Taking a Stand Against Climate Change with Greener Technologies
My opponent has argued that the moderate to poor correlation of CO2 is enough to be
considered major, however this is illogical. First, I never said CO2 had no effect, I argued it was not the main cause.
Second, it is unlikely increasing CO2 has a large impact because CO2 increases are logarithmic,
in other words the more CO2 there is the less warming effect each unit has. If we double the amount of CO2 from pre-industrial
levels (we have gone through 30-50% increase) then warming per I increase would be
extremely small. A 20 ppm increase of CO2 would be much less then 0.2 degrees Celsius
[1]. Second, the climate is not very sensitive; a better way to put it would be an
increase in CO2 would have little effect. The evidence claiming climate to be sensitive
are very flawed, they ignore climate feedbacks and other factors relating to sensitivity.
If CO2 were to double, only a 1 degree increase would occur, we have not doubled CO2
levels from the pre-industrial era and have warmed less then one degree Celsius. With
current emissions it is unlikely we could argue CO2 is the main driver of climate change, when sensitivity is taken into account [2]. Second, my opponents rebuttal to the PDO and AMO argues the
correlation is due to the seas space, however he ignores the fact the PDO and AMO go into cooling
cycles and the correlation I cited showed when they cooled, the earth cooled, and
in a warming phase the land warmed. Dr. Roy Spencer has argued the PDO may cause three
quarters of the current warming due to its effects on clouds (therefore our albedo)
winds, and obviously tropical winds. And it heats the pacific, obviously warming the
earth in that way too. Spencer has argued, "mankind"s CO2 emissions are not strong
enough to have caused the global warming we"ve seen over the last 100 years." And
that "Here I present new evidence that most of the warming could be the result of
a natural cycle in cloud cover forced by a well-known mode of natural climate variability: the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). While the PDO is primarily a geographic rearrangement in atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns
in the North Pacific, it is well known that such regional changes can also influence weather patterns over much
larger areas, for instance North America or the entire Northern Hemisphere (which
is, by the way, the region over which the vast majority of global warming has occurred).[emphasis
added]"[3] For my opponents argument to work, he would need to prove the PDO and other
currents would only affect the regional areas (as he argued with his map). However,
the cloud cover changes caused by the PDO would change the earths albedo and cause warming for the entire northern hemisphere, and as he
noted that"s where the warming is primarily occurring. 1. Global warming is real and is a threat My opponent has argued this warming is unusually fast, which is interesting, as I have argued above that warming has stopped in recent years. With
the stop of warming in recent years, it is odd to argue it is rising unusually fast. Models have overestimated the effect of CO2, claiming over
the last 15-20 years the warming should have increased"a lot"however the warming has
stopped [4]. The earth has actually been significantly warmer throughout its time
period, when comparing us to other time periods in geologic history we are in an ice
age. According to the 1995 IPCC report, our warming as been extremely insignificant
and fairly normal. Climate geologists, generally, oppose climate alarmism. Many of the most well known geologists have argued the current warming
is "right on schedule". Nothing about our warming is odd, different, or one of a kind [5]. The sea level raises my opponent points too
are exaggerated. There is vast evidence that sea level rise is meager to nonexistent. A 2003 study finds sea level rise has only been about .5 mm
a year, half of what my opponent has argued. A 2004 study finds before 1940, sea level
rise was about 1mm per year"my opponent"s number"but finds there has been no sea level
increase (overall) after that date. Another 2004 study found, when you averaged the whole 20th century, we get 1.8mm rise
per year, but when you break it into chunks (1950-2000) no sea level rose in that
time period. And yet another 2004 study finds that the sea level increase is overall uncertain.
They note in their study they believe sea level has risen 2 mm per year, however they
failed to control for regional variability. They said their study answers many questions
and creates many more, and conclude one cannot conclude anything. A 2005 study finds
no increase in sea levels since 1950. And the list continues, the evidence that sea
level rise is meager is growing [6]. My opponent has admitted no increase of hurricanes
was argued. In other words, even if intensity increases but the number falls, we are
left with a wash. However, even the intensity argument fails. Pro argues my data is
incomplete"focusing on landfall hurricanes"although that"s what really matters (or
at least matters more) then sea hurricanes, his argument still falls when I extend
the data set. So let me again note: the number of hurricanes overall has fallen, and
my opponent overall drops that point. Many studies project a 5% increase in hurricane
intensity, however a 2005 study (although concluding higher intensity) says that number
is twice as high as it should be. Other studies have found intensity to be the same
or actually decrease. The 2005 study agreeing with my opponent, in a way, argues reducing
CO2 emissions (which would occur by using green energy as the resolution states) would
not change Hurricane intensity. A 2006 study finds there is no correlation between
global warming and wind speeds in Hurricanes. A second 2006 study replicates the results,
arguing there is no current correlation between Hurricane intensity and warming. Multiple
2007 and 2008 studies replicate these findings, arguing "if there is an increase in
hurricane activity connected to a greenhouse gas induced global warming, it is currently
obscured" (Chylek, P. and Lesins 2008) and that "no evidence that the distributional
mean of individual storm intensity, measured by storm days, track length, or individual
storm power dissipation index, has changed (increased or decreased) through time."
(Briggs 2008) [7]. The evidence is pretty compelling: no Hurricane intensity changes
have occurred. Remember: this is using non-landfall data too (making my opponents
objection refuted). And there is some evidence that global warming reduces the total
number of hurricanes meaning an overall decrease of extreme weather occurs. My opponent
plays semantics. In this debate climate change, as implied in round one, is global
warming. The dust bowl, as I argued, was caused by farming and not a warming earth.
Therefore, his objection is irrelevant. A drought in the 16th century has been deemed
a mega drought by a 2000 study. It was the largest drought in human history, before
humans could have caused it. Droughts within the last 1000 years are much more severe
then now, and a 1998 study noted there was a decrease of droughts in the 20th century.
Warming has no correlation with droughts, however overall sun intensity (which, sometimes,
means warming may correlate with droughts) and regional warming from the suns rays
caused droughts, not human processes [8]. Hunnington (2006) has pointed out rainfall
globally has been increasing. Many studies have concluded rainfall will increase because
of global warming; plant growth will increase, decreasing the possibility of a drought
[9]. 2. Caused by humans My opponent uses flawed data, my data was 60 million years
ago, and my opponent has used data from the creations, 5-6 million years before. As
CO2 naturally fluctuates with climate change"climate change often causes more CO2"it
would not be unheard of for the ppm levels to be close too, or far from, other dates.
My opponent also falsely correlated CO2 with temperature; by arguing it cannot be
that close, the Cambrian was warmer. As stated, the historical correlation between
CO2 and temperature is nonexistent, with CO2 lagging temperature or not correlating
at all. The CO2 was 2000-3000 ppm 60 mya, by measuring oxygen isotopes. This data
is impeccable, and my opponents Cambrian objection makes little sense, its not odd
that CO2 was not much lower at this time period, as CO2 and temperature historically
don"t correlate well his Cambrian objection is a weak one [10]. My opponent really
doesn"t refute my lagging argument, only posts links. Those links only talk about
modern temperature trends, meaning source seven stands. And when looking at data millions
of years ago, it won"t matter if the study was published in 1999 or 2012. But if date
is what he wants, recent papers back my findings too [11]. 3. Fixing the problem The
resolution is in present tense, so saying "it will get better later" is against the
wording of the resolution. However, lets refute the "future" argument. It is impossible
to replace fossil fuels with green energy, New York would need 60 square miles of
wind turbines and the wind to be blowing 100% of the time to power the city. Wind
power has always been more expensive then fossil fuels, and new research has still
failed to fix that problem. Bio fuels and other sources are quite inefficient and
waste other resources in the process. Current renewable are a joke, and billions (if
not trillions) of dollars are needed to make them competitive, which is not worth
the cost, especially as I argued warming may help humans and more CO2 = more plants.
Green energy is not a logical solution [12]. If the Kyto agreement would not stop
warming, and is only a first step, converting to green energy would likely have no
effect [5]. Further, photovoltaic"s are inefficient, and uncompetitive [6]. 4. Extinctions
First, CO2 is not a pollutant, meaning his position is illogical here. Second, mass
extinctions are not occurring. A 2009 study notes, ""after five years, a re-visitation
of the summit areas revealed a considerable increase of species richness at the upper
alpine and subnival zone (10% and 9%, respectively) and relatively modest increases
at the lower alpine zone and the treeline ecotone (3% and 1%, respectively)." In addition,
with respect to threats of extinction, they reported that "during the last five years,
the endemic species of the research area were hardly affected," while "at the highest
summit, one endemic species was even among the newcomers."[14] As we can see, animals
are not being affected by warming. CONCLUSION: Global warming is (1) exaggerated, (2) not man made, (3) fixing it is impossible, and would not help anyone, and (4) extinctions are a widely popularized
myth that has been refuted. http://www.debate.org...
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
