It occurs
Man made climate change is a myth
It occurs
Pro vs. con view
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
PRO
-
PRO -
PRO Artificial consensus
Man made climate change is a myth
Artificial consensus
-
PRO They can mitigate, but developed countries have the...
Developed Countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change
Thanks for debating. I will first refute my opponents arguments and strengthen our own. Their first contention was that other individuals and organizations can helo They stated how Gas comapnies will lose their industries. My response is 1. Are you going to let the climate go on how it is going and have a 1.9 trillion dollar cost of global warming in the next century. This completly outweighs their gas companies going out of buisness 2. the renewable industries created 35 M jobs in 2011- UN 3. If we cut funding into oil, then terrorists will lose money and stop killing innocent lives. I value lives greatly over money, Judge Their second contention was that developed countries shouldn't be the only ones mitigating. My response is 1. The topic doesn't limit developing countries, which i believe you are refering to. They can mitigate, but developed countries have the obligation as they created this mess. 2. Also, developed countries emmitted a lot of C02 into the atmosphere during their industrial revolution. Now the developing countries are going through their's and since the developed countries have emmitted so much, they have the moral obligation. Now they refuted my case They said to my terrorism subpoint that oil comapnies will lose their induestries and that green energy is not linked. My responses are 1. Are you going to let the climate go on how it is going and have a 1.9 trillion dollar cost of global warming in the next century. This completly outweighs their gas companies going out of buisness 2. the renewable industries created 35 M jobs in 2011- UN 3. If we cut funding into oil, then terrorists will lose money and stop killing innocent lives. I value lives greatly over money, Judge They said against my moral obligation impact that developing nations should do this too My response is 1. The topic doesn't limit developing countries, which i believe you are refering to. They can mitigate, but developed countries have the obligation as they created this mess. 2. Also, developed countries emmitted a lot of C02 into the atmosphere during their industrial revolution. Now the developing countries are going through their's and since the developed countries have emmitted so much, they have the moral obligation. They said that someone should not clean someone else's mess My response is 1. The topic doesn't limit developing countries, which i believe you are refering to. They can mitigate, but developed countries have the obligation as they created this mess. 2. Also, developed countries emmitted a lot of C02 into the atmosphere during their industrial revolution. Now the developing countries are going through their's and since the developed countries have emmitted so much, they have the moral obligation. 3. This has nothing to do with the contention at hand. They said to my moral obligation and mess argument that developed nations shouldn't clean up someone else's mess My response is 1. The topic doesn't limit developing countries, which i believe you are refering to. They can mitigate, but developed countries have the obligation as they created this mess. 2. Also, developed countries emmitted a lot of C02 into the atmosphere during their industrial revolution. Now the developing countries are going through their's and since the developed countries have emmitted so much, they have the moral obligation. Thus as you can see, we are saving many lives with vaccines, controlling the enviorment, and through terrorism. Thanks for debating, opponent and thanks for Judging this round, Judge/Judges
-
PRO Plus you have taken attitudes towards me that are not to...
Global Climate Change is a problem and needs to be addressed.
Ok first off you have proven in other debates that you don't read between the lines that well. Plus you have taken attitudes towards me that are not to kindly either. So don't patronize me. She cited the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on the second or third line. Their research Plus you have taken attitudes towards me that are not to kindly either. So don't patronize me. She cited the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on the second or third line. Their research is enclosed here http://www.esrl.noaa.gov... Rhett Butler the founder of mongbay is an environmental writer that is featured in several newspapers and is endorsed by several scientists. But here is the same research presented on a different site. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov... All of the articles I have posted you can find any where else on the internet. You just need to look. Plus the internet is a bad place to look for good scientific journals. I am now going to list several books and journals that maybe you should read. Tim Flannery, Weather Maker G. Tyler Miller Jr., Sustaining the Earth Fritjof Capra-Systems Theories Fritjof Capra-Gaia Curtis Moore, Green Revolution in the making Jeremy Rifkin, The hydrogen economy There, start with that. Many of those points that I made are happening. We are experiencing warming and rapid change to our various ecosystems. Clear cutting eliminates wind breaks , destroys soil quality, and enables erosion. I don't see how just nitpicking my evidence helps your cause. A separate point aside. Avery and Singer fail to address several important factors Solar Dimming Carbon accumulation and acceleration I mean the point where they day the Atmosphere is "saturated with CO2" is wrong. There is still C02 being pumped into the air today, right now. Plus they were funded by Natural Gas.
-
PRO 14 Jun 2005 - "City officials are not sitting idly by...
The Chicago Climate Exchange is a success and model.
Jason Margolis. "My Kind of Down Chicago Climate Exchange paves the way for U.S. emissions trading". 14 Jun 2005 - "City officials are not sitting idly by waiting to see if or when such things could happen. This spring, Oakland became the second U.S. municipality to join the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) -- North America's first and only voluntary, but legally binding, emissions-trading market.
-
PRO Nearly 33% higher than it has ever been in the last...
Global Warming is Real and is Manmade!
In ROUND 3 I will continue my ROUND 2 response, where I will show the link between carbon dioxide emitted by human activity and the increase in global surface temperatures. In the final ROUND I will go over the effects of climate change caused by global warming. Carbon Dioxide (and Other Green House Gases) are Causing Global Warming and Climate Change With the advent of the industrial revolution, human-induced global warming--through such actions as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation--has led to an unprecendented increase in CO2 concentrations and other green house gases [1][2]. However, climate scientists overwhelmingly pin the blame of global warming on carbon dioxide because it is the most widely and most abundantly emitted green house gas of human activity [3]. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), carbon dioxide and methane are responsible for more than 84% of the warming being inflicted on our planet because of green house gases [3]. The remaining percent of warming can be attributed to green house gases like nitrous oxide and flourinated gases [3]. By itself, the IPCC has affirmed that carbon dioxide is reponsible for 54.7% of the global warming caused by green house gases; that's because it is the most abundantly produced green house gas of human activity and because it has an enormous radiative impact compared to other green house gases when accounting for its abundance in the atmosphere, its indirect heating effects, and because of the CO2 molecule's long lifetime in the atmosphere [3][4]. In fact, only water vapor has a stronger green house gas effect than carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, but unlike CO2 water vapor isn't being emitted naturally by any known source at a large enough scale to be blamed for global warming [4]; water vapor does contribute to global warming, but this is because of a feedback loop caused as other green house gasses in our atmosphere increase in concentration and heat up the Earth's lower atmosphere [5]. As the Earth's atmosphere and surface become warmer because of green house gas emissions, this drive's more water vapor to be absorbed into the air, further heating our planet; this water vapor loop is well-understood and contributes to anthropogenic (human induced) global warming [5]. However, other green house gases emitted by human activity drive this loop and are primarily responsible for global warming. As the statistic above shows, carbon dioxide is responsible for 54.7% of the warming being inflicted on our planet because of human activity. As I demonstrated with the graph on carbon dioxide concentration in our atmosphere in ROUND 2 (and as I reported in ROUND 1), never in the last 400,000 years has the CO2 concentration been quite so high as it is today! Ice core analysis shows that in the last half-million years the peak concentration (the highest concentration) of CO2 was almost 300 parts per million--and that was 300,000 years ago [1]. Today the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is 398 parts per million! Nearly 33% higher than it has ever been in the last half-million years [1]! This unprecedented increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide can be attributed almost entirely to human activity, such as through large-scale deforestation, land use changes (such as methane emission from ammonia-based fertilizers), and the burning fossil fuels (which include coal and gasoline) [2]. The IPCC reports that in the last 150 years, human activity has increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 398 parts per million today [2]! According to the United States Environment Protection Agency (EPA), humans largely emit carbon dioxide and other green house gases from the production of electricity and from transportation; in the U.S. these two behaviors contribute to 60.8% of all the nation's emitted green house gases in a single year [3]. Other behaviors, such as those of industry, businesses, of agricultural, and of energy use in homes, contribute to the remaining 39% of the nation's green house gas emissions [3]. Global warming is produced when green house gases in the atmosphere--water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide--accumulate in the atmosphere and act as a thermal blanket for the Earth, absorbing the sun's radiative heat and warming the Earth's surface [2]. Nature uses green house gases to facilitate heat trapping from the sun's rays to warm the Earth and make biological life on the planet possible. But if the concentrations of green house gases in the atmosphere become excessive, this can overheat the planet, alter the Earth's climate system, injure natural ecosystems, and make it harder for biological processes to take place and be maintained. This is exactly what's happening now and generating planet-altering climate change (these effects will be explicated in the final ROUND). Volcanes and Changes in the Sun's Solar Output are Not Contributing to Global Warming Some skeptics claim that erupting land and submarine volcanoes are causing global warming. But reports by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) shows that volcanoes primarily emit gases, like sulfur dioxide, at high enough concentrations so as to encourage global cooling [6]. In fact, the USGS takes the position that erupting volcanoes typically emit gases that are more likely to lead to global cooling[6]! The USGS asserts that CO2 emission by human activity dwarfs the output of CO2 by all volcanoes worldwide [6]. Some opponents of manmade global warming claim that the Sun's solar output is responsible for the current rise in atmospheric temperatures--that humans are not responsible for the modern warming trend. But this is a view that the scientists firmly dispute, based on a variety of evidence (2): --Scientists point out that, since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the sun either remained constant or increased only slightly. --If the warming were caused by increased radiation coming from the sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead what they observe is a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. Scientists say that this is a strong indication that green house gases are responsible for global warming, because they trap heat in the lower atmosphere. --Computer climate models that include solar irradiance changes can't reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in green house gases. All of these bits evidence demonstrate that solar irradiance is not responsible for the rise in Earth's surface temperatures over the last century or more. Elevations in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations have been responsible for Prehistoric Rises in Global Surface Temperatures Scientists that study prehistoric ice ages and warming ages point out that carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by geologic activity or other natural events has consistently led to warming trends in Earth's history. For example, the Ice Age that stretched during most of the Cryogenian Period (840 - 635 million years ago) had the potential to cover the entire globe and would have been a major setback for biological life and evolution in general had it been this severe. Scientists that study the period point out that this extreme condition never occured because, as the Earth froze, atmospheric oxygen was forced into the oceans, which oxidized organic matter and released CO2 into the atmosphere, preventing temperatures from falling any lower [7]. Presently scientists have no other plausible model to explain how the atmosphere was able to maintain warmth while the Earth froze [7]. Scientists also point out that a rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations have led to prehistoric Warming Ages. 55 million years ago, the Earth entered a sudden and rapid global warming event, which scientists call the the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). Analysis firmly demonstrates that the quantity of carbon and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rose significantly at the beginning of this period [8] [9]. The increasing concentration of CO2 is considered the chief reason why the atmosphere warmed so rapidly during PETM [8] [9]. Ice core analysis also attributes the end of the last ice age to an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels[10]. That carbon dioxide is a heat-trapping greenhouse gas is sound; its heat-trapping effects have been studied in laboratories throughout the world. Its contribution to prehistoric global warming has long been understood, even before the concept of man-made global warming entered the imagination [11]. [1] (http://climate.nasa.gov...) [2] (http://climate.nasa.gov...) [3] (http://www.epa.gov...) [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org...) [5] (http://www.nasa.gov...) [6] (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov...) [7] (http://news.softpedia.com...) [8] (http://en.wikipedia.org...) [9] (http://smithsonianscience.org...) [10] (http://www.livescience.com...) [11] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
-
PRO FIA requests can be filed to obtain certain documents and...
Governments should require that funded climate data be posted
The full resolution is: "In all countries, governments should impose a condition on climate research grants and aid related to climate research that source data collected or analyzed under the grant, and all software developed under the government support shall be posted on the Internet within one month of publication or announcement of the results by any means." The resolution was abbreviated to meet the character limits, and the full resolution is the one to debate. The purpose of this resolution is address one of the issues raised by Climategate, the scandal in which e-mail and software at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia. http://www.climate-gate.org... It's not known whether the CRU data was exposed by a hacker or by a whistleblower, but however revealed, issues persist. The scientists were revealed to be trash-talking about climate crisis skeptics, and apparently conspiring to subvert the peer review process. Those issues are put aside here to discuss another problem, the concealment of software and data from the scientific community. The revealed documents includes a README file of a scientist, "Harry," trying to reproduce the climate data published by CRU, documenting enormous difficulty doing so. the file is posted at http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com.... CRU's mission is to obtain temperature data from various sources around the world, validate and correct the data, and convert it into a gridded format useful for scientific and practical purposes. The validation and correction steps are important because the raw data includes clerical errors, instrument errors, and errors due to the heat effects of new construction near the individual collection stations. "Gridding" converts the temperature data from the randomly located collection stations to regular increments of latitude and longitude using interpolation techniques. CRU performs all of the processing functions. For research on global warming, small errors are important because the total amount of global warming examined is on the order of only a degree per century. Moreover, scientists look for "natural experiments" in which local conditions may have local climate effects. For example, rapid growth of a city many increase local pollutants or local CO2 levels, and scientists like to examine the possible local effects on temperature. Britain has a Freedom of Information Act (FIA) similar to that in the United States. FIA requests can be filed to obtain certain documents and other data developed at government expense. In Britain, someone filed a request for the data used to support claims of CO2 global warming. CRU had great difficulty complying, Climategate revealed, because the software and data files were such a mess that they could not reconstruct the results they had published. he tale of woe begins with a guy copying 11,000 files and trying, unsuccessfully, to make something of them. He discovers, for example, that there are alternate files with the same name and no identification of which file is the one that should be used, or why. NASA has similar responsibilities for climate data in the United States, and a similar FIA request was filed for supporting climate data. After nearly three years, NASA has still not complied with the request, and a lawsuit is now threatened to attempt to force compliance. http://www.thenewamerican.com... I suspect that the problems of data compliance at CRU and NASA are due to professional incompetence, not a conspiracy to cover up errors they know to have been made. What has been revealed at CRU clearly shows incompetence. Moreover, there is nothing novel about incompetently written software. A product of human nature and schedule pressures is the method of hacking at software until it appears to work, then calling it done. In the commercial world, demands from users limit incompetence through calls for bug fixes, and ultimately user abandonment of one vendor in favor of another. Those mechanisms do not apply to climate data. In the case of climate research, the tendency will be to hack at the software until it meets the expectations of developer, in this case the global warming believers at CRU. They could be innocently making a dozen small errors that tend to inflate temperatures in recent times, and no one would question the results, because expectations are met. The remedy lies in immediate public disclosure. If the software must be posted regularly, which it will have to be because new results are released regularly, then peer pressure will greatly encourage sound software engineering practices like the use of software configuration control systems. Moreover, the details of the methodologies employed for processing and analysis will be subject to peer review. CRU deals mainly with data rather than climate models, however the resolution applies to climate modeling software as well. The basic physics of carbon dioxide only accounts for about a third of the global warming it is claimed to cause, and that's not enough to cause a climate crisis. The models contain multiplying factors that are not verified by experimental measurement. All of the mechanisms should be subject to peer review and public scrutiny. A few institutions have made their model code public, but only a very few. Aside from the concerns for good science and good professional practice, the public has a right to access what it paid for, for no reason beyond the fact that they paid for it. There are exemptions allowed in FIA legislation. The exemptions are for national security, independent proprietary data, and information sealed in lawsuits. None of the exemption apply to climate research. The requests to CRU and NASA were not denied under exemptions, they just not fulfilled. Requiring disclosure before publication or within a month after publication will guarantee that the public gets what it has a right to. Climate research strongly affects public policy, so while good professional practices are important in all areas, the situation addressed by the resolution is exceptionally important. The resolution is affirmed.
-
PRO When the molecule absorbs a photon of radiation at 4.26...
Global Warming is Real and is Manmade!
In this ROUND--the final ROUND--I will explain what it is about carbon dioxide, water vapor, and methane that allow them to be heat-trapping greenhouse gases. I will also briefly explain how global warming facilitates climate change and then go over the various effects of climate change that are occurring because of rising surface temperatures. Carbon Dioxide (and other Green House Gases) Generate the Greenhouse Effect by Absorbing and Emiting Infrared Radiation (a.k.a. Heat) Atoms and molecules can absorb electromagnetic radiation, but only at certain energies (wavelengths) [1]. The electromagnetic spectrum is illustrated directly below. When the sun emits energy it principally does so in the form of electromagnetic radiation. Our human eyes can only detect radiation between 300 and 800 nanometers in wavelength (1 billion nanometers = 1 meter); this is called the "visible portion" of the spectrum [1]. Radiation of a different wavelength can also be detected, but not visibly by our eyes. Radiation that falls between 700 nanometers to 1 millimeter is infrared radiation, and it can be detected indirectly as heat, or the vibrational-rotational movements of molecules [2]. (Other wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum also contribute to heat.) Carbon dioxide (illustrated below) is special because it absorbs and emits electromagnetic radiation in the infrared portion of the spectrum [3]; this means that it has an inclination to trap heat radiation coming both from the sun and bouncing off the Earth's surface [1]. Because CO2 absorbs heat radiation (which is a form of energy), that means the molecule will rotate and vibrate fiercely to contribute to heating (kinetic motion) and the greenhouse gas effect [1]. CO2 absorbs infrared "heat" radiation at 4.26 micrometers and 15.0 micrometer wavelengths; this causes the molecule to vibrate in several possible ways (illustrated directly below) [1]. When the molecule absorbs a photon of radiation at 4.26 micrometers wavelength, this causes it stretch either symmetrically (A in the picture above) or asymmetrically (B); when it absorbs a photon of radiation at 15.0 micrometers wavelength, this causes it to undergo one of two bending vibrations (C or D) [1]. It's this molecular phenomena that contributes to the greenhouse gas effect and to gradual global warming, as carbon dioxide and other other green house gases increase in concentration in the atmosphere [1][3]. Water vapor, methane and other greenhouse gases have identical methods of trapping heat [3]. Even though there are a variety of natural "sinks" to take up carbon dioxide and remove it from the atmosphere, the molecule continues to accumulate because of human activity and is forcing the current global warming trend [3][4]. Carbon dioxide is regarded as the fiercest driver of global warming because it is the most emitted green house gas by human activity and because it remains in the atmosphere far longer than the other major global warming gases [4]. Where it takes methane a decade to leave the atmosphere (unfortunately it converts to carbon dioxide), it takes carbon dioxide about a century to exit the atmosphere, though 20% of what is emitted will remain 800 years from now [4]. Water vapor on the other hand only stays in the atmosphere for a couple of days before it falls to Earth; this is why it's rarely discussed as a driver of global warming [4]. The Link Between Global Warming and Climate Change Rising global temperatures caused by human activity are having a drastic impact on physical and biological processes across the Earth. Besides those effects I went over in ROUND 2, there are numerous other consequences that are occurring as a result of global warming. Increasing global temperatures are causing polar sea ice and worldwide land ice to melt, which is causing oceanic sea levels to rise and coastal land to disappear. But global warming is having other adverse effects on the globe too, which includes alterations to the Earth's climate systems, changes in bird migration, greater intensity in forest fires, and a reduction in local freshwater supplies throughout the planet. According to two recent independent studies--one conducted by NASA in collaboration with the University of California, Irvine and the other by the University of Washington--the rate of sea level rise is accelerating and the oceanic sea level should be expected to rise by as much as 10 feet within the next two centuries [5]. The reason for the acceleration, the researchers say, is because the West Antarctic ice sheet is melting and it now appears to be unstoppable. The source of the problem is that warmer water (generated by anthropogenic global warming) stirred by Antarctic winds is melting the underside of the ice sheet, which is causing it to retreat and become thinner over time [5]. A 10-foot rise in sea levels would force much of Southern Florida under water (picture below) and it would cause large swathes of New York city's densely populated areas to become swamped [5]; 20 percent of Los Angeles would also find itself under water [6]. Just recently, on March 20th, NASA announced that sea level rise is threatening most of its launch pads and multi-billion dollar complexes; currently the space agency is building sea walls and moving some buildings further inland to avoid the rising sea line [7]. As the picture directly below illustrates, global warming is altering physical and biological processes in numerous ways. Global warming is generating less snow and land ice, which is resulting in a reduced freshwater supply in numerous locations around the world (including the U.S.) [8]; it is also changing rain and snow patterns and resulting in stronger storms [9]. Scientists say this is because storms feed off of latent heat energy; extra heat in the atmosphere or in the oceans (generated by global warming) nourishes storms and strengthens them [9]. There is some speculation that global warming may be decreasing the frequency of storm systems, but there is also strong evidence that storms are becoming more severe and developing more rapidly than just a few decades ago [9][10]. Besides increasing global temperatures, the current manmade warming trend is also resulting in more heat waves, more frequent droughts and intensifying wildfires [11]. Says geoscientist Jonathan Overpeck at the University of Arizona: "The [recent] fires in [Southern] California and here in Arizona are a clear example of what happens as the Earth warms, particularly as the West warms, and the warming caused by humans is making fire season longer and longer with each decade. It's certainly an example of what we'll see more of in the future" [11]. Global warming is also making seas and oceans warmer, damaging natural coral reefs [12], and melting permafrost [13]. As global temperatures rise and the oceans get warmer and become more concentrated in carbon dioxide, natural corals erode which diminishes biodiversity in the planet's oceans; global warming poses a direct threat on the coral reefs surrounding Florida, Puerto Rico, and Hawaii [12]. Global warming and climate change are having a major effect on animal and plant life around the world. Researchers with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies show that trees are now leafing earlier and that some species are retreating into higher latitudes as the Earth warms [13]. Among the alarming findings [13]: polar bears are seeing their numbers plummet and their sources of food become scare, which is causing them to resort to cannibalism; earlier breeding and migration of birds worldwide; earlier peak migration of Atlantic salmon; earlier spring flight of butterlies and mollusks in California; earlier breakup and later freezing dates in lake and river ice cover; marmots are emerging 38 days earlier in the Rockies; earlier egg-laying of birds; long-term changes within fish communities; earlier pollen release in some plant species; a rapid decline in the Emperor penguin population in Antarctica; long-term decline in krill stock in the Southern Oceans; rising plankton abudance in cooler ocean waters, the opposite in warmer waters. Global warming and climate change clearly has a large array of effects [13]. The effects on human life are numerous, but global warming is also currently transforming agricultural yields around the world; the picture below illustrates the long-term impact of global warming on agricultural output around the world [14]. [1] (http://www.wag.caltech.edu...) [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org...) [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org...) [4] (http://www.ucsusa.org...) [5] (http://www.thestreet.com...) [6] (http://www.businessinsider.com...) [7] (http://news.yahoo.com...) [8] (http://news.mongabay.com...) [9] (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov...) [10] (http://www.accuweather.com...) [11] (http://news.yahoo.com...) [12] (http://www.nwf.org...) [13] (http://www.giss.nasa.gov...) [14] (http://www.imf.org...)
-
PRO Therefore, women have two children or fewer, on average....
Population control MUST be part of climate change/sustainable policies
The population has been on a sharp incline since just a bit after the Industrial Revolution but I concede a SLOW DOWN of population growth OVERALL is in conjunction with 1) countries that implemented a one/two child rule, most notably China, who is still a leader in population numbers, 2) the rampant epidemic of AIDS, civil wars, droughts, & food scarcity in developing countries and 3) the urbanization and industrialization of countries. In an agrarian and/or semi nomadic lifestyle, children are a productive asset. Children can be put to work at a young age on a farm, pulling weeds and harvesting or simple workshop labor. They become a source of income & the more you have the better. Since there is no retirement plan in such societies, a large family can more easily support parents in old age. In a developed urban & industrial society, the economic value of children declines & children turn from instruments of production into objects of massive consumption. Not only are chances for employment at an early age diminished, but educational requirements explode dramatically so kids need to be supported much longer, sometimes into their mid-20s & nowadays into their 30s. In a cost benefits analysis a child cost a tremendous amount of money with limited return, if any, for parents. Thus, people have fewer children. For most people, a family of eight children would be a financial catastrophe. Therefore, women have two children or fewer, on average. As a result, the population contracts as it has OVERALL. BUT .... The population has only SLOWED DOWN in growth not declined overall and as a population grows, however slow, it unavoidably consumes more and more resources and needs more and more land. My contention is that the Earth has a limited amount of life sustaining resources that should be taken into account. Their is only so much freshwater, there is only so much arable land we can grow food on, there is only so much oxygen. Sure we are adaptable enough that we could 1) turn to draining the oceans & using desalination to produce freshwater, we could cut up sea and polar ice and melt it for drinkable water, 2) we can cut down more rainforests, clear more land for farming, develop more tech to farm in deserts and poor soil areas, 3) we can develop massive skyscraper size carbon and pollution scrubbers to create more oxygen and clean air. BUT WHY SPEND BILLIONS and BILLIONS of DOLLARS AND DISRUPT A WORKING SYSTEM (that by doing so will cause more problems and require billions more to try and rectify ) THAT PROVIDES OUR NEEDS NATURALLY AND TECHNICALLY FOR NEAR FREE ? Any life form, if the pollution grows higher then the area can sustain, unavoidably dies off. A lion pride that produces too many offspring and eats up all the animals in the area, will have to expand their territory in hopes of finding more food or die from starvation. A virus once it has overwhelmed and consumed all of a bodies energies, resources to the point that it can no longer maintain its systems, causes the body to die. it is a proven scientific fact multiple time & by various species. Humans may be a higher order thinking life form, but we are still a life form, & unavoidably we depend on the systems in place on Earth for our survival just like any other life form living on Earth. We can continue to grow and deplete resources and stretch life styes to their limits, all the while causing the extinction of species that are cogs in the wheels of the systems that sustain us, causing those systems to eventually collapse. It has been our business as usual for the past 100 years and can probably last for another 30-50 but why not implement actions to stop or at least extend the period of time BEFORE system collapses ? HOW those populations controls are written and implemented is a whole nother can of worm lol Religion, country infrastructure, medical systems, cultural traditions and views on family, ect ect, would play a part in any laws and policies. But I contend that with out some form of population control, no climate change/sustainable policies will make any meaningful impact. You can create policies that say every person is only able produce about 3,000 pounds a day ( which can be reduced with car pooling, sustainable energy, ect ) and that takes into account an urbanized citizen with access to a car, a home with electricity, and consumer goods and assumes the gradual industrialization of developing countries. With a global population of over 7 BILLION that equals about 21,000,000,000,000 pound of carbon A DAY. The oceans can absorb about 30%, though that is declining due to various climate, ecology, and environmental reasons, about 40% accumulates in the atmosphere, and about 30% is absorbed by terrestrial ecosystems. An average mature tree (at least 10-15 years old) can only absorb 48lbs A YEAR so each person on Earth would need about 33 MATURE EVERGREEN TREES each to be carbon neutral. ( thats just for our own HUMAN consumer needs and does not take into account the habitant needs of other animals, ecosystem balance, ect ) SO as the population grows, we will need more trees to be carbon neutral, and we can't cut down these trees, so eventually they will take over the arable land we need to feed ourselves. Personally population control policies I personally propose would be : 1) contraception is easily available, low cost or free 2) abortions are legal, easy available and at low cost - there would be attached policies and requirements but thats another issue 3) sex education is more readily available & a required course in public middle & high school & includes sexual misconduct laws & sentencing, responsible relationship guidelines and actions, sensitivity training - private schools that don't receive ANY federal or state funding, and schools with a religious guideline & charter are exempt from sex education classes as required a course but may not criminalize students from obtaining or possessing sex education materials unless it actively disrupts teaching when it is conducted (this time does not include recess, breaks between classes,mealtimes) 4) murders/harassment/repetitive slander/&intimidation against people, businesses, or organizations that perform sexual disease testing,abortions,adoptions,foster care,family planning & reproductive health service, shall be persecuted as a felony/hate crime 5) a two child limit on all citizens - those that wish to have more offspring agree to renounce all federal and state assistance - this does not include private individual funding, religious or private organizations charity, and crowd funding 6) adoption policies and procedures should be fast tracked and more openly available to all within the 2 child limit- excluding foster care and those that have renounced all federal and state assistance - this does not include private individual funding, religious or private organizations charity, and crowd funding More stringent policy would be : 1) pregnancy before the age of 25 (better if 30 ) results in a large fine, & a choice between abortion or adoption - if the mother chooses neither options, she relinquishes all right to federal & state assistance - this does not include private individual funding, religious or private organizations charity, & crowd funding I base these policies on on factual financial, social obligations and pressures of raising a child and the impact of a growing population on the environment. I an not religious therefor I do not take religion values into account THOUGH I do know and understand that religious values would be brought into any policies that touch on reproductive rights, for or against them, because many of these policies goes against religious teachings. My argument is that these policies are to promote social and environmental good and/or agendas FOR ALL REGARDLESS OF RELIGIOUS AFFILIACTION and not for promoting religious good or agendas so religion should not be involved as that
-
PRO If we keep warming after 2100, Then 3C and 4C are merely...
"Fixing the Climate" should be a Low Priority for the USA
1 ========= My Argument #1 First, You claim that it may be possible to cut P costs in half by spending Q. I have never heard this claim from any source, Please provide a link. Second you say, "The question is not about a delayed catastrophe or not. It is about the magnitude of the catastrophe. " Until warming stops and cooling starts (the so-called "peak"), Delay is the real question. The pretended option A is to keep the temperature increase below 2C by 2100. Unfortunately, No one says warming will stop in 2100. If we keep warming after 2100, Then 3C and 4C are merely delayed a few decades. Still, I would be willing to alter from "delay" to "magnitude" if you can provide a source that claims that warming will eventually stop. 2 ========= CATASTROPHE It is important to know how bad a problem is when determining the appropriate political response to it. You have said the CATASTROPHE will be massive at 3C, But are a bit vague on what "massive" is. You did mention that oceans, Salt, Hurricanes, Droughts, And wildfires will rise, And that land, Islands, Animals, Farmland, Trees (and people) will fall. I guess I should take it that each rise/fall will be "massive. " You did provide measurable data on a couple, So let"s review those: 1. Sea rise: "billions in damage over. . . 100 years" sounds like a manageable P cost of $50M per year (chump change for the USA). 3. Swallowed islands: do the "entire countries" mean random atolls in the Pacific? This would be sad but not significant in size. Or does it refer to the Philippines, Japan, And Malaysia? This would be both sad and significant. 3 ========= My Argument #2 There are no solutions that achieve the MORAL goal of "2C max rise" forever. While "98% of climate scientists say [humans] have an effect" on the climate, There is no scientific consensus on solutions. The CNN article I cited before suggests three mitigation paths: --- a --- "increased financial incentives to avoid greenhouse gas emissions" (whatever that means) --- b --- "greatly increased funding for research" (whatever that means) --- c --- "the plummeting cost of solar power". . . But solar can NEVER replace oil (1) Let's say these paths are somewhat useful. Still, The scientific study quoted in the CNN article acknowledges that, "even if humans suddenly stopped burning fossil fuels now, Earth will continue to heat up about 2C more by 2100. " The world's CO2 output is still growing and nowhere near stopping. So if returning to the stone age last year is required to achieve a "2C max rise" by 2100, We have no chance of averting a 3C or 4C CATASROPHE eventually. Therefore, There are no solutions so forget about Q costs. (1) "The Green Bubble" (2016) by Per Wimmer cites the International Energy Agency's forecast that the share of our energy needs provided by all renewable energy sources combined (including solar) will grow from 1% (now) to only 4% (in 2035). The book goes on to say that solar can never scale to the global or US energy needs.
CON
-
CON I accept.
Ice Ages versus Man Made Climate Change.
I accept.
-
CON Ok so my opponent conceded the first 2 rounds of the...
Donald Trump thinks climate change is a hoax.
Ok so my opponent conceded the first 2 rounds of the debate and decided to bring a completely new contention the very last round. The problem here is that he also basically concedes that if I were to demonstrate that Trump is greedy enough to just not care about it then that's sufficient to win the debate. A quick Google search reveals an article in which Trump literally states "I am very greedy" [1] It's a well known fact that Trunp is excessively greedy, he even says it himself. He's a businessman who brags about his wealth constantly. Why not assume that he's greedy enough to do this? My opponent doesn't provide any counter evidence to his immense greed over the course of the debate and concedes that he'll go to excessive measures for more power so I suggest that this refutes his contentions. Thank you. [1] http://thehill.com...
-
CON Oh now I have to be a scientist to even speak on the...
Global Climate Change is a problem and needs to be addressed.
Oh now I have to be a scientist to even speak on the subject. And of course you give a source which is the word of god and cannot be refuted in any way. Your sources just like mine are worthless except your sources aren't because you of course went to a class. And you also believe in people who tout hydrogen as the next great fuel source. You discredit all of my sources in the a typical environmentalist manner, Politics or it is bought and paid for by some greedy corporation or go as far to reject it by the political affiliation of the Governor of some state. How pathetic. If all of my sources and evidence are going to be rejected because of political reasons then yours are all just as worthless for the same reasons. The only difference is I provide more thorough and reviewed research that makes yours look foolish.
-
CON I hold firmly that the risk of damage to the nose and...
Picking boogers can help reverse climate change.
I hold firmly that the risk of damage to the nose and possible infection outweigh any benefit as treating these conditions would use medical supplies - which have the issue with their environmental impact as that of food. A great poem as well. Thanks
-
CON Indeed, The environment takes a toll through the methods...
Picking boogers can help reverse climate change.
Indeed, The environment takes a toll through the methods you described in round 1, However, People don't eat food to the exact amount of energy they need. We, As humans, Overeat and consume more than necessary - especially in Western civilisations. This would mean that the impact of picking your nose would be negligible.
-
CON All points extended.
Cimate change is real and caused by humans
All points extended.
-
CON All points extended.
Cimate change is real and caused by humans
All points extended.
-
CON Dessler First I would like to apologize for confusion...
Global climate models are accurate enough to be relied upon
Attack on my sources I find it quite hilarious, that Pro attacks integrity of my sources while she depends on sources like Mann et al. (Climategate, "Hide the decline"[1]) or Hansen, who was caught manipulating data [2 and last round] and prevented scientists under him to publish their results that disagreed with him [3] etc. Or IPCC, that misrepresent what the scientists say [4], and RealClimate, which is basically web promoting Mann et al. point of view. It's quite obvious who gets the most money in "climate science" [5]. In fact all those climate scientists funds depend on AGW, so its not skeptics who have the major monetary interests in this phenomenon. I may retract my source of the third quote, but then Pro would have to retract a lot of her sources. Santer Before Santer tries to accuse others, he should correct the way he works with data [6]. His study was refuted by [7]: "Overall, the conclusion of S08 that 'there is no longer a serious discrepancy between modeled and observed trends in tropical lapse rates must be reconsidered in light of upto-date data. The 'potential inconsistency' between models and observations in the tropical region, as reported by Karl et al (2006), remains an issue." Santer is also refuted in [16] (which he tried to delay in peer-review [16b]) and [17] (see part Tropospheric warming below). Hansen Indeed I was not sure what data did Pro compare, I just looked at those closer to each other (land station data). When I wrote about scenario C, I just wanted to make sure that people don't miss what it actually means, since it is closer to measured data than B. Lets look again at the figures in [my previous round source 9], that corresponds to Fig 2 in [Pro's first round source 6]. The Land-Ocean (black curve) nowhere near the scenario B prediction (blue curve) since 2000 aside from two single points 2002 and 2005 where L-O is at local maximum and B is at local minimum. My argument stands. Especially later data from 2006 on make it obvious. Dessler First I would like to apologize for confusion around refuting Dessler. That Spencer et al. 2007 paper directly refutes the previous Dessler's paper and Dessler 2010 fail to address the main issues and instead attacks a straw man. I should have clarified with further information: "To Dessler’s credit, he actually references our paper. But he then immediately discounts our interpretation of the satellite data. Why? Because, as he claims, (1) most of the climate variability during the satellite period of record (2000 to 2010) was due to El Nino and La Nina (which is largely true), and (2) no researcher has ever claimed that El Nino or La Nina are caused by clouds. This simple, blanket claim was then intended to negate all of the evidence we published. But this is not what we were claiming, nor is it a necessary condition for our interpretation to be correct." [8] In contrast to Pro's claim, Dessler didn't make the different conclusion because of larger data set, but because of different methodology, using simple regression. Spencer and Braswell examined the same data set in that same year and came with opposite conclusions [9]. They addressed the time lag in changes by phase space analysis in order to see what is most likely cause and what is effect (which Dessler claims is the other way around). You may get similar regression slope like Dessler derived from the data even for strong negative feedback.[10] "The bottom line is that, you can not use simple regression to infer cloud feedbacks from data like those seen in Dessler’s data plots." [10] To simplify it by analogy, it could be like ice cores "CO2 drives temperature" claim by Al Gore. There was certainly correlation as well, but he ignored the time lag as CO2 follows temperature. Lindzen acknowledged many parts of the criticism and corrected his hypothesis where it was wrong. However, he still refuted conclusions all the papers Pro mentioned [11,12,13]. As I used my space on Dessler, I won't go into details here. Tropospheric warming Conclusions of Sherman and Allen 2008 are refuted [14]. Not only there is much more uncertainty in indirect method based on wind shear due to temperature gradient, they ignored conclusions of previous research on that matter dealing with bias of stronger 200 mbar winds at higher latitudes [15]. Haimberger 2008 is refuted by [16] (addendum to Douglass et al.), because there is bias in homogenization in RAOBCORE 1.4 data as other publications pointed out. “... papers such as Santer et al. 2008 do no testing, but simply assume that all datasets are equal, such as “new” ERSST or “old” RAOBCORE v1.2, v1.3 and v1.4, and thus ignore the publications which have provided the evidence which document significant errors in the ones they prefer."[17] Hansen Pinatubo and Energy imbalance After Hansen was refuted, he made new paper “Earth's Energy Imbalance and Implications” in 2011 [18] and admitted: “We conclude that most climate models mix heat too efficiently into the deep ocean and as a result underestimate the negative forcing by human-made aerosols... Continued failure to quantify the specific origins of this large forcing is untenable, as knowledge of changing aerosol effects is needed to understand future climate change.“ Watts and Tisdale wrote some criticism on some of his new claims [19]. Conclusion My findings on general limitations of climate models are unchallenged as well as some of the quotes on reliability of GCM. I offered refutation to the points Pro chose to defend. Why some of the modelers finds hard to admit the counter-evidence or even cheat? Maybe social study of science by Lahsen 2005 [20] will give us some insight: "...persuasive power of the simulations can affect the very process of creating them: modelers are at times tempted to ‘get caught up in’ their own creations and to ‘start to believe’ them, to the point of losing awareness about potential inaccuracies. Erroneous assumptions and questionable interpretations of model accuracy can, in turn, be sustained by the difficulty of validating the model..." Thanks to Pro for a challenging debate. Sources: [1] Video "Hide the decline" http://www.youtube.com... [2] http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com... [3] http://nige.files.wordpress.com... [4] http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org... [5] http://climatequotes.com... [6] http://www.john-daly.com... [7] http://arxiv.org... [8] http://www.drroyspencer.com... [9] http://www.drroyspencer.com... [10] http://www.drroyspencer.com... [11] http://www-eaps.mit.edu... [12] http://www-eaps.mit.edu... [13] http://eaps.mit.edu... [14] http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com... [15] http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com... [16] http://www.pas.rochester.edu... [16b] http://sppiblog.org... [17] http://icecap.us... [18] http://arxiv.org... [19] http://wattsupwiththat.com... [20] http://www2.geog.ucl.ac.uk...
-
CON If the moon landing got high funding and you agree to the...
"Fixing the Climate" should be a Low Priority for the USA
It discusses what peak emissions are required to achieve a 2C peak based on the year we achieve peak emissions. You either aren't understanding the charts or are being intellectually dishonest. You immediately go on to say "2c max rise forever" unironically. I will let the judges decide. If we get our energy from alternative sources of course we don't have to emit. No one should WANT to use fossil fuels because they WILL run out. It should not be a LOW priority to get rid of our dependence on fossil fuels for that reason alone, Much less climate related ones. Negative emissions IS possible, But depending on the amount it certainly may not be. Not with current technology. There is no reason to believe that with funding we cannot improve the tech we have to remove gasses from our atmosphere. This is just to peak at 2C. Most people believe the goal is now 2. 5C or 3C. Again, It's about the scale of the catastrophe. I think technically your acceptance of planting trees as a high priority, Particularly in larger numbers than we harvest them is you conceding the debate. But I'll continue for now. 2. Yes. The Sun which is many times larger than the Earth and is technically a massive fusion reactor supplies the vast majority of the energy that the Earth will hold. This isn't and has never been a contentious point. The point is that greenhouse gasses AMPLIFY this effect. It's a moot point to say the sun is a bigger deal when it comes to temperature when greenhouse gasses can affect the temperature enough to cause massive negative or positive effects. 3. Buying us time may be necessary if people accept that research towards solutions to the unintentional terraforming of our planet should have a low priority. 4. Yea not literally. It in itself can cause suffociation. It may cause a decrease in pH levels in the ocean which *could* have negative effects. More than that though, Relying on fossil fuels will literally poison our water supply and environmet whenever oil leaks. These happen not rarely at all. 5. If the moon landing got high funding and you agree to the same high funding for climate change research then I win the debate. 6. The sun is a gigantic fusion reactor many times the size of the earth. Harvesting 1% of its energy output would open up more possibilities for humanity than fire did for our ancestors. Sources show that if we cover a small portion of the Sahara desert in solar panels at 93% efficiency, If I recall correctly, Would be sufficient to cover current global power needs. mic. Com "heres how much renewable energy it would take to power the entire world" Even if we could not cover our power needs with solar panels on Earth itself, I'd hope you would agree that your point is ridiculous when it comes to the total output of the sun and solar panels in space. I DID say Dyson Spheres earlier. There is no requirement for a full megastructure for this to start. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht
-
CON It works as an amplifier for solar energy. ... Solar...
"Fixing the Climate" should be a Low Priority for the USA
I didn't make a claim of any sort. It is a hypothetical. 2. Warming will continue to worsen the more CO2 we pour in the atmosphere. It works as an amplifier for solar energy. Eventually solar energy will decrease due to the Sun's natural cycle, And the "peak"temperature will go down again. If solar energy lessens, There is less for CO2 to amplify. The fact is, In a different time in the Earth's history we may be talking about intentionally releasing more greenhouse gasses to prevent an ice age, Or global cooling. The answer then is NOT to set this as a 'low' priority and just keep releasing as much CO2 as we want. This increases the magnitude of the catastrophe, No questions asked. 3C-4C is completely possible to avoid still. It doesn't require us to go back to the stone ages. It requires us to RESEARCH more alternatives. How do we efficiently remove CO2 from the atmosphere? With RESEARCH we could find a SOLUTION that removes the CO2 humanity has put in the atmosphere, And may allow us to control it to keep the global temperature It works as an amplifier for solar energy. Eventually solar energy will decrease due to the Sun's natural cycle, And the "peak"temperature will go down again. If solar energy lessens, There is less for CO2 to amplify. The fact is, In a different time in the Earth's history we may be talking about intentionally releasing more greenhouse gasses to prevent an ice age, Or global cooling. The answer then is NOT to set this as a 'low' priority and just keep releasing as much CO2 as we want. This increases the magnitude of the catastrophe, No questions asked. 3C-4C is completely possible to avoid still. It doesn't require us to go back to the stone ages. It requires us to RESEARCH more alternatives. How do we efficiently remove CO2 from the atmosphere? With RESEARCH we could find a SOLUTION that removes the CO2 humanity has put in the atmosphere, And may allow us to control it to keep the global temperature is stable. This would prevent the optimal locations for crops from changing, Sea levels rise, Et cetera. Keeping the climate STABLE should be the highest priority for any country. Instability in the climate breeds instability in many factors. Food, Water, Optimal growing locations, Diseases, Insect growth, Droughts, Et cetera. The more stable these things are the better the economy and the country itself fare. This isn't controversial. To say the US should put a low priority on stability is not only absurd but insane. 3. The billions you quote is not a precise number. It is not measurable. If I told you I was going to destroy an apartment building how much would you estimate that to cost? You have no idea what is inside said apartment buildings. The contents of the building may be more valuable than the apartment structure itself. There's no way to calculate perfectly the cost from land reduction, People being forced to move inland, Et cetera. It will undoubtedly be trillions. Do you really think the elimination of hundreds or thousands of miles of land would be chump change? What will it do to the prices of housing inland? What will it do when optimal crop growing areas need that land? How do you expect me or anyone else to provide a hyper-specific accurate cost estimate at varying temperature growths? Massive is CLEARLY correct, And that is what we use. 4. Yes, We are talking about most island countries. They will certainly be heavily impacted. If food growth is effected and refugee crises occur, We could be talking about governmental instability as well. Riots, Easily. 5. Dimming the sun is one path Harvard scientists are studying to buy us time. (1) Again, Research funding is important. Solutions can be found. 6. Solar doesn't need to replace oil alone, But of course solar CAN do so. Humans may not be able to harness enough of it NOW but it is PART of the solution. Again, This is not a LOW priority.
