For:
*The current rise in temperature roughly conicdes with the start of the industrial revolution.
*CO2 is a greenhouse has and it is well accepted that doubling the concentration of CO2 will raise temperatures by 1.8 C (I believe).
*The vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists believe we are headed for catastrophic global warming if we don't radically change our lifestyle.
Against:
*These same scientists would lose literally billions in research grants if AGW was not a problem. Whole institutions would cease to exist. It is up to you to decide whether it is reasonable to believe that kind of money is enough to make whole institutions fudge the data to keep the gravy train flowing.
*The computer models have been demonstrably wrong.
*We don't understand climate dyanamics well enough to make firm predictions with any certainty. This current "pause" in warming took the climate community by surprise. In fact, most of them denied there was a pause for 10 years or more.
*The start of warming also coincided with the end of the little ice age.
First, ask a meaningful question. Or reword a sloppily worded question if it comes from the teacher.
ALMOST NOBODY wants or "is for" "Anthropogenic climate change."
There is a pretend debate about whether the science supports the conclusion that ACC is real, serious and most negatively long term for humanity. If your teacher asks you to write pro and con argument on that, he/she (probably not a science teacher )is asking for science vs anti-science. It would be a stupid "debate." See below.
A more meaningful topic would be: Should governments take significant steps now to reduce ACC?
Yes vs No
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
At Yahoo Answers there is no penalty for giving deliberately false answers, and the site is loaded with deniers-in-training trying to copy-paste such deception. Indeed half the "top ten" contributors in the category "global warming" are hard-core anti-science serial liars.
For more reliable information see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warm...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timel...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Revie...
http://nas-sites.org/climate-change/qand...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_cha...
Against:
The earth hasn't warmed in 17 years
During the early Permian period there was much more co2 than now and it was cooler
Co2 makes up less than 2% of greenhouse gasses, so it is insignificant
There is NO SUCH THING as anthropogenic (man made) global warming. Go back and finish grade school.
I know just posting a link is a bit simplistic, but...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Read through all that technical data, and the truth will blow your mind!
start home schooling and get out the public school system. the left wing liberal socialist ideas will turn you into a compliant entitlest
For
unnatural amounts of c02 put into the atmosphere for over a century
unnatural amounts of c02 put into the atmosphere for over a century
unnatural amounts of c02 put into the atmosphere for over a century
against
there is no such thing as c02 because rush limbaugh sez so
god controls the weather
jesus is coming so it doesn't matter
Basic physics says warming from doubling CO2 is 1.2C. Models overstate that by building in assumptions about positive feedback, when in fact feedback could be negative. Negative feedback would make warming from CO2 even less than 1.2C, and it would be small compared to the natural warming we have had for centuries.
For what?
Is it good or bad?
Is it happening or not happening?
It's happening.
https://www.google.com/#q=glacier+repeat...
https://www.google.com/#q=antarctic+glac...
https://www.google.com/#q=arctic+permafr...
OH, and it's not happening:
Mere humans can't possibly change the whole planet.
You don't see any change when you look out your back window.
It's all a huge conspiracy to get government grant money to do research.
Edit: But the real reason that there's no global warming:
Mike "Models overstate (warming) by building in assumptions about positive feedback, when in fact feedback could be negative" (They like to say models are wrong.)
brent "The earth hasn't warmed in 17 years" (13 of the 14 hottest years are after 1999.)
Gunny T "There is NO SUCH THING as anthropogenic global warming. Go back and finish grade school."
OR, you could look at:
http://www.rkm.com.au/ANIMATIONS/carbon-... <== here's the physics.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co... <== Note that CO2 intercepts a different wavelength than water. In addition, as CO2 warms the oceans, more water evaporates, increasing it's effectiveness.
http://www.school-for-champions.com/scie... <== melting of the Siberian tundra is a very serious problem.
http://fora.tv/2009/08/18/A_REALLY_Incon... <== This is an hour long, but is very good.
If you had to say what would be the main arguments as I have an essay due and need some arguments to put down, if you could help thanks!
