Return to CreateDebate.comjaded • Join this debate community

Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day

Debate Info

I had no idea. I'm skeptical.
Debate Score:72
Total Votes:79
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 I had no idea. (27)
 I'm skeptical. (29)

Debate Creator

joecavalry(40132) pic

More proof that Global Warming is a hoax.

The Earth's orbit and axis undergo cyclical changes, called Milankovitch cycles after the astronomer who first recognized them. These cycles cause changes to the amount and distribution of sunlight that strikes the Earth, changes that can raise or lower the average temperature of the planet. The result is what's called an "orbital forcing," which can drive long-term climate changes.

In recent history, orbital forcings have controlled the entry and exit to glacial periods. Although the amount of energy from the forcing itself is relatively small, it sets off a variety of feedbacks. Retreating ice sheets give way to open water and vegetation, which can absorb more sunlight and allow carbon dioxide to escape the deep ocean, ultimately causing a rise in greenhouse gasses. As the heating from orbital forcings slowly declines, these processes begin to reverse themselves. A recent study indicates that we were only about 1,500 years away from the onset of the next glacial period.


I had no idea.

Side Score: 33

I'm skeptical.

Side Score: 39

Actually I've know for quite a long time that GW was due to cosmic cycles ;)

Side: I had no idea.
iamdavidh(4816) Disputed
4 points

Apparently not, since that is not what the article is implying at all.

Although the most recent decade (2000-2009) isn't the warmest of the Holocene, it's not too far off. The authors estimate that it was warmer than 82 percent of the decades of the last 12,000 years. "Global temperature, therefore, has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century, reversing the long-term cooling trend," the authors conclude. And based on records of things like solar output, ocean currents, and volcanic eruptions, there's little indication of anything other than greenhouse gasses that could have caused this sort of reversal.

Given the greenhouse emissions we've already produced, the authors also conclude that we're certain to exceed the warmest decades of the past sometime this century. The only scenario that would keep us from doing so is if we froze emissions around a decade ago. The real question seems to be how much we'll exceed these temperatures by. Continuing along an emissions trajectory similar to the one we're currently on, they suggest, means "by 2100, global average temperatures will probably be five to 12 standard deviations above the Holocene temperature mean."

In other words, it will be dramatically warmer than any point of the entire 12,000 year interglacial period, and no amount of statistical noise could account for the difference.

The ability of Republicans to read something and think it means the very opposite of what is said is truly amazing.

Is it because Republicans are on average sever IQ points dumber? Or is it simply denial given your ideology's many self-contradictions?

Seriously. I'm curious how this happens so often with so many of you.

Side: I'm skeptical.
Cartman(18192) Disputed
2 points

Are the greenhouse gasses caused by humans or orbital forcings?

Side: I had no idea.

Hey!!! You actually read the article!!!! I really didn't think anyone would. You get and up vote ;)

Side: I'm skeptical.
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

I like how the pot is calling the kettle black. In your debate where you were being labeled a sexist, you used 2 studies to show that girls do better in school. 1 of the studies was solely describing how boys aren't treated in a way that helps them succeed in school. 1 of those reasons is that they are punished by the women who run the classrooms. The other study said that girls do better in school because school is designed for girls to do better. The conclusion of that study was that school will be updated to the 21st century soon and it will catch up to boys. So you draw the wrong conclusions when you read stuff too.

Side: I had no idea.
3 points

Sure you explained the process of Orbital Forcing, but would you mind explaining the Ozone Depletion

Side: I'm skeptical.

Sure. Ozone depletion was the scare tactic the scientists came up with in the 90's. No one talks about it any more because the process reversed itself..., all on its own ;)

Side: I'm skeptical.

Well it wasn't a hoax. It happened for real in the 1970's when CFC's filled the air. Now we have a hole. It will fix itself but O3 isn't filling it in. It is other gases. VOC's are in use now.

Side: I'm skeptical.
Centifolia(1319) Disputed
1 point

Thats a strong accusation, can you prove that the OzoneDepletion was a lie?

Side: I had no idea.

Nope. You see Global Warming is human caused. Any temperature rises wasn't because of greenhouse gases. We caused this one.

Side: I'm skeptical.