args

Is Human Activity an addition to increased Global Warming/Climate Change

Before I begin my argument, let me emphasis that regardless of whether "human activity is an addition to increased Global Warming / Climate Change", people should try their best to act for the common good. With that said, you have not properly defined what "human activity" is and what level of change constitutes "Climate Change". Not all human activities cause Global Warming or Climate Change. Furthermore, your evidence at best, only shows that human expels more CO2 than other species, but never considers whether such level of increase is detrimental. If you do not define what is detrimental, then it can be said that the level of CO2 expel by my hamster is causing Global Warming.

Climate Change is a real issue

My opponent has used the same authoritarian approach used by climate scientists. He assumes because something has become accepted that it can't be later disputed. Let go over what got from liberal media sources The liberal media told you: Sea level rising; this, If it happens, Is predicted to displace 143 million people not to mention disrupt international trading, Food production, Land animal/plants ecosystem and living space and the planetary absorption/reflection of the sun's rays. The counterargument we can just clear away national forest, Parks, And open spaces and use as more spacing for houses. Besides, We all know that the sea level rising is all a shame made by Obama and crew of scientist. Loo around are water level rising inpoll and ocean no they have always been the same and will remain the same. The liberal media told you: Ecosystem collapse; as you might have read many animals, And plants alike are sensitive to ecosystem change causing species to die out or become reduced which could potentially allow an invasive species to come in or a chain reaction of species dying out which will decrease the earth's biodiversity and overall planetary sustainability. Counter Argument: That's good thing for animals to bother us. Besides, How are these animal important they just take up space. We used their space for more buildings and homes which are I'm[portant than the animals. We have peta, Who can take these animals in. These animals are dangerous so we should eliminate them The liberal media told you: Carbon and other particles have been rising in ppm, For the most part, These last few centuries, This could have an impact on the overall health and quality of life the atmosphere could provide to us by exposing us all to an unhealthy amount of particles that might impede our body's ability to function Counter arugemt. Could and not would. Besidees what little more co2 going to cause. Nothing dangerous that's for sure. We have always been using cars and nothing has happen in all those years why think it going happen now The liberal media told you: As I said before currently our planet's ecosystem is strained, You might have heard about banana farms being killed off, Or species going extinct, Perhaps the killer wasp stories or the invasive species stories. Ecosystems have long evolved in such a way to even create breeds of the same species just so it thrives and contributes to a healthy ecosystem, When species die it leaves the local area without its overall stability and vulnerable to intrusion and entropy of the ecosystem. A shoddy comparison is a free market, Where the businesses have specialized in their niche to be the best in that field that is what life has done to thrive in their ecosystems, But if you change variables suddenly some can't change fast enough and will go under. That is what happens in both the free market and in ecosystems. Counter arugemnt: This is fake news. The killer wasp and the banana farm story are just used to make the republicans look bad. Well they have failed because we know that this isn't true which is why we have used many traditional ways of doing work and getting work done

Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

The greenhouse effect is a thing, and hypothetically it would raise temperatures. But adding more and more to our atmosphere does not infinitely raise the temperature, it only raises it to an extent. Yet again I see you have ignored the very important claim that we are coming out of a galatial period, which explains the warming trend, and everything you think it has caused. Also, few climate scientists actually worry where we are headed, those are environmental activists, corrupt politicians, and a few scientists hired specifically to prove it is man made. In most cases, you will see that studies that indicate a rapid change are botched, as seen in my 97% debate. And may I ask you some questions you are free to answer in the comments, what have you done. Are you yelling about a problem you are part of? Do you drive an electric car? Do you plant? Have you actually gone out as I have and contribute to a worthy solution? And what does population have anything to do with climate change? Also, may I end with an argument that I may have benifited from starting with. The only constant is change. When the media makes these claims, they leave so much out of the picture. As you have done with my arguments. They take one thing, leave out the rest, which makes it easy to destroy its foundation. If we actually see the whole picture, and know the problem for what it is, then we can come up with actual solutions that can make an actual change. Not just weak EPA political action. Thanks for reading.

The developed world is mostly to blame for climate change

It was unknown that emitting greenhouse gases caused climate change until the 1980s – over a century after the industrial revolution. Developing nations were not initially aware of the damage they were causing, therefore the harm was unintentional. It is unfair to retrospectively punish these nations for something that was unknown to be harmful when it was done. The responsibility should therefore be based upon either current emissions or at most emissions from the period in which the damage caused was known and emissions could have been reduced.

That Humans Are Causing Climate Change

I would like to thank CarterWale for presenting his arguments. The resolution is that humans have caused the modern climate change. However, most of my opponent's arguments either deals with the existence of global warming itself, or rules out (rather invalidly) other alternatives. He does very little to actually satisfy his burden of proof that humans are causing global warming. My arguments will be predicated on one simple assumption " that the vast majority of the claimed human impact is the result of greenhouse gas emissions. Humans Have Not Caused the Modern Global Warming There are many indicators that point to CO2 emissions not being the cause of the modern global warming. First, CO2 is actually a lagging indicator compared to temperature. As it turns out, temperature may be what's causing CO2 levels to rise. "The most recent study on this concluded that the results of their tedious but meticulous analysis led them to ultimately conclude that "the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 +/- 200 years." There is also shorter correlations, but again, temperature seems to cause CO2 rise instead of the reverse.[1] This graph shows just one of the lags: [1] Second, according to the greenhouse effect, global warming should be starting from the lower atmosphere and moving to the surface (because the CO2 collects in the upper troposphere first). However, this is not happening. "...satellite and high-altitude balloon data confirm that the lower atmosphere is not trapping lots of additional heat due to higher CO2 concentrations. It is hard to know how fast the Earth's highly variable surface is warming, but it is warming faster than the lower atmosphere where the CO2 is accumulating. This is strong evidence that CO2 is not the primary climate factor."[2] Here is a graph showing how the surface has warmed more than the troposphere: [1] (Blue line is lower troposphere temperature) Third, global warming is not starting at the poles like it should be, by the greenhouse theory. In fact, there has been general, relative cooling: "If the greenhouse theory were valid, temperatures in the Arctic and the Antarctic would have risen several degrees Celsius since 1940 due to the huge emissions of man-made CO2... Recently, a team led by the University of Chicago's Peter Doran published a paper in Nature saying, 'Although previous reports suggest recent continental warming, our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000'. The data from 21 Antarctic surface stations show an average continental decline of 0.008 degrees C from 1978 to 1998, and the infrared data from satellites operating since 1979 show a decline of 0.42 degrees C per decade. David W. J. Thompson of Colorado State University and Susan Soloman of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration also report a cooling trend in the Antarctic interior. ... report that satellite imaging shows increases in Southern Ocean sea ice parameters from 1978 to 1996 and an increase in the length of the sea-ice season in the 1990s."[2] To illustrate, here is a picture of the southern hemisphere sea ice anomaly, which shows that southern sea ice is actually increasing: [3] Fourth, current levels of CO2 have very little effect on temperature. The greenhouse effect certainly exists, but it doesn't become linearly stronger with increasing amounts of CO2. CO2's effect on temperature is logarithmic, meaning that each additional increase has a smaller effect on the climate than the last. "The carbon that is already up in the atmosphere absorbs most of the light it can. CO2 only soaks up its favorite wavelengths of light and it's close to its saturation point. It manages to grab a bit more light from wavelengths that are close to its favorite bands but it can't do much more, because there are not many left-over photons at the right wavelengths."[1][4] This chart shows approximately the effect that each additional increment of CO2 increase has on temperature: [4] Note how the pre-industrial to modern level increase has had less than a 0.2 C increase in temperature. Fifth and most importantly, the predicted "hot-spot" 10 miles above the tropics that would be a signature of CO2-induced global warming is absent. "The computer models show that greenhouse warming will cause a hot-spot at an altitude between 8 and 12 km over the tropics between 30 N and 30 S. The temperature at this hot-spot is projected to increase at a rate of two to three times faster than at the surface. However, the Hadley Centre's real-world plot of radiosonde temperature observations shown below does not show the projected CO2 induced global warming hot-spot at all. The predicted hot-spot is entirely absent from the observational record. This shows that atmosphere warming theory programmed into climate models are wrong."[1] Here is the plot of predicted temperature changes due to CO2: However, here is the actual observed temperature changes: [1] The hot spot is completely missing, which is pretty much a knockout blow to the anthropogenic global warming theory. Even so, CO2 has not correlated well with the climate anyway. Throughout the past 600 million years, almost one-seventh of the age of the Earth, the mode of global surface temperatures was ~22C, even when carbon dioxide concentration peaked at 7000 ppmv, almost 20 times today's near-record-low concentration. Here is a graph showing CO2 concentrations versus temperature over the past 600 million years: [1] Note especially how high CO2 concentrations were earlier in Earth's history, reaching as high as 7000 ppmv. It was around 4500 ppmv during the very cold Ordovician era. Considering My Opponent's Arguments I was going to wait until the next round to consider his arguments, but after reading them, I thought I would discredit the majority of pro's arguments, as they aren't even worth arguing against. Arguments 1-3 are irrelevant - they don't show how human-emitted greenhouse gases have caused global warming. Argument 4 eliminates (rather invalidly) that the sun is not causing global warming " that still doesn't show that humans are causing global warming. Arguments 5 and 6 are relevant and I will consider them. Arguments 7 and 9-12 just show evidence for global warming " not anthropogenic global warming. Arguments 8, 13, and 14 will be considered. So essentially, only arguments 5, 6, 8, 13, and 14 are relevant to the resolution that pro made. All the rest either only prove global warming itself or demonstrate that humans have caused the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations, and so have no bearing on a debate considering anthropogenic global warming. I will consider those relevant arguments and those arguments only in the next round, along with any objections pro has to my own arguments. Sources [1]: http://www.friendsofscience.org... [2]: Singer, S. Fred, and Dennis T. Avery: Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years [3]: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu... [4]: http://joannenova.com.au...

CMV: the fight against climate change will be impossible because of compromises.

Your CMV presupposes that the only way to fight climate change is to stop doing things that negatively effect the environment, but you seem to have completely forgotten about climate control. I'd argue that it's far more likely, given humanity's propensity for technological solutions to problems and the rate at which we've developed so far, that we end up creating ways to control our environment, as opposed to stopping causing damage to it. While I appreciate this isn't physically possible right now, theoretically it is. And we already have certain elements of climate control like cloud bursting nailed. That is certainly one way we can fight climate change without making any (or perhaps very few) of the compromises you went through.

Human caused climate change is total nonsense

i don't have to its all rubbish all i have to do it point out reality that 99% of scientific data real science all backs the fact that climate change is almost completely man made https://www. Carbonbrief. Org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans