args

Anthropic climate change is real and a threat.

My first source shows beyond a resonable doubt man-made climate change exists. [0] My second and third and forth source show that climate change is a threat. [1][2] I know my argument is short, but when you got peer reviewed articles as source stating your claim, there is no reason to make a longer argument. "The World Health Organisation estimates that the warming and precipitation trends due to anthropogenic climate change of the past 30 years already claim over 150,000 lives annually. " [3] Thanks for the debate. Sources 0. http://iopscience.iop.org... 1. http://www.nature.com... 2. http://www.nature.com... 3. http://www.nature.com...

Climate change

Final round. No new arguments and no new proof. In this round we will try to conclude and to balance the arguments presented. The debate crystallized around 2 central issues: credibility/significance of authority and interpretation of available data. With regard to the first point it became clear that the debate shifted from the credibility of scientists supporting human induced GW to the credibility of scientists and groups negating GW. This was only natural since there is more to attack and defend on the side of people negating human induced GW. Con managed to show that there was suspicion about interference in science on the side of IPCC (and IPCC only). I proved that not only all the proof presented by Con is financed by oil industry (Exxon is only one example, it didn't have to pay for all the research negating GW), but also that oil industry edited a science report which was wrote by independent scientists. Con made no reference to this Machiavellian strategy in his speech. Con also conceded that GW scientists have no secret agenda. My proof showed that people that negate GW have a vested interest in the outcome of this debate. Given the excellent record of oil companies in seeking the truth and helping their communities the reader can judge for himself/herself if the science provided by their scientists reflects the truth. In the end it is more probable that independent scientists are right and scientists financed by good willing oil companies are biased. It is hard to convince somebody of the truth if he is paid to ignore it. In the second part of the debate the reader can surely see that Con is very good at constantly changing his strategy to respond to my arguments. First he ignores the Venus example (round 1), then he does some calculations that I show to prove the Co2 sensitivity of climate (round 2&3), then he says that Venus is not actually relevant even if he agreed to use it as a case study (round 4). As his argument and his source don't explain why Venus is not appropriate for the debate, it should be taken into consideration when evaluating the outcome of this debate. I Venus is taken into consideration and correlated with the data provided by Con in the 2nd and 3rd round and the graph I have provided for illustrative purposes, then it shows that initial increases can lead to significant effects in warming the climate. This proves the topic I am advocating for. The proof showing an increase of mean temperatures and the argument regarding the balance of input and output were never clearly attacked by Con. Instead Con pointed out different causes that drive climate. When it was clear that it was not enough to prove alternate causes Con tried to redefine the "significant" word so that I would have to prove that Co2 drives climate change. As this is a straw man strategy I did not engage in this discussion. Instead I proved a significant effect. Also Con used a double standard with regard to the issue presented. The Co2 Theory must exactly predict everything while alternate causes don't have to. If we apply the same principle on Con causes they don't stand careful analysis. With regard to the quote from a "BBC documentary" [sic] I refrain from listing all the false data provided by the movie ("The Great Global Warming Swindle") as this would be new proof. I will only point out something that already appeared in the debate and on which both me and Con agree. The movie states that there is no financing of denial (sic!) of human induced GW. This is only one among numerous errors of the movie. It is good that I didn't have to defend An Inconvenient Truth. In the end I won credibility and I won Venus. The reader can either vote for Pro or wait to see if the Co2 theory is wrong. http://xkcd.com... I thank Con for an educated debate and the reader for his patience in reading this lengthy discussion.

Climate change is real and caused by humans

First of all, let me apologize for not making it clear what I meant by "climate change." Global warming is actually an outdated term when it comes to climate change, and most scientists and climate activists prefer to now call it "climate change." Although overall temperatures are gradually getting higher, many people try to argue against the existence of climate change by referencing years when temperatures have been lower than normal. This winter has been a perfect example of this. Therefore, when I speak of "climate change" I am talking about the overall shift in global temperature, weather patterns, and other climate factors that we are already seeing today. Sorry for not making that clear. Because the evidence for actual climate change is unequivocal, with 97% of global scientists supporting it, I will not take most of this argument to show the evidence. The big thing we're debating is whether or not it is caused by humans. To start with evidence that climate change is happening, let me just list a few. First of all, ocean levels have been rising for the past century, with a total rise of about 6.7 inches (which may not sound like much, but globally has large implications, especially if it continues.) In addition, the rate of rising has doubled in the last decade compared with the last century, showing that temperatures are rising, and rising fast. Second, temperatures have been rising since 1880, and the most warming has happened since the 1970s, with the twenty hottest years having been since then. Third, the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has been declining rapidly over the past several decades. Fourth, since 1950, the number of record high temperatures has been increasing, while the number of record low temperatures has been decreasing. Fifth, since the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of the oceans has increased by about 30 percent! I will stop listing evidence here, so I can move on to why climate change is caused by humans, but I would end by reminding Con, as I said before, the 97 PERCENT OF ALL SCIENTISTS AGREE WITH THIS THEORY. Does that not mean anything? Now for some rebuttals against why Con said before. First of all to respond to what you said about how much CO2 humans release into the atmosphere compared to the amount released by the rest of the planet. It sounds like your saying that we have released 0.00022 percent of all CO2 ever released by the earth's mantle. This number doesn't have much relevance, and I will use a different one to respond. Humans currently release about 30 GT (giga-tons) of carbon each year, while the earth emits about 780 GT a year. While this may seem to show that humans aren't the problem, it actually shows that we are. Before we began emitting so much CO2, the system was in balance, with the earth and ocean absorbing the 780 GT that it emitted. This kept the CO2 level in the atmosphere between 180 and 280 parts per million for 800,000 years. With the added human carbon emission, the CO2 level is at 400 parts per million and still rising. For another rebuttal, I would respond to what you say about how significant climactic changes have happened throughout geologic time. This is true, but this does not make the climate change happening right now any less relevant. These changes in climate you speak of are called "Milankovitch cycles", which have to do with the periodic oscillation of the earth's tilt, the precession of the tilt, and changes in earth's elliptical orbit. During each of these warming cycles, CO2 and temperature levels have risen and fallen TOGETHER. Also, the whole sun theory you mention at the end of your argument was supported not by "a large body of scientific research", but by one man, Wei-Hock Soon, who got $1.2 million funding from fossil-fuel companies. I will end with this: climate change is an extremely important and urgent topic that needs to be addressed by the world. People like you (and I mean no offense) need to stop arguing, using the tiniest facts to try and disprove something that is so unanimously agreed upon by scientists worldwide. If you don't believe in science, then that is a whole different matter, but if you do, I cannot fathom why you don't understand this. If we don't have a habitable world to live and be healthy on, how can we solve all our other problems?

Climate Change is a real issue

I propose that Global warming is indeed a real and existential threat to our planet. As you may have heard before there were periods in our planet's timeline called "the ice age" however most of the proof we have was amassed in the last few thousands of years which helps us graph what life was like millions of years ago using geological evidence, Fossils, Ice cores and even trees (which can date back a few thousand years) and other clues to help us understand our planet's past. From this paragraph I lay my claim that atmosphere and the crest of the planet are subjectable to human influence. based statistics and chart data from climate. Gov that Carbon dioxide's ppm has had about a 1/3 increase and the annual green house gas index has had a 45% percent increase since 1990 (relative to 1990) 1. Your video evidence, The video itself states that climate change does exist and is undoubtable to most scientist in that range of field however it does question the perceived threat of global warming the human influence that be causing the problem. We can discuss more about the video in the next round. 2. I do not know what mathematics you speak of however there are three ways i can think of a few ways humans can change the mass of earth 1. Bring external mass to the planet 2. Eject mass from planet 3. Influencing earth in a way to increase or decrease intake/output of energy from our planet though lost energy (entropy) 3. Considering that I have a source that says the ppm of co2 has been at 280 ppm pre industrial revolution I have no idea what to think considering you said that it has a saturation of 80 ppm (currently at around 400 ppm) 4. I don't actually care about this person, However they are rightfully noteworthy for what i presume is a fact? 5. Ok, That paper does put up concern but I will discard it because I don't want to bother with analyzing it due to fact you yourself called it fraud. now for my own claims which I will assert some possible affects of global warming and issues in relation to it 1. Sea level rising; this if it happens is predicted to displace 143 million people not to mention disrupt international trading, Food production, Land animal/plants ecosystem and living space and the planetary absorption/reflection of the sun's rays 2. Ecosystem collapse; as you might have read many animals, And plants alike are sensitive to ecosystem change causing species to die out or become reduced which could potentially allow an invasive species to come in or a chain reaction of species dying out which will decrease the earth's biodiversity and overall planetary sustainability. 3. Carbon and other particles have been rising in ppm for the most part these last few centuries, This could have a impact on the overall health and quality of life the atmosphere could provide to us by exposing us all to an unhealthy amount of particles that might impede our body's ability to function 4. As I said before currently our planet's ecosystem is strained, You might have heard about banana farms being killed off, Or species going extinct, Perhaps the killer wasp stories or the invasive species stories. Ecosystems have long evolved in such a way to even create breeds of the same species just so it thrives and contributes to a healthy ecosystem, When species' die it leaves the local area without its overall stability and vulnerable to intrusion and entropy of the ecosystem. A shoddy comparison is the free market, Where the businesses have specialized in their niche to be the best in that field that is what life has done to thrive in their ecosystems, But if you change variables suddenly some can't change fast enough and will go under. That is what happens in both the free market and in ecosystems. https://www. Climate. Gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide https://www. Earthobservatory. Nasa. Gov/features/CarbonCycle/page5. Php https://www. Ajc. Com/news/world/climate-change-will-internally-displace-143-million-people-2050-scientists-warn/UppkeFSlfJmPr3ay3rAF0I/