Sedo - Buy and Sell Domain Names and Websites project info: debate.com Statistics for project debate.com etracker® web controlling instead of log file analysis
The Instigator
HandsOff
Pro (for)
Winning
46 Points
The Contender
beem0r
Con (against)
Losing
31 Points

There is no way to even ballpark what percentage of global warming is caused by CO2 gases.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Started: 6/18/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 364 times Debate No: 4439
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (34)
Votes (19)

 

HandsOff

Pro

Most global warming fans will admit that CO2 (both natural and man-made) is just one of the many factors that contribute to global warming, both present and past. Most will also admit that long before cars and factories came about, wild temperature swings in both directions occurred under relatively stable CO2 levels. Additionally, most will admit there is no reason to believe these natural (non-CO2) factors are not contributing to the current warming trend. If this is the case, the percentage of warming caused by CO2 gases (in comparison to other natural factors in play) is entirely unknowable. We are only sure that CO2 (man-made or otherwise) is responsible for somewhere between 0 and 100 percent of the current warming trend.
beem0r

Con

My opponent claims that we can not determine to any accuracy the effect of CO2 on our current period of global warming. However, this is blatantly false.

First, we can at least make a good estimate based on tests in a lab. We know from such tests that CO2 absorbs a certain amount of energy from the infrared spectrum.

We know that the radiation coming down on earth from the sun is mostly in the form of UV and Visible light. We also know that the radiation that comes off the earth towards space is mostly in the form of infrared. Here is a visual aid:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

On the top graph there, we see that the upgoing thermal radiation, that is to say, heat that would otherwise escape, is largely absorbed. We can also see from this graph that CO2 absorbs radiation with wavelengths ~10-20 micrometers very well, and that this wavelength range is indeed included in the upgoing thermal radiation.

It's also true that the wavelengths absorbed by CO2 are absorbed by water vapor as well, but as we can see from that same graph, water vapor only absorbs roughly half of the radiation on this wavelength [reperesented by the halfish-height in that area for the water vapor graph].

So that should at least establish that it can be figured out at least ROUGHLY how much warming CO2 is causing [which is all I'm charged with doing]. However, I will bring more points.

Here is another graph.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The blue and green lines are the most important ones here. Green is CO2 levels, Blue is temperature. This is for the last 400,000 years [the data is from ice cores].

Notice anything strange? How about the VERY close correlation between the two?

Just another information source from which we can at least make a good estimate of the effect of CO2 on global temperature change.

Hopefully that is enough for you. We can make good estimates on how much gloabl warming is caused by CO2 based on what wavelengths of radiation it absorbs, what other substances absorb those same wavelengths, and the amount of energy at those wavelengths present in upgoing thermal radiation.
Debate Round No. 1
HandsOff

Pro

You did a great job of explaining how the greenhouse effect works, but I'm we are not debating that. You then cited studies that draw correlations between CO2 and climate change. But you have yet to tell me what the ballpark percentage of CO2 influence is in comparison to addition natural factors (both known and unknown) that may be influencing the recent warming trend. Why not just give me a percentage and show me how you (or anyone else) were able to arrive at it? It would seem a tall order without knowing the other factors and the extent to which THEY are responsible for heating the earth's atmosphere?
beem0r

Con

CO2 is currently responsible for roughly 9-26 percent of the greenhouse effect. This range represents a difference in how we look at it, not a lack f accuracy [If we have no other GH gases, CO2 alone amounts to 26% of current greenhouse effect, if we still have all the other gases and only take out CO2, it only reduces it by 9%] We can know this, because of what I showed last round. However, it's true that I have not shown how much of an effect the greenhouse effect has on global warming.

However, we do know the amount of heat the greenhouse effect keeps in that would otherwise escape. Or we at least have a very good estimate of this.

Knowing this, it would be possible to determine roughly how many joules of heat energy the greenhouse effect is giving us. And based on basic math, it would be possible to determine exactly how many degrees, on average, this amount of energy is increasing our climate.

WE don't need to know all the 'unknown' factors of our climate change. We know how much our temperature is increasing. We know how much the greenhouse effect is increasing our temperature [at least a good estimate]. We know how much CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect.

With all that data, it is quite possible to ballpark what percentage of gloabl warming is caused by CO2. I'm only charged with showing you that it is possible, not doing it myself, so don't bother asking me for a percentage. I've presented data that shows that there is in fact a way to ballpark what percentage of global warming is caused by CO2 gases. That is all I must do, as that is a clear negation of te resolution. My opponenty claims there is no way to ballpark such a figure, I have provided a way.
Debate Round No. 2
HandsOff

Pro

If it were a perfect world, and all this data you mentioned were currently attainable, scientist might dare to guess what percentage of global warming is due to CO2 emissions. But since the extent of human impact on the environment is such an important question, I suspect that the reason no one has come up with this percentage is because we do not have reliable methods to accurately collect the data you claim we can so easily plug into your "basic math" problem. Let's see if I'm wrong.

"CO2 is currently responsible for roughly 9-26 percent of the greenhouse effect."

Who says?

"It's true that I have not shown how much of an effect the greenhouse effect has on global warming. However, we do know the amount of heat the greenhouse effect keeps in that would otherwise escape."

Oh, how much is that? And again, who says?

"Knowing this, it would be possible to determine roughly how many joules of heat energy the greenhouse effect is giving us.

Maybe, if anyone were actually capable of "knowing this." But with no support for your claim, it is just another claim.

"And based on basic math, it would be possible to determine exactly how many degrees, on average, this amount of energy is increasing our climate."

Yes it would be, if the rest of the fairytale were true.

"With all that data, it is quite possible to ballpark what percentage of global warming is caused by CO2."

Yes. And the key phrase there is "with that data," but you have not shown that you or anyone else has a reliable source for obtaining it.

"I'm only charged with showing you that it is possible, not doing it myself, so don't bother asking me for a percentage."

Well, you are actually charged with demonstrating that currently there IS a way to do it, not that it might be possible if someday we had access to particular data. I will not hold you to giving me the specific percentage (which must secretly exist somewhere since it can be so easily obtained). However, I will need support for your claims.
beem0r

Con

My opponent's first question is 'who says' the effect of CO2 is 9-26% of the total greenhouse effect.

The greenhouse effect is the trapping of the upgoing thermal radiation, which would otherwise escape into space, inside our atmosphere. This is caused by greenhouse gases.

We ave a good understanding of how the greenhouse effect works. We have a good understanding of what wavelengths are present in the upgoing thermal radiation. We have a good understanding of the effect of CO2 on this upgoing thermal radiation. Energy in certain wavelengths is absorbed by the CO2, trapping the heat energy here on earth.

Based on A> What wavelengths and what intensities are generally present in upgoing thermal radiation, B> what wavelengths are absorbed by CO2 and how efficiently they are absorbed, C> what other greenhouse gases also absorb these wavelengths, and D> how much CO2 is in the atmosphere, we can indeed come up with values for how much of the greenhouse effect is caused by CO2.

However, as I said last round, this alone does not give us a good estimate of the effect on global warming, since it is still possible that we don't know how much temperature change the greenhouse effect causes.

Next, my opponent asks me just how much the greenhouse effect affects global warming.

To answer this, I would have to provide some type of evidence for what the temperature of the earth is without an atmosphere. Luckily, it's right here:

http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu...

255 kelvin, ladies and gents. That's -18C. The average temperature of the Earth, however, is about 16-17C in actuality. Thus, the greenhouse effect is responsible for about 35C of our extra heat, and CO2 is responsible for either ~9 or ~26% of that depending on how we establish responsiblity. [No atmosphere except CO2 would have 26% the effect our current atmosphere does, but removing CO2 and keeping the rest of it only reduces the effect by ~9%]

By the 26% standard, CO2 is responsible for ~9C of our temperature, and by the 9% standard it is responsible for ~3C of it.

My opponent has constantly referred to mysterious 'unknowns', but there is very little we cannot measure.

I have done more than my burden - not only have I explained HOW we can find out what percentage of global warming is caused by CO2, I have actually done it. And all my opponent asked for was a method to get a ballpark percentage.
Debate Round No. 3
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 11 through 20 records.
Posted by beem0r 5 months ago
beem0r
Apparently, the main factor for the solar radiation is sunspots.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

From the comment on that picture:
"It is widely believed that the low solar activity during the Maunder Minimum and earlier periods may be among the principle causes of the Little Ice Age. Similarly, the Modern Maximum is partly responsible for global warming, especially the temperature increases between 1900 and 1950. One study (Stott et al. 2003), argues that residual warming due to the sustained high level of activity since 1950 is responsible for 16 to 36% of recent warming."

So that explains the early 1900's ["Modern Maximum ... is responsible for ... temperature increases between 1900 and 1950"], and if you look at the graph, the 1800's looks like a time with a lot of changes.
Posted by HandsOff 5 months ago
HandsOff
If variations in energy from directs sunlight are the most likely cause of long-term temperature swings during periods of stable GHG levels, then those types of variations obviously happen from time to time. Do we have any record of variances in the sun's radiation that have coincided with recent temperature swings (1800s & early 1900s) when GHG levels were stable? If we can determine that there were no variations in the sun's radiation during those periods, there must be additional influences, and one's which are significant.
Posted by beem0r 5 months ago
beem0r
But I'm no geologist, so there's an obvious limit to 'as far as I know' on that issue. Take everything I say here with a grain of salt. I'm just a somewhat science-minded college student, not an expert.
Posted by beem0r 5 months ago
beem0r
Well, to correct what I said in my last post, we do indeed get heat from the interior of the planet [due to it being hotter], but it's pretty much constant as far as I know.
Posted by beem0r 5 months ago
beem0r
Well, I actually just realized this earlier today, but another possible cause would be direct heat we create artificially here on earth.
I.E. the amount of heat we produce by burning fossil fuels, etc.

After that, though, I'm pretty sure there's no more unknowns. Our planet can get [a significant amount of] heat from one of 3 places.

1. The sun.
2. The atmosphere.
3. Occurences on earth's surface. [Fires, combustion, etc., turning chemical/other energy into thermal energy]

Unless there's some weird geological phenomena that's distributing more heat to the surface from the interior of the planet for unknown reasons. I find that pretty unlikely, though.

And I'd think the amount of heat creation on the earth's surface was probably an insignificant factor compared to the other two, at least before the rise of humanity.
Posted by HandsOff 5 months ago
HandsOff
beem0r,
do you really think if the sun giving off more or less radiation is the probable cause for temperature swings during periods of stable GH gases? You believe the sun giving off more radiation is the only possibility?
Posted by HandsOff 5 months ago
HandsOff
yeah, I spent so much time boxing out my position on this, I had to go with it. beem0r gave it a pretty good try. he knew exactly what I was asking him to prove. I thnk he was accurate in that, if he had reliable sources for the data he spoke of, he could deduce approximately what percentage of warming came from CO2.
Posted by TheRaven 5 months ago
TheRaven
Lol HandsOff, did you get this idea from the long, long debate going on under the "scientists have no proof" debate"?
Posted by beem0r 5 months ago
beem0r
The sun could have been pouring more radiation onto Earth. However, as I've said, this is very measurable. All we'd need to do is measure the incoming heat from the high-frequency waves we get from the sun.

Doubtless this could be part of the cause for global warming. But it does not change the fact that CO2 levels increasing is another cause, and the effect of CO2 can truly be measured, at least to a good estimate.
Posted by HandsOff 5 months ago
HandsOff
Sorry.

At least some still ask that question. What caused a history of even more dramatic warming and cooling for thousands of years before people were even around (while greenhouse gases were relatively stable)? That's the one I have not heard answered yet, and it screws up the whole GW argument that temperatures only change in reaction to more GH gases.

Have you heard a good answer to that one (and a simple one)?
Loading voting charts...

Show people this debate by sending them this public link: