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: 363 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 21 through 30 records.
Posted by HandsOff 5 months ago
HandsOff
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 only change in reaction to more GH gases.

Have you heard a good answer to that one (and a simple one)?
Posted by Rob1Billion 5 months ago
Rob1Billion
The only professional I've ever known on this subject is my geology teacher, who adamantly supports GW. Co2 levels have climbed from 300 ppm in 1900 to 370 ppm in 1970 to 385 ppm now. If it's not the humans increasing it, then what is?
Posted by beem0r 5 months ago
beem0r
We KNOW that the atmosphere keeps thermal energy around longer than it otherwise would, effectively 'confining' it to the Earth. That's what we call the greenhouse effect.

And in this debate, that would be a terribly weak angle, since it doens't even attribute any of the temperature increase to CO2, nor offer any way we might find CO2's impact on temperature change.
Posted by beem0r 5 months ago
beem0r
In fact, the effect of global warming is fairly directly-measurable. Since solar radiation is on completely different wavelengths, we can just measure the total incoming radiation on certain wavelengths, and from that calculate the impact of the greenhouse effect on our temperature.

Unless there's some unknown that's pouring infrared radiation onto our planet on the same wavelengths our atmosphere radiates. However, I doubt I'm alone when I say that's quite unlikely.
Posted by HandsOff 5 months ago
HandsOff
Only decent GW argument I've heard from a friend who rarely assumes he really knows anything:

Regardless of what causes temperature increase (be they CO2, CFCs, or unknown natural influences having nothing to do with man), there are some persuasive studies that suggest GH gases absorb the additional heat and help confine it to the earth's atmosphere longer than it would have hung around otherwise-- thereby raising average temperatures. He never sounded cocky or presumptuous when he put it that way, and it's not a weak angle.
Posted by beem0r 5 months ago
beem0r
Oh, there's no doubt that I was wrong in attributing 100% of GW to GHG. However, it's also true that A> using 100% probably keeps us in the same ballpark as the real answer, since it's the oerwhelming majority cause, and B> there is still nothing immeasurable in the system.
Posted by beem0r 5 months ago
beem0r
Temp can indeed increase with other natural influences, such as the intensity of incoming solar radiation, a shifting in incoming radiation's wavelengths, the average albedo of the Earth [how much incoming radiation it reflects rather than absorbs], the amount of dust in the atmosphere, etc.
These are all things that do indeed affect global temperatures irrespective of GHG levels.

However, I think I showed quite clearly that GHG levels, particularly CO2 levels [CO2 is the most varying of them anyway as far as I know], are responsible for an overwhelmingly large amount of the global temperature changes. Here's that graph again.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
From this, it seems that CO2 levels and temperature change go together like butter and bread.

Even so, all the variables are measurable. We have a pretty thorough understanding of the thermal system of the Earth. Claiming that there are probably some unknowns is sort of ridiculous. Like claiming that there are unknowns when it comes to the gravitational pull I am currently feeling. We have data that points pretty clearly toward something [in this case, that the gravitational pull I feel is 100% from the other masses around me], and the only argument against it is 'maybe there are unknowns'.
Posted by HandsOff 5 months ago
HandsOff
...therefore GHG cannot be the entire cause of global warming, which I thought you were trying to imply when you attributed 100% of temp to GH effect. And I was correct in my inference.
Posted by HandsOff 5 months ago
HandsOff
"And if there are other effects, their effect is minimal"

That is the unknown that is at the heart of the entire debate. You can't say that an mean it. You simply do not know that. There is too much historical evidence of global warming and cooling without the same swings in GHG levels.
Posted by HandsOff 5 months ago
HandsOff
sorry,
scratch the "without"
Loading voting charts...

Show people this debate by sending them this public link: