common. Rainfall in Ethiopia, where droughts are already common, could decline by 10 percent over the next 50 years."(2) As polar caps warm, ice caps are likely to melt and release water into the oceans and seas, causing the levels to rise. this could result in flooding in coastal cities, such as New Orleans, that are close to, at, or below sea level. Furthermore, climate shift could result in more intense cycles of flooding and drought in other areas of the world, such as Ethiopia. These are real threats to human lives. Flooding, like storms, has a very high cost of both money and, more importantly, human life. Sub point 3: Future effects of climate shift could significantly increase the hostility of the Earth environment. There are a myriad of effects that climate shift will have that will make the Earth environment, generally, more hostile. "Some diseases will spread, such as malaria carried by mosquitoes." (2) "Less fresh water will be available. If the Quelccaya ice cap in Peru continues to melt at its current rate, it will be gone by 2100, leaving thousands of people who rely on it for drinking water and electricity without a source of either." (2) "Below are some of the regional impacts of global change forecast by the IPCC: -North America: Decreasing snowpack in the western mountains; 5-20 percent increase in yields of rain-fed agriculture in some regions; increased frequency, intensity and duration of heat waves in cities that currently experience them. -Latin America: Gradual replacement of tropical forest by savannah in eastern Amazonia; risk of significant biodiversity loss through species extinction in many tropical areas; significant changes in water availability for human consumption, agriculture and energy generation. -Europe: Increased risk of inland flash floods; more frequent coastal flooding and increased erosion from storms and sea level rise; glacial retreat in mountainous areas; reduced snow cover and winter tourism; extensive species losses; reductions of crop productivity in southern Europe. -Africa: By 2020, between 75 and 250 million people are projected to be exposed to increased water stress; yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent in some regions by 2020; agricultural production, including access to food, may be severely compromised. -Asia: Freshwater availability projected to decrease in Central, South, East and Southeast Asia by the 2050s; coastal areas will be at risk due to increased flooding; death rate from disease associated with floods and droughts expected to rise in some regions."(11) Here are some charts to illustrate further effects. (11) Current Effects Future Effects Summary There is overwhelming evidence to prove that climate shift is indeed real and influenced greatly by humanity. Furthermore, the effects of climate shift are so massively detrimental that those who are concerned over the future of humanity ought to care greatly about the massive loss of life, cost of damage, and other miscellaneous undesirables that are consequences of climate shift. Sources 1. http://www.sciencemag.org...... 2. http://environment.nationalgeographic.com...... 3. http://www.nrdc.org...... 4. http://www.mfpp.org...... 5. http://www.edf.org...... 6. http://climate.nasa.gov...... 7. http://climate.nasa.gov...... 8. http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov...... 9. http://www.usatoday.com...... 10. http://worldnews.nbcnews.com...... 11. http://climate.nasa.gov......
-
PRO Before I start my argument, I want to say that I don't...
What is your opinion on climate change
Before I start my argument, I want to say that I don't deny climate change, I just disagree with some points made by people like Deeznutsisreal. Some research shows (https://climate.nasa.gov...) that our greenhouse gas emissions could be exacerbated by solar irradiance. The earth also goes through natural warming phases (https://www.theccc.org.uk...) and that could make what we are producing worse. In Round 2, I hope to see Deeznutsisreal's sources and better grammar.
-
PRO Long-lived gases, remaining semi-permanently in the...
Climate Shift
I am confused by my opponents argument. He has taken the Con side and must disagree and disprove the resolution, but his argument is only in favor of the pro. I must assume that he is being sarcastic, but I am not sure. Pros Case Point A: Climate shift is real Sub point 1: Scientific consensus "Carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants are collecting in the atmosphere like a thickening blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm up. Although local temperatures fluctuate naturally, over the past 50 years the average global temperature has increased at the fastest rate in recorded history. Scientists say that unless we curb the emissions that cause climate change, average U.S. temperatures could be 3 to 9 degrees higher by the end of the century." Scientists are undoubtedly sure that climate shift is indeed a real threat. As is corroborated by a collection of scholarly articles. 97% of climate scientists are in agreement.(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7) Point B: Climate Shift is influenced by Humanity Sub point 1: Scientific Consensus "The United States Global Change Research Program (which includes the Department of Defense, NASA, National Science Foundation and other government agencies) has said that 'global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced' and that 'climate changes are underway in the United States and are projected to grow.'"(3) "The climate change denial machine has been working hard to discredit the latest UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which confirms that climate change is occurring and that human activity is primarily responsible."(5) "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."(6) Again this is a case of overwhelming scientific consensus. Sub point 2: Carbon Emissions are a major cause, and a product of humanity "The only way to explain the pattern [of climate shift] is to include the effect of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted by humans."(2) "Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space. Certain gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping. Long-lived gases, remaining semi-permanently in the atmosphere, which do not respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are described as "forcing" climate change"(7) Scientists agree that humanity has altered the balance of greenhouse gases on the earth, which is a direct major cause of climate shift. Point C: Climate shift threatens the future, and is therefore a legitimate concern of those who care about the future of humanity. Global climate change leads to: -Increased temperatures -Changing landscapes -A higher number of droughts, fires, and floods -Endangered wildlife habitats -Rising sea levels -Greater damage from extreme storms -More heat-related illness and disease -Economic problems (4) Sub point 1: Climate shift encourages natural disaster "Hurricanes and other storms are likely to become stronger."(2) "Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause hurricanes globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size."(8) With storms like sandy become more common and much stronger, Humans living in coastal regions face a very serious threat. Already hurricanes such as sandy and the recent Typhoon in the Philippines are costing billions of dollars in damages, and thousands of human lives. (9)(10) Climate shift is likely to cause these storms to become even more intense, therefore threatening to cost even more lives and money. These death counts and damage costs are not small, by any stretch of the imagination; with climate shift left unchecked, these counts will grow. Sub point 2: Rising sea levels/flooding "Sea levels are expected to rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 and 59 centimeters) by the end of the century, and continued melting at the poles could add between 4 and 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters)."(2) "Floods and droughts will become more common. Rainfall in Ethiopia, where droughts are already common, could decline by 10 percent over the next 50 years."(2) As polar caps warm, ice caps are likely to melt and release water into the oceans and seas, causing the levels to rise. this could result in flooding in coastal cities, such as New Orleans, that are close to, at, or below sea level. Furthermore, climate shift could result in more intense cycles of flooding and drought in other areas of the world, such as Ethiopia. These are real threats to human lives. Flooding, like storms, has a very high cost of both money and, more importantly, human life. Sub point 3: Future effects of climate shift could significantly increase the hostility of the Earth environment. There are a myriad of effects that climate shift will have that will make the Earth environment, generally, more hostile. "Some diseases will spread, such as malaria carried by mosquitoes." (2) "Less fresh water will be available. If the Quelccaya ice cap in Peru continues to melt at its current rate, it will be gone by 2100, leaving thousands of people who rely on it for drinking water and electricity without a source of either." (2) "Below are some of the regional impacts of global change forecast by the IPCC: -North America: Decreasing snowpack in the western mountains; 5-20 percent increase in yields of rain-fed agriculture in some regions; increased frequency, intensity and duration of heat waves in cities that currently experience them. -Latin America: Gradual replacement of tropical forest by savannah in eastern Amazonia; risk of significant biodiversity loss through species extinction in many tropical areas; significant changes in water availability for human consumption, agriculture and energy generation. -Europe: Increased risk of inland flash floods; more frequent coastal flooding and increased erosion from storms and sea level rise; glacial retreat in mountainous areas; reduced snow cover and winter tourism; extensive species losses; reductions of crop productivity in southern Europe. -Africa: By 2020, between 75 and 250 million people are projected to be exposed to increased water stress; yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent in some regions by 2020; agricultural production, including access to food, may be severely compromised. -Asia: Freshwater availability projected to decrease in Central, South, East and Southeast Asia by the 2050s; coastal areas will be at risk due to increased flooding; death rate from disease associated with floods and droughts expected to rise in some regions."(11) Here are some charts to illustrate further effects. (11) Current Effects Future Effects Summary There is overwhelming evidence to prove that climate shift is indeed real and influenced greatly by humanity. Furthermore, the effects of climate shift are so massively detrimental that those who are concerned over the future of humanity ought to care greatly about the massive loss of life, cost of damage, and other miscellaneous undesirables that are consequences of climate shift. Sources 1. http://www.sciencemag.org... 2. http://environment.nationalgeographic.com... 3. http://www.nrdc.org... 4. http://www.mfpp.org... 5. http://www.edf.org... 6. http://climate.nasa.gov... 7. http://climate.nasa.gov... 8. http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov... 9. http://www.usatoday.com... 10. http://worldnews.nbcnews.com... 11. http://climate.nasa.gov...
-
CON I sourced this properly whereas Pro provided a list of...
Climate Shift
Pro's framework is not relevant. Pro is debating 3 different issues in such a way as to lead the audience into automatic acceptance of the core issue "is global warming aka climate shift man made" Point A: we have had fossil evidence of an ice age for ages, and the fact that we aren't currently living on a frozen planet is evidence enough for global warming to have existed long before man was capable of producing enough GHG emissions to significantly alter the environment. The "Resolved: climate shift is real" frame is obvious to anyone who has heard of the wooly mammoth. Point B: Climate Shift is influenced by man. This is the only real point to debate and the scientific consensus was misrepresented by Pro from the outset. 97% of scientists can not agree if a majority of 66% of them haven't taken a stance on the issue. Pro is cherry picking his statistics. I sourced this properly whereas Pro provided a list of websites he gleamed information from without actually linking to the relevant articles within those sites to be reviewed. The laundry list of "predicted effects of global warming" that pro provided aren't relevant to the core issue of "is climate change man made". Its fear mongering and shouldn't be considered in a debate. Point C: there is no point C. Obviously climate change should be a concern for humanity regardless of whether or not it was caused by the actions of mankind. This is an appeal to emotions intended to influencing the voters. I hope the voters can see thru this laundry list of predictions presented by Pro. The only relevant paragraph in his whole argument was sub-point 2 concerning GHG emissions. Which is compelling but lacks depth since there are many other factors determining climate shift. GHG emissions only explain warming trends, solar activity and thermal storage in the oceans are presumably responsible for cooling trends. Feel free to fault me for breaking the instigator's framework so long as you fault the instigator for setting up a poor framework.
