args

Anthropogenic Global Warming Is Real

I also thank my opponent for debating me on such an interesting scientific topic. I hope it will be not just entertain, but also educate readers about facts they may not know. I thank Pro for giving the link to comment section, so in a good faith I will interpret his definitions in context of what was said there. I offered not to use Climategate leaks and similar arguments so I encourage voters to look there before blaming me of not using some types of relevant arguments in this debate. I can discuss corruption of GW alarmism in comments or next debate. *Clarification of rules* "attacking sources" - saying X is corrupt or funded by Y so his data are irrelevant I believe that bringing relevant evidence of specific source being obsolete, incomplete, interpreted in wrong way or scientifically not relevant does not violate the rule. *Foreword* Climate change and always changed. There is undeniable evidence that humans influence local microclima by means of urbanization (use of land, air conditioning, heating). The global warming being blamed on CO2 emissions which we are discussing is very different matter. I will show evidence that recent warming is caused mainly by natural phenomena and so called Global Warming Alarmism based on computer modeling of CO2 effects is falsified as a scientific hypothesis. *Con Arguments* CA1) Scientific opinions and so called scientific consensus concerning AGW There is clearly no general scientific consensus in favor of AGW as may be believed in non-academic public. Just in USA more than 30.000 scientists signed petition against it [1]. [2] cites at least 800 Peer-reviewed papers supporting skepticism to AGW. Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change made report [3] in 2009 which refutes most of IPCC claims. [4] and [5] show interesting ratios of scientific opinions and accelerating increase of sceptic voices in academia (even former believers in AGW). [6] express opinion of one those. On top of it, scientific consensus is no alternative for scientific method. Science is not democracy. CA2) Relevance of recent warming compared to the past Prof. Carter in his presentation [7a] from 2:42 min puts recent warming and cooling in historical context of climate change and shows statistical insignificance of recent warming. From 5:27 min he shows periodicity of natural temperature change (ice-ages, warm periods) and it is clear that recent warming fits into natural periods. Even the rate of change is examined in [7b] from 1:30 on. CA3) Sources of data, bias For sources of data see [3], chapter 3. Surface data used by IPCC is biased by "urban heat island effect" [6],[7d],[3] and many temperature sensors used clearly do not meet basic criteria at all [7d]. CA4) Sun, sun spots, fluctuations Sun is clearly major cause of climate fluctuations as can be seen in [1b],[3] chapter 5, [7c] from 7:35 min and [8]. [8] puts it in reasonably detailed while easy to understand way. CA5) Missing greenhouse signature See [3] section 3.4 Fingerprints, [6], [6b]. Model based predictions do not meet the experimental data. CA6) Ice cores data Temperature rise first, then rise CO2 levels [6]. It is clear what causes what. Rising temperature decreases solubility of CO2 in ocean [9]. Later fall in temperature shows no positive feedback. Sea cores show a more cooling lately.[7b] CA7) Computer models versus experimental data "Hockey stick graph" is not plausible, it is merely computer simulated data fitted to controversial graph of recent temperature measurements without Medieval Warming Period. See [3] subsection 3.2.1 (for quick inspection figures from 3.2.1 to 3.2.5 should not be missed, but closer inspection of subsection is advised ). *Con Refutation of Pro arguments* CR1) Greenhouse Effect CO2 has logarithmic progression of GH effect/concentration in atmosphere [7c] from 2:00 min. Experimental data show the GH effect of CO2 and even stronger GH gas as methane do not cause significant changes in global temperature. It may be because of much stronger negative feedback such as creation of clouds and others [1b],[3] sections 2.1, 2.6, [7c], [8]. CR2) Fossil fuels to be blamed As long as CO2 is not significant cause, this argument is not plausible. See CA5, CA6. CR3) Natural phenomena cannot be responsible This is directly refuted by CA2, CA4 at least. Natural phenomena are undeniably responsible for both fluctuation in global climate as well as for its stabilization by negative feedback. Natural changes of atmospheric concentration of so called GH gases are not only possible cause of climate temperature fluctuation! Graph Pro cite shows lot of natural temperature fluctuations thus refuting his own argument. CR4) Positive feedback [7c] from 3:00 on shows that predictions of alarmists rely on positive feedback. They mostly ignore important negative feedbacks like cloud formation that keeps temperature stable. See [3] page 17 citing Lindzen et al.: "the cloudy-moist region appears to act as an infrared adaptive iris that opens up and closes down the regions free of upper-level clouds, which more effectively permit infrared cooling, in such a manner as to resist changes in tropical surface temperature."; "more than cancel all the positive feedbacks in the more sensitive current climate models". Se also [8] or [3] whole section 2.1 for more details. On top of that, if a positive feedback was prevalent, our ecosystem would not be stable and our climate would go crazy in past temperature fluctuations. *Conclusion* My opponent presented somewhat simplified view about climate science. He relies on notion that greenhouse gases are almost only phenomena to be blamed for climate change. Therefore he is unaware of complex natural causes behind fluctuation and stabilization of climate temperature and rely on so called scientific consensus to back his view. As I showed this is not the case. In my view Pro's sources are very incomplete and some of them obsolete in contrast to sources presented by me. *End note* I am sorry to be very spartan in my arguments heavily consisting of citation of sources. I tried to use my limited space to introduce opponent to my sources asap so he can allocate his space in following rounds in advance for detailed debate on specific issues. I did my best to limit number of sources I needed to illustrate science behind climate change phenomena. I spent lot of time in order to cite parts of it to make it more accessible without having to go through whole source and thus saving time of my opponent and other readers. *Sources* [1] Global Warming Petition Project: http://petitionproject.org... [1b] Environmental effects... : http://www.petitionproject.org... [2] 800 Peer-reviewed papers skeptical…: http://www.populartechnology.net... [3] NIPCC report: http://www.nipccreport.org... [4] More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent...: http://epw.senate.gov... [5] Climate Momentum Shifting: http://epw.senate.gov... [6] David Evans: No smoking hot spot: http://www.theaustralian.com.au... [6b] Evidence CO2...: http://www.youtube.com... [7] Prof. Robert Carter: Is CO2 the Cause? [7a] Part I: http://www.youtube.com... [7b] Part II: http://www.youtube.com... [7c] Part III: http://www.youtube.com... [7d] Part IV: http://www.youtube.com... [8] Prof. Patterson: Sunspots...: http://www.youtube.com... [9] Oceans...: http://icecap.us...

Climate Change Is Not an Imminent Danger

I accept, and wish the best of luck to my opponent.

Cimate change is real and caused by humans

Contention 1: No Major/any CO2 Increase. Many Global Warming advocates state that CO2 levels are skyrocketing, but that is incorrect. I give you the above graph measuring the past 600 million years of CO2 levels are we are actually at an all time low. Now the website I got this from no longer has this page up so I appologize. We can see from observance of this graph that we being at all time CO2 low levles that we are nowhere close to meeting the impact that my opponent brings up. We have been over 5,000 ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere and are now currently around apprx. 350 ppm CO2 levels. The above graph shows that comparisions of C13 (Carbon isotope) and this shows that there is little to no trend pertrade in many of these as the average is zero while the trend for all of these are zero. (1) This is important as the Carbon isotope is important in measuring this so called "Global Warming." This chart above shows the CO2 and Earth's temperatures for the past 600 million years. My opponent's claims are incorect as we have had aburd levels of CO2 and temperature on Earth and may I ask how did we survive that? (2) Now I will move on to how Earth is actually cooling and how it's temperature is cooler than it has been. Contention 2: Earth is cooling. If we observe the above graph we can see that Earth has been a whole lot hotter than where we currently are to the point where the Earth's average temperature has been 7.5 degrees Celcuis hotter than it currently it is. You can also see that in the span of the past 10,000 years the temperature has leveld off, but you may ask yourself where does that place us in the lights of modern day? I am going to site Dr. Done Easterbrook, who is a climate scientist. Back in 2000 he predicted that Earth was entering a cooling phase. He predicts that for the next 20 years Earth will cool by 3/10 degree each year and that we are going to enter another little Ice Age like we did from 1650 and 1790. (3) The funny thing is that many of my opponent's charts are actually from the incorrect IPPC. How about the "Hockey Stick" graph that many Global Warming supporters , including my opponent, argue about? Well if we observe the fallowing chart taken from Northern Scandenavia we can see that the Global trend over the past 1,000 years that the Global Cooling trend slope is that of -0.31 Degrees Celcuis, give or take 0.03 degrees (for the error room). Professor Dr. Jan Esper has found that the Earth's temperature of Earth actually decreases 0.3 per millenia due to the Earth moving away from the sun. (4) Here is another graph from 1920 to 2005 and we can see that the graph has a negative temperature slope, thus meaning that the Earth is under a period of cooling. (5) You can see in terms of more Warming in the evidence in which Scientists use Ice Cores Earth has actually been Cooling the past Mellenium. You can see that in terms of Gasses contribution to the Green House Effect the major contributer is Water Vapor and it's at 95% to CO2's 3.6% and this is the overall contribution including man made and natural. When we look to the chart on the left we can see that Man-Made CO2 does have a higher contribution to the atmosphere than Water Vapor, but that's because we do not create much water vapor as humans. Even with this evidence we can see that CO2 does not have any effect what-so-ever compared to Water Vapor. (6) Where might those CFCs be on this graph you may ask. Why it's under the Misc. gases section. Contention 3: Artic Ice. First, I would like to state that Pro's claim about the North Pole completely melting is bogus. Al Gore stated that the Artic Ice would be completely melted by 2014, but he is incorrect then and now. Jan. 6, 2012: The Coast Guard Cutter Healy breaks ice around the Russian-flagged tanker Renda 250 miles south of Nome. The Healy is the Coast Guard’s only currently operating polar icebreaker. The vessels are transiting through ice up to five-feet thick in this area. The 370-foot tanker Renda will have to go through more than 300 miles of sea ice to get to Nome, a city of about 3,500 people on the western Alaska coastline that did not get its last pre-winter fuel delivery because of a massive storm. (7) Let's go back to 2007-2008 and see if his claim was justified in the Artic Ice activity. Hmmm... It seems that he is incorrect, but let's look further into the near past. How about 2012-2013? (8) We all remember the Climate Scientists that got stuck in Arctic Ice Earlier last year correct? Then a Russian Ice Breaker tried to free them, but got stuck. Can you guess what they were studying? They had predicted that all the Arctic Ice had melted due to Global Warming and that Earth would get flooded massively. Boy were they wrong. (9) (10) Dr. Koonin, former head of the Department of Energy under President Obama, has stated that the Global Warming scare is not suttle. This is because that he has found 3 things wrong and highly incorrect about the scare. 1. Shrinking of Artic Sea ice doesn't acount for the gaining of the Antartic ice. 2. The warming of Earth's temps today is the same as it was 30 years ago. 3. The sea levels rose at the same height and rate in the 20th cenury. (11) Contention 4: Sea Levels Here is another corralation that must happen. If the Ice Caps are completely melted as Pro claims then the sea level would have risen completely drowning tons of land. The graph above is raw satellite image data of the sea level rise over an 8 year period showing that there is little to no change in the Sea Levels rising. (12) The sea level rises, on average, about 3 inches per century and it has been found to not even been rising at all. This graph is the sea levels off the cost of French Guyana which is one of the areas which is predicted to be flooded due to Global Warming, but as you can see by the graph (which goes to 2008) the sea level is currently on a downward trend. (13) The source is the PDF within the link. Contention 5: The Weather Many Pro Warmingists claim that Hurricanes are increasing due to Global Warming, but this claim is indeed false! The hurricanes since the year 1900 to 2008 have actually been decreasing. The slope of this downward slope is .0016. Though it is small the hurricanes are still in a downward trend. As a matter of fact not only are Hurricanes on a downward trend, but they are at an all time low as in the year 2010, there was only 68 Hurricanes Globally, which is an all time low in the past 40 years. How about Tornados you may ask? In the graph above you can see that tornados are at an all time low in the past 60 years! (14) But what about Hurricanes? Here is a graph showing the number of days between hurricanes and this shows that the number of days between hurricanes is greatest at 76 days between hurricanes.The slope of this line is zero showing no trend of a massive storm increase. Sources 1. (http://www.drroyspencer.com...) 2. (http://www.sustainableoregon.com...) 3. (http://www.cnsnews.com...) 4. (http://newsbusters.org...) 5. (http://newsbusters.org...) 6. (http://www.geocraft.com...) 7. (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com...) 8. (http://ginacobb.typepad.com...) 9. (http://www.nytimes.com...) 10. (http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com...) 11. (http://joannenova.com.au...) 12. (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org...) 13. (http://wattsupwiththat.com...) 14. (http://wattsupwiththat.com...)

Global Warming is Real

Well... 1. There hasn't been any global warming since 1997. - http://rightwingnews.com... 2. There is no scientific consensus that global warming There is no scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and caused by man. - https://wattsupwiththat.com... - http://www.petitionproject.org... - http://rightwingnews.com... 3. Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012. - https://www.breitbart.com... 4. Climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over. - https://dailycaller.com... 5. Predictions about the impact of global warming have already been proven wrong - https://www.thegatewaypundit.com... - http://rightwingnews.com... Some other videos: - - - Sorry, I couldn't hear what you were saying. I think you were saying something about how climate change exists...

"Fixing the Climate" should be a Low Priority for the USA

Happy to think with you today. With such a character limited debate (3k) I'm going to have to be brief on each of these complex points. If it feels I'm being terse, Please understand that is why. The debate over climate change does not exist. It is changing. The debate is on how much of an effect humans have on it. 98% of climate scientists say we have an effect. The question is not about a delayed catastrophe or not. It is about the magnitude of the catastrophe. Some catastrophes are worse than others. If we can diminish a $4T catastrophe to a $2T catastrophe by spending $1T this is worth it. And that is only if you're prioritizing MONEY not MORALS. The more we spend now to diminish the catastrophe the more we save in the long term when the catastrophe peaks. And again, As a species, Much less a country, Preserving our environment ought to be a priority. It is not about money itself. So, Saying 'delayed' is wrong. It is about the magnitude. A 1. 5C increase in global climate temperatures will be a small catastrophe. A 3C increase is massive. A 4C increase would see much of our current pleasures destroyed. Here's a bit of a list of consequences. Feel free to select several to expand on. 1. Sea levels rise. This reduces available land. It puts many coastal cities underwater, Causing many people to be forced to move and many billions in damage over the course of the next 100 years. 2. Saltwater increases globally due to the melted ice. Freshwater may become tainted. Results in less drinking water. 3. The reduction in land will swallow up many islands, Forcing entire countries to become refugees. If you think we have an immigration problem now, Wait until the crisis occurs. 4. Animals go extinct or have habitats reduced drastically. Breaking the food chain can have consequences all the way up that chain, Including us. 5. The reduction in land decreases available farmland. The increase in climate temperature changes the locations of optimal growing areas for crops. Resulting in associated moving costs, If there is even optimal farmland available. This results in lower food production which results in famine and malnutrition. 6. The increased distance of sea before hurricanes hit land would empower hurricanes as well has have them hit locations that are not used to hurricanes. Associated costs, Again. More powerful hurricanes than we've seen before. 7. Increased temperatures would likely lead to droughts and increases in wildfires. Resulting in less trees to absorb pollutants and give us oxygen, Increasing air pollution. Associated costs can already be felt in California where the air is causing real human problems. These are a small fraction of the problems. All of which can be reduced or empowered based on the decision of the US. To say that terraforming the planet that we live on, That changing the global climate is an issue that should be a LOW priority for the US is absolutely absurd. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht

Climate denial is unusual in the scientific community

Mr. Merrill's opening statement shows, rightly, what I have said and shown, multiple times, in this debate: There is uncertainty. Mr. Merrill's reply here is also a Logical Fallacy: Red Herring. He is no longer dealing with facts but opinion: ignoring the heart of the discussion; what do the FACTS, or the DATA say? "What do we KNOW", not "who agrees with whom". Uncertainty: AR5 Final Draft, Chapter 9, page 5/205: "The majority of Earth System models now include an interactive representation of aerosols... uncertainties in sulphur-cycle processes and natural sources and sinks remain and so, for example, the simulated aerosol optical depth over oceans ranges from 0.08 to 0.22 with roughly equal numbers of models over- and underestimating the satellite-estimated value of 0.12." From page 27: "By contrast, there is limited evidence that the hiatus in GMST trend has been accompanied by a slower rate of increase in ocean heat content over the depth range 0"700 m, when comparing the period 2003"2010 against 1971"2010. There is low agreement on this slowdown, since three of five analyses show a slowdown in the rate of increase while the other two show the increase continuing unabated (Section 3.2.3, Figure 3.2)." Also, from Chapter 9: "During the 15-year period beginning in 1998, the ensemble of HadCRUT4 GMST trends lies below almost all model-simulated trends (Box 9.2 Figure 1a), whereas during the 15-year period ending in 1998, it lies above 93 out of 114 modelled trends ((Box 9.2 Figure 1b; HadCRUT4 ensemble-mean trend 0.26"C per decade, CMIP5 ensemble-mean trend 0.16"C per decade)." Where are these "uncertainties" in the final report? There is ONE: SPM-10: "There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years." Then there is Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, "The fact is that we can"t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can"t." Former and current IPCC experts who have spoken out against the IPCC"s abuse of science include such prominent scientists as: Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT climate physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences; Dr. John Christy, a climatologist of the University of Alabama in Huntsville and NASA; Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, past director and state geologist with the Kansas Geological Society and a senior scientist emeritus of the University of Kansas; Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, former Virginia State climatologist, a UN IPCC reviewer, and University of Virginia professor of environmental sciences; Dr. Vincent Gray, New Zealand chemist and climate researcher; Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, geologist/geochemist, head of the Geological Museum in Norway; Dr. John T. Everett, a former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) senior manager and project manager for the UN Atlas of the Oceans. Not to mention, it appears a great many of scientists are "skeptical": http://goo.gl... Secondly, a good number of scientists violate Mr. Merrill's stated ideal, "Far from being alarmists"... Many scientists are involved in AGW Alarmist Activism: Of the 13 senior scientists who put together USGCRP"s January 2013 draft report, seven have ties to activist groups such as the Union of Concerned Scientists and the World Wildlife Fund. Chair Jerry Melillo is a contributing author for the Union of Concerned Scientists. Vice Chair Gary Yohe is part of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Climate Witness Program. Richard Moss is a former vice president for WWF. James Buizer is on the Board of Directors of the environmental activist group Second Nature. Susanne Moser is a former staff scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists. Andrew Rosenberg is a director for the Union of Concerned Scientists. Donald Weubbles is an author for the Union of Concerned Scientists. Further, 8 of these 13 USGCRP senior scientists participate in the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). See also: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com... "Con presumed that because he could provide nine links..." I'll stop you there. Logical Fallacy: Straw Man. I provided several links that showed mistakes that have been made as ONE of several evidences that Climate Alarmism is wrong. "This is Con"s argument that because climate fluctuations occur naturally, they cannot result from human activity." Logical Fallacy: Straw Man. My position is, and has been, about climate alarmism. I have provided a great many links and sources that show the NATURAL variations in climate, the NATURAL responses of the earth to increased CO2 and the LACK of evidence for AGW affecting earth's climate and or being "out of the ordinary". There is no crisis. "If Con agrees with the Greenhouse Theory as he so surely claims, he cannot deny that significant increases in CO2 stand to boost global temperature." I don't have to deny it. What you have engaged in is known as the Common Cause Fallacy or False Cause: http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl... This one has the graphs: http://goo.gl... Then Mr. Merrill provides several "proofs" by listing statements from some of the organizations that have bought in to the AGW Alarmism. Lets look at the other side and what they say: A few members of organizations like the AMS have left over the AMS's stand on AGW: http://goo.gl... A poll taken on Meteorologists show them to be skeptics: http://goo.gl... And if you don't "toe the line", you have your credentials threatened: http://goo.gl... "billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable." (2006) -- James Lovelock, British inventor, NASA scientist, author, and originator of the Gaia Hypothesis, He now says his predictions were "alarmist," and he criticizes his former comrades for having turned environmentalism into a "green religion." http://goo.gl... "For many years, I was an active supporter of the IPCC and its CO2 theory... Recent experience with the UN"s climate panel, however, forced me to reassess my position. In February 2010, I was invited as a reviewer for the IPCC report on renewable energy. I realised that the drafting of the report was done in anything but a scientific manner. The report was littered with errors and a member of Greenpeace edited the final version. These developments shocked me. I thought, if such things can happen in this report, then they might happen in other IPCC reports too." -- Professor Fritz Vahrenholt, author, "Die Kalte Sonne (The Cold Sun)", co-authored with noted geologist/paleontologist Dr. Sebastian L"ning. http://goo.gl... "Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!" " NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace http://goo.gl... "Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself " Climate is beyond our power to control"Earth doesn't care about governments or their legislation. You can"t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone"s permission or explaining itself." " Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. http://goo.gl... "Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences"AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks." " Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Lu"s Lino, -- "The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon Was Converted into a False World Emergency." 2009. "[The science] community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what "science" has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed." " Research Chemist William C. Gilbert published a study in August 2010 in the journal Energy & Environment titled "The thermodynamic relationship between surface temperature and water vapor concentration in the troposphere" and he published a paper in August 2009 titled "Atmospheric Temperature Distribution in a Gravitational Field." "[The global warming establishment] has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC." " Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring, of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University "There is a lack of willingness in the climate change community to steer away from groupthink" They are setting themselves up as second-rate scientists by not engaging... They will tolerate no dissent and seek to trample anyone who challenges them... The IPCC assessment process had a substantial element of schoolyard bullies, trying to insulate their shoddy science from outside scrutiny and attacks by skeptics"the IPCC and its conclusions were set on a track to become a self fulfilling prophecy." -- Dr. Judith Curry, the chair of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences at GA Institute of Tech http://goo.gl... "In attributing warming to man, they fail to point out that the warming has been small, and totally consistent with there being nothing to be alarmed about." -- Richard Lindzen, Former UN IPCC Lead Author http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl...