GLOBAL WARMING: A Team Debate.

I apologize to all - Lannan wrote the first two contentions in the last argument, but he can’t present refutations this round due to time conflictions. I (Subutai) will do my best to address Mikal’s concerns, but I will take liberties in presenting arguments that will deviate from what Lannan wrote. I also only have about an hour left, so I also apologize if anything looks sloppy. Contention 1 - Anthropogenic Global Warming There seems to be some disagreement between the different people writing the different arguments. I am simply going to show three reasons why an anthropogenic cause is unlikely. First, according to the greenhouse effect, global warming should be starting from the lower atmosphere and moved to the surface (because the CO2 collects in the upper troposphere first). However, this is not happening. "...satellite and high-altitude balloon data confirm that the lower atmosphere is not trapping lots of additional heat due to higher CO2 concentrations. It is hard to know how fast the Earth's highly variable surface is warming, but it is warming faster than the lower atmosphere where the CO2 is accumulating. This is strong evidence that CO2 is not the primary climate factor."[1] Here is a graph showing how the surface has warmed more than the troposphere: Second, current levels of CO2 have very little effect on temperature. The greenhouse effect certainly exists, but it doesn't become linearly stronger with increasing amounts of CO2. CO2's effect on temperature is logarithmic, meaning that each additional increase has a smaller effect on the climate than the last. "The carbon that is already up in the atmosphere absorbs most of the light it can. CO2 only soaks up its favorite wavelengths of light and it's close to its saturation point. It manages to grab a bit more light from wavelengths that are close to its favorite bands but it can't do much more, because there are not many left-over photons at the right wavelengths."[2][3] This chart shows approximately the effect that each additional increment of CO2 increase has on temperature: Note how the pre-industrial to modern level increase has had less than a 0.2 C increase in temperature. Third and most importantly, the predicted "hot-spot" 10 miles above the tropics that would be a signature of CO2-induced global warming is absent. "The computer models show that greenhouse warming will cause a hot-spot at an altitude between 8 and 12 km over the tropics between 30 N and 30 S. The temperature at this hot-spot is projected to increase at a rate of two to three times faster than at the surface. However, the Hadley Centre's real-world plot of radiosonde temperature observations shown below does not show the projected CO2 induced global warming hot-spot at all. The predicted hot-spot is entirely absent from the observational record. This shows that atmosphere warming theory programmed into climate models are wrong."[2] Here is the plot of predicted temperature changes due to CO2: However, here is the actual observed temperature changes: The hot spot is completely missing, which is pretty much a knockout blow to the anthropogenic global warming theory. And to be fair to Easterbrook, the IPCC isn’t very good at predicting the climate either: The climate seems to have a mind of its own that we haven’t deciphered yet. However, it looks very unlikely that anthropogenic causes are behind the recent global warming. [1]: Singer, S. Fred, and Dennis T. Avery: Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years [2]: http://tinyurl.com... [3]: http://tinyurl.com... Contention 2 - Sea Level Rise Even though some groups like to show scenes of global apocalypse with this, the truth is that the sea level hasn’t risen that much. However, both past and predicted rise have been greatly exaggerated. The linear trend shows a sea level rise of only 1.31 +/- 0.30 mm/year. "The Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory estimates the rate of sea level rise at 1.42 plus or minus 0.14 mm/year for the period 1954 to 2003. This is less than the estimate of 1.91 plus or minus 0.14 mm/year for the period 1902 to 1953, indicating a slowing of the rate." That’s an increase of around 2.8 inches in the last 50 years – not that much of an apocalyptic scenario.[1][2] Future sea level predictions are even better. As of currently, global ocean heat content has not changed in recent years. Sea level itself has actually been declining for the last decade. “The ‘INQUA Commission on Sea-Level Change and Coastal Evolution’ led by Dr. Morner, prepared as estimate that the global sea level will rise 10 cm plus or minus 10 cm in the next 100 years. Dr. Morner has since revised his estimate to 5 cm per 100 years after considering data of the Sun activity suggesting that the warming trend may have ended and the Earth may be headed into a cooling trend.” That’s around 2.5 inches in the next 100 years. That’s really not too bad.[2][3] As for Tuvalu, sea level has actually dropped four inches in the last 20 years and there is no evidence based on the observations that sea level rise there is accelerating.[4] In general, there is no cause for concern here. [1]: http://tinyurl.com... [2]: http://tinyurl.com... [3]: http://tinyurl.com... [4]: http://tinyurl.com... Contention 3 - Benefits of Global Warming If we take the rest of our argument (take, for example, global warming), we see that the potential threats of global warming are only exaggerated, if not unimportant. This contention is built upon the previous arguments. A - Health Benefits If the flu is correlated to heat, then why is the flu worse during the winter months? In fact, the virus dies quicker in warmer weather than colder weather. The Plague of Justinian was partially caused by a colder climate.[1] As for deaths from heat and cold, "The only global study suggests that this is true internationally: by 2050, there will be almost 400,000 more heat-related deaths a year, and almost 1.8 million fewer cold-related deaths. Warmer temperatures will save 1.4 million lives each year. The number of saved lives will outweigh the increase in heat-related deaths until at least 2200."[2] Yes, while it is easier to make fire than an air conditioner, heat is, overall, better for the body than cold (to a point). People in the Middle East are healthier (when controlled, that is) than people in, say, Siberia. What my opponent cites is not an increase in deaths from warming per se, but in temperature variability: "The claim that warming increases morbidity rates is a myth. This isn't the case, according to Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, an environmental economist from Yale University. Mendelsohn argues that heat-stress deaths are caused by temperature variability and not warming. Those deaths grow in number not as climates warm but as the variability in climate increases."[3] B - Economic Benefits There’s no reason, beyond the most apocalyptic of models that the warming would be so bad that plants would be severely affected beyond what they can handle. Plus, you never responded to my claim that CO2 helps crops. [1]: http://tinyurl.com... [2]: http://tinyurl.com... [3]: http://tinyurl.com... Contention IV: The Effects of CO2. Pro is playing with words here. The idea of a threat isn’t that it’s kinda not okay, but that it is in fact an issue. A paper cut isn’t a threat, but a knife cut to the artery is. Pro must establish that Man-Made Global Warming is an actual issue that could harm0 us, not that it’s just not good. As for the term Man-Made Global Warming, it refers to the topic as it is or is likely to become. Not what it would be in an unlikely scenario. If human’s contribution to Global Warming, as it is or might be, isn’t large enough to justify being called a threat, than Pro has not affirmed the Resolution. Regarding CO2 causing temperatures to rise enough to cause enough evaporation… This is an extreme case of slippery slope. It gravely assumes CO2 will cause that kind of increase in Water Vapor. Water Vapor is very weak. The increase in tempature needed to give Water Vapor the quantity to affirm the resolution is nearly unreachable.I’ve already established how weak CO2 is. It would take unimaginable amounts of it to cause such an increase in Global Warming. Pro’s argument is so often quoted, but it’s simply improbable. Unless Pro can establish that Man-Made CO2 has enough of an effect to start that cycle, he can’t prove such a slippery slope. Another flaw in Pro’s argument is that it’s ignorant of historic records. Let’s look at history... CO2 ppm is at 400 right now, but in the Mesozoic period and Cambrian Perios, it reached 2000-4000 and 7000 ppm.(5) At 7000 ppm, the temperatures were only 10ºc higher than today. Proportionately, temperatures should have been 54.23ºc higher than now. This empathizes how little of an impact CO2 has on the global temperature. With how weak CO2 is, it would take insane quantities to accomplish what Pro claims it will. But even at 7000 ppm, it was unable to increase the temperature enough to support Pro’s case, especially if water evaporation was enough to escalate it. More evidence of the weakness of CO2 can be found in the current Global Warming Cycle. Pro shows a CO2 chart of the past 10,000 years... Here is a chart of the CO2 levels and Global Warming level from the past 400,000 years. As we can see, despite the abnormal CO2 presence, temperatures today are actually the lowest in the past 400k years of Global Warming cycles, which are common and completely natural. Despite Pro’s claim, CO2 simply does not have the necessary effects. It may follow warmer temperatures, but warming temperatures do not follow it. When temperatures rise, CO2 rises, but when we see CO2 rise, temperatures don’t rise with it. Historically, and even now, CO2 does not bring forth the effects needed to prove it has a substantial effect on warming. Or that it’s effect is large enough to cause temperatures to rise enough to increase Water Vapor. 5) http://tinyurl.com...(GCA).pdf