Anthropogenic climate change.
R3 Rebuttals "In a study conducted by John Cook et al, the same source that my opponent
has cited, it was found that majority(66.7%) of studies in relation to anthropogenic
climate change were either neutral or inconclusive.[3] One must wonder why 97% of climate scientists are of the opinion anthropogenic climate change is real when the majority
of evidence out there is inconclusive and there is some scientific evidence(.7% of
studies out there) that anthropogenic climate change is not real, which I shall point
out later. " Capitalistslave While what you state is true, this is a red herring.
As seen from your same source, the consensuses holds. "4. Discussion Of note is the
large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW. This result is expected
in consensus situ- ations where scientists ‘ . . . generally focus their discussions
on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which
everyone agrees ’ (Oreskes 2007, p 72)." [6] The reason so many articles have no
stance is due to focusing on the unanswered questions as opposed to the answered questions.
"In science, something needs to be tested over and over again and achieve the same
results in order to conclude something off of it." Capitalistslave There are false
positives and negatives. The same results do not need to be achieved with 100% accuracy.
"The fact that U32; of anthropogenic climate change studies come up with inconclusive or neutral results indicates that we actually don’t
understand the effects humans have on climate change, and the scientists are assuming we do by taking the 32% of times that it proved
anthropogenic climate change as fact, when majority of the time there is no conclusion to be made. Therefore, 97% of climate scientists, are, in fact, acting unscientifically in this case. " Capitalistslave
False, as shown above, the 97% censuses is true. "In addition, the global temperature for over the past 136 years has only gone
up by about 1 degree fahrenheit[1]. These two facts suggest that if humans have had
impact on the climate, it is hardly anything to be worried about at all. " Capitalistslave .6 degrees Celsius
to be exact. That is significant considering the rate of change. Ego systems do not have the ability to adjust to such rapid change. Also, the majority of the temperature change is happening in the last few decades. [7] As for the Co2, being a small amount this
is another red herring. Due to positive feedback cycles the amount is increased dramatically. You can see that in the previous debate. Finally, natural Co2 is cycled naturally, unnatural Co2 accumulates as a greenhouse gas. [12] ""The temparture has rose by 0.6 degrees in the past 120 years, 0.005 degrees
annually. " RonPaulConservative" "Problems with CO2 emissions claims Since there may
be an increase in natural CO2 emissions, it is hard to conclude that the CO2 emissions by humans is what is causing the warming specifically. All variables need to be taken into account, which
the study in my second paragraph under “Acknowledging opposing evidenceâ€" that
claims anthropogenic climate change happens from CO2 emissions by humans, doesn’t take into account the natural CO2
emissions, the activity of the sun, or anything else that could be leading to warming
of the earth. " Capitalistslave Natural Co2 emissions counterbalance themselves, [12]
sun activity is at a low. [13] Other variables have been accounted for. [10] "In addition, it has
been found in one study by Willie Soon et al, that CO2 emissions rising often follows
temperature rise, and not always the other way around [5]. " Capitalistslave The vast
majority of the time, Co2 leads. This can be seen from the glacier evidence. The Earth
tilts, rising the temperature, causing the oceans to release Co2. The release of Co2
into the atmosphere causes temperatures to rise further. We know this isn't happening
now due to ocean acidification and more Co2 going into the ocean than out. " Marine
National Monument, finds that sea-level rise, ocean acidification, ocean warming,
and other climate-related changes are expected to significantly affect the monument."[8] "Problems
in general with anthropogenic climate change While I could continue to talk about all of the evidence against anthropogenic climate change, I shall instead provide a link to over 90 peer-reviewed scientific articles" Capitalistslave
Compared to the thousands of peer reviewed scientific articles that do support climate change. "11 944 climate abstracts from 1991â€"2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position
on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW," [6] 32.6% of 11,944 is roughly 3,000 scientific peer reviewed articles that support climate change. "there are many and various problems with it ranging from how CO2 doesn’t actually
affect temperature in the long-term since it balances out when water is evaporated by the initial warming" Captialistslave Yes, there are negative feedback
cycles too, like water evaporating, yet the positive is greater than the negative, meaning Co2 has an amplification effect. I will now reinforce
that Co2 leads, natural Co2 cycles, and ocean acidification. "CO2 dissolves in waterto
form carbonic acid. (It is worth noting that carbonic acid is what eats out limestone caves from our mountains.) In the oceans, carbonic acid releases
hydrogen ions (H ), reducing pH, and bicarbonate ions (HCO3-). " [9] As you can read,
Co2 in the ocean must be increasing due to acidification of the oceans. [10] This
further proves the Co2 increase is man-made. Milankovitch Cycles proves that Co2 leads. "As the Southern Ocean warms,
the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give
up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep
ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler
1999). The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2
in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from
Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming." [11] This also shows the positive feedback
cycle of increased Co2. Despite being only a small percentage of the atmosphere. "In
the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun
and climate have been going in opposite directions. In the past century, the Sun can explain
some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount." [13]
As for the incorect climate models, only one model can be correct. Therefore the majority will be incorrect.
It would be a waste to make redunant correct models. Finally, I will end with the
amplification effect. "The authors derive a likely range for the feedback strength
of 1.7-21.4 p.p.m.v. CO2 per degree Celsius, with a median value of 7.7." [14] This
shows there is greater postive feedback than negative. Although, the exact strength of the amplificaon
effect is still debated. Sources. 6. http://iopscience.iop.org... 7. https://www.skepticalscience.com... 8. http://www.noaa.gov...
9. https://skepticalscience.com... 10. https://skepticalscience.com... 11. https://skepticalscience.com... 12. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov...
13. https://skepticalscience.com... 14. https://www.sciencedaily.com...
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
