Global Warming?

Question

Not sure what happend.

Im in a debate. The coin didnt end on my side. I have to debate that global warming isnt real. We do this for fun.

Im getting blasted with scientific data. Here are my 2 arguments so far. I could back them up okay.

1. Planes flying. They leave a contrail. Thus the sun's rays bounces off the contrail and it keeps the earth cooler. This was proven during 9-11 when all the planes were grounded.

2. I think all vegetarians should eat cows. Cows make alot of methane gas with their poop. If we ate more cows we would have less poop. Less methane, less ozone.

As you can tell, Im on the wrong side. I need any help. Those were the only 2 things I could think of that made sense. That actually had scientific data. I need help.

Dont get me wrong im not debating what I think, Im debating a side that I lost. But I still want to win.

Everybodys answers have all been helpful. Thank you. I wont pick a best answer because I cant. I will leave it to the open public. Once again, thanks.

Answer 1

Look it up on Wikipedia. There are tons of valid arguments against Global Warming (as caused by humans that is).

Also check out Global Dimming, which is something akin to your plane argument.

Answer 2

You are on the wrong side - the other side has the science and the facts.

Sorry to say but your arguments aren't all that good. The effect of contrails is miniscule, they last for such a short period of time and fill a tiny amount of the sky. They're not even all that reflective - if you want to reflect solar radiation back into space it's marine stratocumulus clouds that you need. Any noticeable change following 9/11 was just one of a great many anomalies. The effects would be so small as to be measured in thousandths (probably millionths) of a degree.

Your other point about cows is somewhat confused. Most methane from cows comes from burps (90%), the remainder is from farts; it's because they have a complex four (or is it five) stage digestive system. If we eat cows we have to rear them in the first place, it's because there's a meat, diary and leather industry that we have 1.2 billion head of cattle on the planet. If no-one ate meat there would be no need to rear beef herds any more and there would be a corresponding decline in methand production.

There are arguments you could use. They're invalid arguments but they sound good to the uninitiated - basically a case of telling people X, Y and Z and hoping they beleive you because they don't know any different. Trouble is, if I mention them here then certain skeptics may pick up on them and decide that they're proof that global warming doesn't exist. The fact they're invalid arguments being of little consequence.

Have a read of some of the answers provided by Tomcat and 3DM. They present a convincing sounding argument that global warming isn't real (the manmade part of it at least), that should give you something to go on.

If you want some ideas from me I'll have to ask you to e-mail.

Answer 3

You could argue that Mars is going through a warming period right now due to an increase in solar "heating" just like the earth is.

Also point out that a lot of the measuring units from which we obtain our tempature readings have been placed in areas where it is possible that the surrounding buildings, asphalt, A/C units, etc are effecting their reading and giving a warmer temp that actual.

Argue, why was the Thames river frozen solid during England's industrial birth? If carbon dioxide cause global warming, then why wasn't London warmer? Meanwhile, Holland had frozen rivers as well with little carbon dioxide output--why is that?

Argue whay was Finland , Norway, Sweden, Scotland ,etc able to grow wheat during the Middle Ages, but could not do so after about 1400? What did man do to cause that?

Ask why is it, that if a scholar presents evidence that the warming presently occurring is part of a natural cycle, that person is condemned, laughed at and, sometimes, loses his/her job? If Global Warming is such a verifiable truth, thanit should allow itself to be a part of the scientific methodology and be allowed to have arguments made against it to further understand the occurrance and better know how to make reasonable changes in our soceities to prevent it?

Personally, I would argue the final point the most because it goes to the core of the issue. Those who disagree are lambasted instead of being brought into the discussion. Remember 2+2=4 will stand up to any challange to it because it is true, but 2+2=5 will fall flat on it face when challanged. But if one is not allowed to challange it, then all our math is useless.

Answer 4

Here is a link from a climatologists who does not rule out the possibility that humans have not contributed to global warming, just that the models that are used to predict global warming are still to crude to be trusted.

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm

Here is a paper that supports that the sun alone could account for 35% or more to global warming over the last 30 years, and 50% or more since 1900.

http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2005GL025539.pdf

Here is another paper that supports the Sun in the global warming theory.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SvensmarkPaper.pdf

The greatest threat to the manmade global warming theory is the simple fact, that the surface warmed at a faster rate than the atmosphere, which is direct conflict with the global warming theory. Global warming theory indicates that the atmosphere should warm 20% more than the surface globally, and 30% faster at the equator. There have been corrections made that modify the data to attempt to explain the difference, but this matter is still disputed, as all variables, that are feed into the global warming debate there are different versions that support either side of the argument.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2006/ann/msu2006-pg.gif


The basis of your argument in my opinion should be that no matter however humanity has effected the composition of the atmosphere, the source of heat that drives weather on this planet is the sun. The vast majority of scientists on this planet support the data that indicates that the sun was primarily responsible for the warming up until the 1970's. Only then does the sun energy level not support the recent warming (the last 30 years). This is still a matter that is in debate, science does not fully understand all of the feedback mechanisms associated with solar energy levels and the sun's magnetic field and it's influence on climate is not understood. Only until climate models are capable of modeling clouds and their contribution to earths energy budget, can climate models be viewed as a legitimate source of proof in the debate about humanities contribution to climate.

Answer 5

Try these.

Much of the northern hemisphere was covered in glaciers 10,000 years ago and the world has been warming ever since then. All those retreating glaciers didn't start retreating 100 or 200 years ago, they have been retreating for 10,000 years now. For example in 1794 Glacier Bay was almost entirely iced over but in 1879 naturalist John Muir found that the ice had retreated almost all the way up the bay, and that was before the start of the large modern CO2 releases. It is just a natural warming cycle that started 10,000 years ago and is continuing today.

The amount of CO2 released by people is a small fraction of the CO2 released by natural processes.Water vapor is a far more effective greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and there is far more of it in the air than there is CO2. Water vapor varies between 0 and 5% of the air, while CO2 is only 0.03%. Our small contribution of CO2 is totally unimportant.

Average world temperature cannot be directly measured, it has to be calculated because the world has icy poles and steamy hot tropics, cold mountain tops and hot deserts, cold winters and hot summers, hot cities and cool countryside. You have to calculate an average. But there are not temperature records for all places in the world. Most weather stations that measure temperatures and keep records are in or near cities and the heat island effect of the city skews the temperature record as the city grows. The discredited "hockey stick" graph shows just how wrong a temperature history can be.

We still do not know what causes ice ages to start or end and the weather man cannot reliably tell you if it will rain next week much less what the world weather will be in 50 years. Weather and climate science are just not up to the task of predicting what will happen so far in the future.

Answer 6

Do your best to understand both sides of this so-called arguement, after you decide what the question really is. Even the detractors will (or at least should) concede that it's real. The question remains the causes or solutions (if any real ones exist).

Go see "The great global warming swindle" for a few powerful back-up points for your side. You should be able to find it (in pieces) on Google Video. Also have a look at these pages...

http://www.stuffintheair.com/globle-warming.html

...for a few more references and history.

Answer 7

You could argue that the earth goes through natural cycles of heating and cooling and that global warming Has nothing to do with the CO2 that people produce, because in one volcanic blast you have more CO2 produced than one city can produce in a year. It would be a good argument, but I think that is the only plausable argument against global warming. I hope that helps.

Answer 8

the contrails are part of "global dimming" and are further evidence of the global warming theory, showing it has been masked by more clouds and aerosol pollutants.

your best bet is to look at solar activity, it is a weak argument, but probably the strongest you could hae on your side.

Answer 9

Another reason why some people believe global warming isnt real is because some people think that we are actually coming out of a little ice age.

Answer 10

Sorry to hear you lost the coin toss. Glad to hear you understand global warming is a real issue.

LOL. I also laughed at your cow argument. If vegans ate more cows - then we'd need more cows. Don't use your cow arguement.

Change #2 to: Your a Republican and will do and say anything to disagree with a Democrat, therefore global waming is a myth.