Climate Change - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Climate Change

Opening Argument

Of all the big common debates, there seems to be one that is missing - or at least not active: Climate Change.

Centre of the debate around Climate Change is the argument that human kind's industrialisation is releasing large amounts of greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide. This creates a greenhouse effect that has an overall warming effect on the planet.

The theory is supported by the majority of scientists - especially on scientists whose area of expertise is the climate - but does not have universal public acceptance. This instead varies by country, with the more heavily industrialised countries like the USA typically being among the least concerned about climate change.

Where do you stand on climate change - real or fake?
comey_testifynorthsouthkoreaErfisflatagsraarongSilverishGoldNovanatbaronsMax_Air29yolostide
  1. Is global warming real?

    29 votes
    1. Yes, global warming is real and is due in large part to the actions of humanity.
      48.28%
    2. Yes, global warming is real although humanity is not a factor in this and it is a natural cycle.
      31.03%
    3. No, global warming is not real.
      20.69%
«134



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +


Status: Open Debate


Arguments

  • Yes, global warming can't be denied. 

    There is plenty of realistic and seemingly truthful scientific evidence out there which proves Globally Warming exists. The big question which is left is, are humans responsible. Many people can use the ice age as an example which is a opposite of Global Warming today. An argument such as changing times could be made. I believe that humans only excelerated the process of Global Warming and if we don't stop and set more regulations, there may be no humans left within five decades or so soon.
  •  @comey_testify made a good point. It is real, but how much of it is really controlled by us.  Sure, we are likely messing up the environment, but by how much? Are we willing to spend trillions of dollars to fix something that will have a marginal impact?
  • agsragsr 779 Pts
    While it is debatable that we can materially influence global warming effect, the real question should be the cost of remediation vs benefit.  
    melanielust
    Live Long and Prosper
  • @islander507 Although the other part of that is: Are we willing to not spend money when doing so may lead to the collapse of human civilisation as we know it? Does it help make the cost worthwhile when you take into account that we will have to spend money either way whether it's on oil or renewable resources and that we are expected hit peak oil in a few decades so either our generation or the next will need to start investing in renewable resources either way?

  • agsragsr 779 Pts
    @AlwaysCorrect, i agree on focus on renewable energy. Regarding the other point on collapse, that is not fact-based, but more of an emotional appeal. If we want to prevent anything that "maybe" bad for or lead to potential collapse then we can create a longer list of things.  
    As I mentioned, the cost will be a key component and how much will each action actually help.
    Live Long and Prosper
  • AlwaysCorrectAlwaysCorrect 239 Pts
    edited June 2017
    @agsr ;

    That response was based off islander507's position. My own would be based on the evidence.

    In regards to it actually being a 'maybe', we than have to consider is it a 'maybe' rather that an outright certainty/impossibility? And if so, how likely is it?

    That's where the evidence then comes in, assessing the likelihood of the theory being correct.

    Edit: Btw I'm aware I haven't exactly fired off a load of evidence myself, however I'm trying to stimulate discussion before I weigh in. Hence why I went for a more neutral OP so as not to slant the initial discussion one way or another.
  • agsragsr 779 Pts
    @AlwaysCorrect, i support a "maybe". I also think there is a decent chance it maybe the case. I don't play lottery against the odds. My point is that if someone is holding a gun to my head asking for my wallet, I will say that's great odds that I will get shot unless I hand my wallet over.  If someone asks me to wiretransfer $200 to nigeria based on unsolicited email, stating that something bad would happen otherwise then I probably ignore that one.
    with climate change caused by humans and forced to spend billions/trillions to supposedly remediate -  it is something in between.
    Live Long and Prosper
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 516 Pts
    edited July 2017
    agsr said:
    While it is debatable that we can materially influence global warming effect, the real question should be the cost of remediation vs benefit.  


    That is the real question, but in order to answer it we need much more information.  How can we determine the benefit if we don't really understand the processes that are in effect?  We need to have a working model that accurately and dependably conveys how the climate will change, what effects it, and how it will be affected.  Right now, we have half a dozen models and the only thing reliable about any of them is that their predictions will be wrong.
  • CYDdharta said:
    agsr said:
    While it is debatable that we can materially influence global warming effect, the real question should be the cost of remediation vs benefit.  


    That is the real question, but in order to answer it we need much more information.  How can we determine the benefit if we don't really understand the processes that are in effect?  We need to have a working model that accurately and dependably conveys how the climate will change, what effects it, and how it will be affected.  Right now, we have half a dozen models and the only thing reliable about any of them is that their predictions will be wrong.
    Do you have a source for this?

    I was of the belief that climate change models were generally pretty solid even though they are meant to be used over much longer time scales that we have been looking at.

    For instance when looking over it's past projections, the IPPC stated:

    "Observed changes in global mean surface air temperature since 1950 (from three major databases, as anomalies relative to 1961–1990) are shown in Figure 1.4. As in the prior assessments, global climate models generally simulate global temperatures that compare well with observations over climate timescales (Section 9.4). Even though the projections from the models were never intended to be predictions over such a short timescale, the observations through 2012 generally fall within the projections made in all past assessments. The 1990– 2012 data have been shown to be consistent with the FAR projections (IPCC, 1990), and not consistent with zero trend from 1990, even in the presence of substantial natural variability (Frame and Stone, 2013)."



    The models that tends to get the most stick (both for valid and invalid reasons) are atmospheric models, but this seems more an ideologically driven attack than an actual valid critique. We don't live in the troposphere so if the models are a little more off there (while still being basically correct) then while that is useful to know and investigate, it doesn't really matter when the GMST models are correct.
  • @AlwaysCorrect ; The graph you posted shows the4 models doing a poor job at predicting what really happened.  Lets take a closer look at what the models predicted;

    Actual temperatures only raised about half of what IPCC's models said they would. 


    According to a 2002 article by climate scientists Vitaly Semenov and Lennart Bengtsson in Climate Dynamics, climate models have done a poor job of matching known global rainfall totals and patterns.

    Climate models have been subjected to “perfect model tests,” in which the they were used to project a reference climate and then, with some minor tweaks to initial conditions, recreate temperatures in that same reference climate. This is basically asking a model to do the same thing twice, a task for which it should be ideally suited. In these tests, Frank found, the results in the first year correlated very well between the two runs, but years 2-9 showed such poor correlation that the results could have been random. Failing a perfect model test shows that the results aren’t stable and suggests a fundamental inability of the models to predict the climate. The ultimate test for a climate model is the accuracy of its predictions. But the models predicted that there would be much greater warming between 1998 and 2014 than actually happened. If the models were doing a good job, their predictions would cluster symmetrically around the actual measured temperatures. That was not the case here; a mere 2.4 percent of the predictions undershot actual temperatures and 97.6 percent overshot, according to Cato Institute climatologist Patrick Michaels, former MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen, and Cato Institute climate researcher Chip Knappenberger. Climate models as a group have been “running hot,” predicting about 2.2 times as much warming as actually occurred over 1998–2014. Of course, this doesn’t mean that no warming is occurring, but, rather, that the models’ forecasts were exaggerated.

    http://www.hoover.org/research/flawed-climate-models



  • AlwaysCorrectAlwaysCorrect 239 Pts
    edited July 2017
    CYDdharta said:
    @AlwaysCorrect ; The graph you posted shows the4 models doing a poor job at predicting what really happened.  Lets take a closer look at what the models predicted;

    What do you mean they're doing a poor job? It shows the range of possible outcomes they predicted the temperature to rise to and it shows the actual rise within that range. What crtieria are you using to say it would be poor and what would be good?

    I'm also not entirely sure about your graph? Do you have the source of where this came from? Also why is the temperature a 5 year mean average? Why does it end several years ago, when we happened to have a few years which were colder then expected, rather than taking into account the much warmer years which we've just been through which can be seen on the latest HADCRUT4 e.g.

    Global time-series update

    Why does it only look at one model, why not any others? Should I assume that was the worse model? And the 90 runs chosen, were those the only available ones or were they cherry-picked. In fact, what data was used to create this at all? I've tried reverse google image searching it but besides appearing on a lot of climate change denial websites, I can't find out how it was made or what it was based upon.

    Also that last quoted paragraph is a good example of what I was talking about. The ability of models 15 years ago to predict rainfall isn't really a concern if the GMST models are accurate as that's what we're worried about. That's not to say I accept your point - for instance I've just read the study and it doesn't seem to say what your article claims - but why even bother debating it if it's incidental to the main issue and you can't offer any criticisms of global mean surface temperature increase?
    walterbainc4tagsrlove2debateOakchairbc
  • I agree with @AlwaysCorrect .
  • @AlwaysCorrect I mean the models do a poor job even by the chart you posted.  The actual observed temperatures are barely on the estimates at all.  Accurate and working models would have the actual observed temperatures towards the center of the model predictions.  The graph comes from here.  I would imagine they use a 5 year mean because NASA uses a 5 year mean.  Why do the actual observations end several years ago on your graph?

    Assume whatever you like, but CMIP-5 is a set of coordinated climate model experiments that includes the IPCC models.  Everything from your graph is included.  If anyone is cherrypicking, it's IPCC

  • AlwaysCorrectAlwaysCorrect 239 Pts
    edited July 2017
    @CYDdharta

    How are they doing a poor job when they are performing correctly and the effects of global warming are within predicted parameters? What metric are you actually using to say "they are barely on the estimate at all"? This seems like a really hamhanded way for you to avoid saying the models are correct, which they are.
     
    Also your link doesn't answer the question, it's just a picture of the graph again. That gives no details on how the graph was put together and whether it was reliable and does nothing to explain the weird inconsistencies that seem deliberately introduced - such as why start in 1983 (an unusually hot series of 5 years), why the Y axis isn't temperature anomalies, what projections were actually used, why does it not include more recent years which note a large upswing in temperature?

    Lastly, you obviously don't know a lot about mocels. CMIP-5 is a climate change model on which various different simulations are run with different parameters . After checking the records, the last count of CMIP5 simulations that have been run is over 47000. Of that your graph allegedly uses 90 models. So of that 47000 which 90 were chosen and why? Especially as a lot of those simulations will be near-term predictions which cover this range of years but should not be used for this purpose. It's pretty ridiculous to claim I'm the one cherry picking when you're ignoring every climate change model except one and then ignoring over 99% of the simulations run on it, with the simulations you are looking at being ones you have no idea if they are valid for the purpose being used.

    Basically you are placing your trust in a random image you have no way of knowing is real and a lot of reason to suspect is faulty (but cannot 100% prove because we don't know what data - if any - is behind it). On the other hand there is masses of actually verifiable evidence backing up climate change models. 
  • What metric am I using???  My own EYES.  I can see that the actual observations are FAR from the center of the predictions.  95% of the climate predictions are too high.  Can you not see that, are you unable to read your own graph???  If the hiatus continues, none of the models will match actual observations in a few years. 

    All you posted was a graph.  You want more?  go dig it up like you made me do.

    I don't know anything about mocels.  However;

    The model comparisons with observations have pushed the analysis and development of the models. CMIP5, an important input to the AR5, has produced a multi-model data set that is designed to advance our understanding of climate variability and climate change. Building on previous CMIP efforts, such as the CMIP3 model analysis reported in AR4, CMIP5 includes ‘long-term’ simulations of 20th century climate and projections for the 21st century and beyond. See Chapters 9, 10, 11 and 12 for more details on the results derived from the CMIP5 archive.

    Try using your thinking cap.  If other runs were more accurate, why wouldn't IPCC have included them in the graph you posted???  Does IPCC want to be wrong? 


    Pot meet kettle

  • @CYDdharta

    Dude, you need to re-read the posts because it looks like you've got really confused and have lost the plot of what is being discussed..

    You state "95% of the climate predictions are too high.  Can you not see that, are you unable to read your own graph???" but it is your graph that says that, not mine and I have given several reasons why your graph is rubbish that you have not responded to or attempted to refute.

    In fact it seems you haven't even understood my criticisms. For instance you go on to say "If other runs were more accurate, why wouldn't IPCC have included them in the graph you posted??? " However my point was that YOUR graph was based on a fraction of the data, not the one I posted. Your graph clearly states at the top that it is based on 90 CMIP5 runs. However there are many models besides CMIP5 and even CMIP5 by itself has more then 47,000 runs, not the 90 your graph claims to be based on.
  • @AlwaysCorrect So your position is that my evidence is wrong because you think it's wrong.  If you can find something pertinent that contradicts what I've posted, feel free to share it.  So far the data you posted agrees with what I posted.
  • @CYDdharta

    Incorrect and hypocritical. You state "So far the data you posted agrees with what I posted" but offer nothing to back it up. The person making the argument of "my evidence is wrong because you think it's wrong" is you.

    I explained why your evidence and logic is wrong in my previous posts here and here.

    You have failed to respond to most of my points and what responses you have made are confusing nonsense. Take my previous post where I explained you've mistaken who posted what graphs what graph and what claims have actually been made. You haven't even tried to make a defence of your prior post being a meaningless mess as I've pointed out.

    If there is any point of yours you feel I have not addressed, feel free to quote it and I shall either respond showing where I've already refuted it or if I've somehow missed it I'll respond. Meanwhile you have failed to address all my my points. Do you concede or will you try and refute my claims?
  • @AlwaysCorrect In other words, you could find no evidence that the graph I posted was inaccurate in any way.  Thank you for making my point.
  • @CYDdharta

    1) I explained why it's . In my last posts I literally just linked you to my posts where I did so and you still can't offer a rebuttal.

    2) I'm going the extra mile and assuming that despite the evidence you're arguing in good faith, although that leeway that I'm granting you is quickly diminishing as you fail to actually respond. I don't actually need to disprove the graph as you have never presented anything to suggest it is real in the first place. It's just a random graph you found on the internet based on who knows what.. The burden of proof is on you to present some kind of evidence that the graph is accurate.
  • The burden of proof is on you to present some kind of evidence that the graph is accurate.

    Incorrect sir, I have provided my evidence.  It's up to you to prove my evidence is inaccurate.  Supposition isn't proof.
  • @CYDdharta

    Evidence of what?

    You have provided evidence that a random graph exists.

    You have not provided evidence that the data on the graph is in any way accurate or represents reality. As your only evidenced claim, that a random graph exists, does not have any bearing on the discussion at hand there is nothing for me to rebutt.

    Let me give you an example.



    There's a graph showing that observed temperatures have been very much in line with predictions, albeit warming slightly faster than models predicted. Is it real? There's as much reason to think that it's real of as your graph - which is to say precisely none. It's a random graph from out of nowhere with nothing to back up that it is accurate, hence why I would never normally use such a thing.

    The only actual viable data provided so far is by me with my earlier graphs which support the models being accurate.
  • @AlwaysCorrect Well, that's a graph all right.  I'm not sure what it's a graph of because there's no indication of where the observed temperatures came from, but it's a spiffy graph.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1084 Pts
    Battle of the graphs, whose lines and numbers are more important? 
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat
  • @CYDdharta

    So are you going to be a hypocrite and try and defend your graph? With either graph we actually have no idea where any of it comes from. If you will believe anything you find on the internet without a thought for whether it's real then you're incredibly gullible.

    Either way, you still haven't provided evidence your graph is actually based on reality - which you will note was the entire point behind my previous post. You also still haven't responded to my points I made earlier where I poked holes in your argument.
  • @AlwaysCorrect I'm always amused when hypocrites try to call other people hypocrites.  You posted one meaningless link and a bunch of graphs of unknown origin and want to complain about what I posted?!?  Really?!?  Back up your own posts before you complain about someone else's.
  • @CYDdharta and @AlwaysCorrect, maybe you should both post new graphs with more clear documented sources that have clear explanations of your position. The way I am reading your exchange is consistent with the overall position on this topic - niether party can prove or disprove climate change is caused by people - so it is back to who has burden of prove.
  • @CYDdharta

    You have not raised any issues with my graphs. The only time you did you were confused and actually criticising your own graph.

    If you have issues with my graphs, feel free to raise them and I will respond. However the onus is on you to back up that your graph is actually relevant and based on solid evidence, not just some random lines.

  • @AlwaysCorrect
     However the onus is on you to back up that your graph is actually relevant and based on solid evidence, not just some random lines.


    I posted a link to my source.  How about you doing the same for your graphs.
  • AlwaysCorrectAlwaysCorrect 239 Pts
    edited July 2017
    @CYDdharta

    Your source is just a link to a url where the image is hosted. It is literally just exactly the same image as you've posted, but hosted on a different website with no explanation or evidence to show that it is meaningful or real. If your only proof that it is real is that one random person on the internet hosted the image, you have absolutely nothing and we can throw out your entire argument right now.

    To show you how this should be done, my initial graph was taken from the Fifth Assessment report of the IPCC, page 131.

    It shows estimated changes in the observed globally and annually averaged surface temperature anomaly relative to 1961–1990 (in °C) since 1950 compared with the range of projections from the previous IPCC assessments.

    Values are harmonized to start from the same value in 1990. Observed global annual mean surface air temperature anomaly, relative to 1961–1990, is shown as squares and smoothed time series as solid lines (NASA (dark blue), NOAA (warm mustard), and the UK Hadley Centre (bright green) reanalyses). The coloured shading shows the projected range of global annual mean surface air temperature change from 1990 to 2035 for models used in FAR (Figure 6.11 in Bretherton et al., 1990), SAR (Figure 19 in the TS of IPCC, 1996), TAR (full range of TAR Figure 9.13(b) in Cubasch et al., 2001).

     TAR results are based on the simple climate model analyses presented and not on the individual full three-dimensional climate model simulations. For the AR4 results are presented as single model runs of the CMIP3 ensemble for the historical period from 1950 to 2000 (light grey lines) and for three scenarios (A2, A1B and B1) from 2001 to 2035.

    The bars at the right-hand side of the graph show the full range given for 2035 for each assessment report. For the three SRES scenarios the bars show the CMIP3 ensemble mean and the likely range given by –40% to +60% of the mean as assessed in Meehl et al. (2007). The publication years of the assessment reports are shown.

    For further details of how it was put together, please see the appendix to that chapter of the Fifth Assessment report which explains:



    For my second graph, that data is straight from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). You can see a HTML file of the data here.

    Well there you have it, you ask for details on data and I provide it in spades. Meanwhile you are still deflecting, denying and refusing to back up your own claims, which are completely unsupported.
    agsr
  • agsragsr 779 Pts
    @AlwaysCorrect,that seems to be rather thorough with properly documented sources.
    @CYDdharta, in fairness to AlwaysCorrect, please document appropriate source of your graph.  If you are refering to the one from..it site, I tend to agree with him, that is not appropriately used as a source.
    Live Long and Prosper
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1084 Pts
    "Climates are changing, big brother said so, and they need more money to fix it."
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat
  • @Erfisflat

    I've provided the source of the data that supports my argument, so it doesn't rely on taking anyone at their work.

    Making an inferred ad hominem attack on the source of the data with no evidence and making no argument against the actual data is logically fallacious.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1084 Pts
    Your sources are demonstrably liars.
    @AlwaysCorrect
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat
  • @Erfisflat

    If they're demonstrably liars, go ahead and demonstrate it. Otherwise you're just wasting time with meaningless posturing.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1084 Pts
    @Erfisflat

    If they're demonstrably liars, go ahead and demonstrate it. Otherwise you're just wasting time with meaningless posturing.


    Bout to start work. See if you can figure it out on your own before I get my break.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1084 Pts
    @AlwaysCorrect

    I mean, despite them claiming we live on a ball. But you don't want to discuss that.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat
  • @Erfisflat

    Why do you think it is other people's job to make your arguments for you?

    Present you argument when you have the time to do so, not vague insinuations.
  • @AlwaysCorrect OK, you want the data, here it is; http://www.realclimate.org/docs/CMIP5_rcp45_MT_GL_Trpcs.xlsx.  Enjoy.  You've focused on a meaningless triviality in order to avoid the point I raised, so lets use your IPCC graph, as poorly made as it is to make my point.  It actually illustrates what I was saying more thoroughly as it uses 3 sets of observations.  As is patently obvious, almost all of the model predictions are well above the actual observations.  The mean trend lines would be significantly above the actual recorded temperatures.



    agsr
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1084 Pts
    @Erfisflat

    Why do you think it is other people's job to make your arguments for you?

    Present you argument when you have the time to do so, not vague insinuations.
    Where's the delay?
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch