GLOBAL WARMING: A Team Debate.

Thank you Mikal, Bluesteel, and 16kadam. I want to establish, first, that this isn't a debate about Global Warming, but about Man-Made Global Warming. To prove his case, Pro must establish that Man-Made Global Warming is the threat. If he establishes that Global Warming is a threat, but can not establish that enough of it is man-made to say the threat comes from man, he can not affirm the resolution.Contention 1: Human caused Global Warming Exists. 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, which shows we are actually at an all time low. Now the website I got this from no longer has this page up so I apologize. We can see from observance of this graph that, with us being at an all time CO2 lows, that we are nowhere close to meeting the impact that my opponent brings up. The world has had CO2 levels over 5,000 ppm, while are now currently around apprx. 350 ppm CO2 levels. The above graph shows that comparisons of C13 (Carbon isotope) and this shows that there is little to no trend 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 incorrect as we have had absurd levels of CO2 and let the Global Temperature never reached the extreme levels needed to prove causation on the level Pro must prove (2). Now I will move on to how Earth is actually cooling and how it's temperature is cooler than it has been. 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 is been 7.5 °C hotter than it currently it is. You can also see that in the span of the past 10,000 years the temperature has leveled off, but you may ask yourself where does that place us in the lights of modern day? I am going to cite 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). While the IPCC, the people Pro quoted, has been wrong since just before the 2000’s, while the Earth has cooled, as Dr. Done predicted.1) http://tinyurl.com...2) http://tinyurl.com...3) http://tinyurl.com... Contention 2: Future Harm and sea levels. Many Warming Scientists claim that the sea level rise is due to the Arctic melting, but this is false. Al Gore stated that the Arctic 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 (4). Let's go back to 2007-2008 and see if his claim was justified in the Arctic Ice activity. It seems that he is incorrect, but let's look further into the near past. How about 2012-2013? (5) We all remember the Climate Scientists that got stuck in Arctic Ice Earlier this 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 (6). (7) Dr. Koonin, former head of the Department of Energy under President Obama, has stated that Global Warming is not certain. This is because he has found 3 things wrong and highly incorrect about the theory. 1. Shrinking of Arctic Sea ice doesn't account for the gaining of the Antarctic ice. 2. Earth's temperature today is the same as it was 30 years ago. 3. The sea levels rose at the same height and rate in the 20th century. (8) Here is another correlation 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 (9). 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 (10). The source is the PDF within the link.1) http://tinyurl.com...2) http://ginacobb.typepad.com...3) http://www.nytimes.com...4) http://tinyurl.com...5) http://www.newsmax.com...6) http://tinyurl.com...7) http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org... Contention 3 - The Benefits of a Warm Climate A moderately warm period is better than a cold period. If the temperature is not too warm, a warm climate can have positive effects on both the Earth as a whole and on everyone. A. Health Effects In moderation, warm temperatures are better for the body than cold temperatures. People cannot get enough heat, infections are rampant, and hospital admissions will rise in the cold. From 1979 to 1997, extreme cold killed roughly twice as many Americans as heat waves [coincidentally when the Earth was heating up]. In Germany, heat waves were found to reduce overall mortality rates slightly, while cold spells led to a significant increase in deaths. In addition, warmer weather decreases incidences of strokes, respiratory diseases, and the flu.[1] In general, life expectancies are higher in warmer climates, and there are fewer incidences of disease and other health problems. A warm period would be beneficial to human health. B. Economic Benefits Some of the major industrial sectors, particularly agriculture, tend to work better in a warmer environment than they do in a cooler environment. "The book [The Impact of Climate Change] finds that a moderate warming will have a positive economic impact on the agriculture and forestry sectors. Since carbon dioxide is used by plants to capture and store energy, there may be a fertilizing effect as levels of the gas rise. This, combined with longer growing seasons, fewer frosts and more precipitation, among other factors, could benefit some economic sectors."[2] CO2 increases, a byproduct of temperature increases ([1]), naturally help to stimulate plant growth as well, further helping agriculture. "For a 300 ppm increase in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration above the planet's current base level of slightly less than 400 ppm, for example, the productivity of earth's herbaceous plants rises by something on the order of 30%, while the productivity of its woody plants rises by something on the order of 50%."[3][4] This further helps humans by increasing food yields, lowering rates of starvation and hunger. 1) Singer, S. Fred, and Dennis T. Avery: "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years." 2) http://www.sepp.org...3) http://www.geocraft.com... 4) http://www.sciencemag.org... Contention 3 - The Effects of CO2 Even if Pro were to establish that Global Warming is a threat, he must establish that humans cause a substantial deal of Global Warming before they can establish that Man-made Global Warming is a threat. The main case that Global Warming activists have to prove Man-Made Global Warming is a large part of the picture is the CO2 argument. it doesn’t, however, stand to fact. Carbon Dioxide is, in fact, very weak. Having only a Global Warming Potential of 1. Carbon Dioxide makes up a grand total of 3.618% of the total Gas House Effect, with water vapor making up 95% (1). Carbon Dioxide's number increased from 295 ppm to 400 ppm, an increase of 105 ppm, equal to 49.29 gigatons (1 Gigaton of CO2 is worth 2.13 ppm (2)). Since 1 gigaton of CO2 is worth 0.004% of total Greenhouse Effect, 49.29 gigatons is worth an additional 0.21% (2). We can see the weakness of CO2 in the chart below. If human's did raise CO2 levels by 105 ppm, the effect on the climate would be pathetic. People gravely exaggerate the effect of CO2 on the climate. The chart of Global Warming gases is as follows: GAS -- GREENHOUSE EFFECT -- HUMAN EFFECT Water Vapor ------ 95.000% -- 0.001% Carbon Dioxide -- 3.618% ---- 0.117% Methane ------------ 0.360 ------ 0.066% Nitrous oxide ----- 0.950% ---- 0.047% Misc ------------------- 0.072% ---- 0.047% Total ------------------ 100% ------- 0.278% Following the graph, we can assume correctly that human’s CO2 emissions add very little, if almost anything at all, to Global Warming. If the man-made portion of Global Warming (0.21% of the total) was a threat, than we’d been dead from the natural Global Warming (99.79% of total) long ago. At 0.21%, the rise in temperature from our contribution would be so small that the difference in temperature from Spring to Summer would be greater.1) http://www.geocraft.com...2) http://cdiac.ornl.gov...