Question: Is Man's Impact the Main Cause of Global Climate Change?

Human-induced global warming is a critical issue that poses a severe threat to humanity. The scientific consensus is that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are accumulating in the atmosphere like a thick blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm up. Although local temperatures naturally fluctuate, the average global temperature has increased at the fastest rate in recorded history over the past 50 years. Unless we reduce the emissions causing climate change, average U.S. temperatures could rise by 3 to 9 degrees by the end of the century.

The scientific community is overwhelmingly convinced that human-induced global warming is a real and pressing threat. This is supported by numerous scholarly articles, with 97% of climate scientists agreeing that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. This consensus is echoed by organizations like the United States Global Change Research Program, which includes the Department of Defense, NASA, the National Science Foundation, and other government agencies. They have stated that "global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced," and that "climate changes are underway in the United States and are projected to grow."

Carbon emissions, a major cause of global warming and a product of human activity, are responsible for the current global warming trend, according to most climate scientists. The only way to explain the pattern is to include the effect of greenhouse gases emitted by humans. These long-lived gases remain semi-permanently in the atmosphere and do not respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature, described as "forcing" climate change.

The effects of global warming are severe and include increased temperatures, changing landscapes, a higher number of droughts, fires, and floods, endangered wildlife habitats, rising sea levels, greater damage from extreme storms, more heat-related illness and disease, and economic problems. Hurricanes and other storms are likely to become stronger, with anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century causing hurricanes globally to be more intense on average. This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size. With storms like Sandy becoming more common and much stronger, humans living in coastal regions face a very serious threat. The costs of these storms in terms of lives and money are already in the billions, and man-made global warming is likely to make them even more intense.

Sea levels are expected to rise between 7 and 23 inches by the end of the century, and continued melting at the poles could add between 4 and 8 inches. As polar caps warm

Well, if you were to look at the atomic mass of a cat, oh which over the last many year, has never changed. If we were to let say look at carbon dating, if global warming was real, it would have had to of changed at lest .000879, of which it has not. We can also look at other signs lets say Mormon Jesus, in my opinion the worst god, but that doesn't matter, if we were to look to the bible for light we would find that it states, "Thee earth shall not change, no matter how much humans dare try to change the world". Now this hard core evidence doesn't just do me in but many like me such as cat lovers all over the world, and crazy old folk who think global warming is real. Now you see I am Pro global warming and can't think of anything to go against it, you win great one. Sources sited: 4chan.org http://www.reddit.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://cats.wikia.com... Global warming is an issue on which humankind has come to unanimous agreement with unprecedented speed. The Earth is warming, or else it's cooling, or else it's not doing either very fast. If left unchecked, this will lead to the destruction of civilization, probably, in a Biblical flood that will happen around 1995. Humans' prosperity and rich diets, breaking faith with Nature, and anything else you may feel guilty about, are the cause. Unless it's sunspots. And all of the above is brought to you by one or more of the following: Barack Obama, who was not content taking over GM and now wants your backyard Hibachi. Communists, One-Worlders, and left-wing pot-heads. US right-wingers, talking up a threatening leftie crusade to help them raise money for a comeback in 2012. Greedy businessmen who need a gimmick to sell you light bulbs that spatter mercury all over the nursery when they break. In short, humankind is at loggerheads over both the facts, the culprits, and the proper course of action, with no resolution in sight, as on every other issue of the day. So things are pretty normal on the planet. Ps: Gata love wiki <3

First off, I admire the amount of organization you have done, it was very good and makes my job a lota easier :)Second lemme just say one thing: I'm not going to attack sources b/c you and I probably have a different definition of what a "reliable source" is, and so do people on opposite sides of this issue.Contention 1 refutation:I.iYou have not shown the potential amount of temperature that can be decreased by cosmic rays. The effects of these cosmic rays rely on the sun being less active now than it ever was in the Earth's history. However, that is not true. However, that is simply not true, the sun is MORE active than it ever has been over the past 8,000 years. [2].I.ii"[The paper [you are refering to]] actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but itâ€™s a very important first step... While their results provide some confirmation of the potential mechanism by which GCRs might induce cloud nucleation, they in no way demonstrate that GCRs do significantly promote cloud formation in the real world, let alone support the myth that GCRs drive significant climatic change. [1]"Simply put, although your evidence allows the possibility of cosmic rays to cause the warming of the Earth (although you omit saying by how much and if it would match the trends we are seeing) it does not in any way prove or even attempt to prove that this is something that is happening at this very moment. Sure, even if once every 135 million years we enter a more populated part of the galaxy (which is a very odd statement considering the entire galaxy rotates at roughly the same speed and direction) you have not shown how this is something that is happening at this very moment.I.i.cI really only have one thing to say about this sub-sub point. You have not given specific numbers indicating how this increase in solar radiation hitting the earth would decrease. The warming I have indicated occured over the past 100 years, and really picked up around 1950 and continued to increase after 1990. So your study inadequately explains the global warming we have seen on the time scale and does not give specific numbers, i.e. it does not specify how much it is theorized to increase the earth's temperature by.I.ii"[S]cientists have alternative explanations for the anomalous warming on each of these other planetary bodies.The warming on Triton, for example, could be the result of an extreme southern summer on the moon, a season that occurs every few hundred years, as well as possible changes in the makeup of surface ice that caused it to absorb more of the Sun's heat.Researchers credited Pluto's warming to possible eruptive activity and a delayed thawing from its last close approach to the Sun in 1989.[3]"In other words, you have successfully proven corrloation, but not causation. Pardon me, but just because some Russian scientist believes that this correlation is cause to blame the sun for global warming, that doesn't mean that it is automatically correct.II.i I refer you to my second contention source 4. The Nobel Peace Prize winning IPCC found that if we eliminate CO2 output by humans from the equation, we cannot accurately dexcribe the temperatures we are seeing now. II.iiAlthough the medievel period was warmer in some parts of the world, it definitely was not a global event, or at least there is no evidence to support the idea that it was."There is no good evidence that the MWP was a globally warm period comparable to today. Regionally, there may have been places that exhibited notable warmth — Europe, for example — but all global proxy reconstructions agree it is warmer now, and the temperature is rising faster now, than at any time in the last one or even two thousand years [5]."For reference: http://www.ipcc.ch...1) http://thinkprogress.org...2) http://www.sciencedaily.com...3) http://www.livescience.com...4) http://www.giss.nasa.gov...; http://grist.org...

Well, as expected, my opponent has ignored my two references which clearly shows that the whole climate change fiasco is an elaborate money making scam. Then he proceeds to produce false information which has been specifically designed to trick and fool people into believing in climate change. My opponent also suggests that if the climate changes that it will pose a threat to humanity. This is false information as well. This is because the Earth is like a thermostat which self regulates itself. Thus, if you add extra heat to the Earth, then, this will create more cloud which will then cool the Earth back down to an even average temperature. 1. My opponent has ignored 1000 top level scientists who have clearly indicated that climate change science is a fraud. 2. My opponent has ignored that Maurice Strong was an evil person who used climate change as a means of gaining power and personal wealth. Quote from Quadrant - 'Investigations into the UN"s Oil-for-Food-Program found that Strong had endorsed a cheque for $988,885 made out to M. Strong " issued by a Jordanian bank. The man who gave the cheque, South Korean business man Tongsun Park was convicted in 2006 in a US Federal court of conspiring to bribe UN officials. Strong resigned and fled to Canada and thence to China where he has been living ever since.' Note - We can plainly see that the instigator of climate change was himself a criminal. Thus, how can we accept climate change and the science of climate change when the originator is a crook? 3. The hockey stick graph trick. An email was intercepted which reveal that graphs were inverted. That's the trick that was used to create an increase in temperature. https://climateaudit.org... 4. Adding more Co2 doesn't increase temperature. There is no scientifically valid mechanism for CO2 causing global warming. Carbon dioxide absorbs all radiation available to it in about ten meters. More CO2 only shortens the distance, which is not an increase in temperature. In other words, the first 20% of the CO2 in the air does most of what CO2 does, and it doesn't do much.

Thank you Ching-Kit for being my friend, Thank you for debating and telling me about debate.org, Thank you for teaching me good strategies. Now prepare yourself. Global warming is an inaccurate theory. As a part of my evidence I will present to you a situation. In the 1970's, many news groups and organizations that studied the weather had a strong belief that we were going to, soon, go through another ice-age. Thirty years later: here we are. Earth has always gone through fluxuations in climate and temperature. You might present the fact that ice near the polar areas has recently been melting and breaking apart. This occurance is brought by the changing in currents that brough warmer waters toward the ice. The warm waters that constantly bash into the ice cause it to melt. Let me assure you that in at most twenty years, the ice will be frozen solid again. Studies on weather are outrageously over-rated. They have only been going on for less than 100 years. There is no written history about the weather 150 years ago. You might argue that we can do archeological digs to see what the climate was like, but who is doing those now. I agree, we could find out how much rainfall occured 200 years ago by studying old trees, but no one has done that yet. Even then they wouldn't get a wide enough spectrum of earth's overall changes in climate. "On average, an Ice Age occurs every 10,000 years, and when was the last Ice Age? Just over 10,000 years ago. Many scientists agree that we are well over due for the next one. Also, before every Ice Age, there is a period of warming similar to the climate that were are experiencing today. Thus, all things considered, we are experiencing a natural cycle in the Earth's history." He is right. I have researched on many websites (and one book) and the answers are consistant. He has a point// You have no evidence that is good enough to prove that we are going through 'global phenonemon'. You might also argue that we must conserve resouces, protect the environment, and lower green house gas emitions. Then I would agree with you. These problems do not contribute to what is happening now (which in no way I am saying is global warming). These problems are a result of mankind being careless about their planet home. Many people believe global warming is happening because during their lives they have experianced constant warming temperatures. They also believe what Al Gore and other activists tell them. Most of these people say we must recycle, get more fuel-efficient cars, and prtect the environment. I am saying they are exactly right. The question is whether global warming is happening or not, and what (if any) factors that contribute to it we can change and correct. I believe there is nothing we can do about our planet's NATURAL state of change. 'Global warming' is a imagined situation. Change is necessary.

Contention 1: No Major/any CO2 Increase. Many Global Warming advocates state that CO2 levels are skyrocketing, but that is incorrect. I give you the above graph measuring the past 600 million years of CO2 levels are we are actually at an all time low. Now the website I got this from no longer has this page up so I appologize. We can see from observance of this graph that we being at all time CO2 low levles that we are nowhere close to meeting the impact that my opponent brings up. We have been over 5,000 ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere and are now currently around apprx. 350 ppm CO2 levels. The above graph shows that comparisions of C13 (Carbon isotope) and this shows that there is little to no trend pertrade in many of these as the average is zero while the trend for all of these are zero. (1) This is important as the Carbon isotope is important in measuring this so called "Global Warming." This chart above shows the CO2 and Earth's temperatures for the past 600 million years. My opponent's claims are incorect as we have had aburd levels of CO2 and temperature on Earth and may I ask how did we survive that? (2) Now I will move on to how Earth is actually cooling and how it's temperature is cooler than it has been. Contention 2: Earth is cooling. If we observe the above graph we can see that Earth has been a whole lot hotter than where we currently are to the point where the Earth's average temperature has been 7.5 degrees Celcuis hotter than it currently it is. You can also see that in the span of the past 10,000 years the temperature has leveld off, but you may ask yourself where does that place us in the lights of modern day? I am going to site Dr. Done Easterbrook, who is a climate scientist. Back in 2000 he predicted that Earth was entering a cooling phase. He predicts that for the next 20 years Earth will cool by 3/10 degree each year and that we are going to enter another little Ice Age like we did from 1650 and 1790. (3) The funny thing is that many of my opponent's charts are actually from the incorrect IPPC. How about the "Hockey Stick" graph that many Global Warming supporters , including my opponent, argue about? Well if we observe the fallowing chart taken from Northern Scandenavia we can see that the Global trend over the past 1,000 years that the Global Cooling trend slope is that of -0.31 Degrees Celcuis, give or take 0.03 degrees (for the error room). Professor Dr. Jan Esper has found that the Earth's temperature of Earth actually decreases 0.3 per millenia due to the Earth moving away from the sun. (4) Here is another graph from 1920 to 2005 and we can see that the graph has a negative temperature slope, thus meaning that the Earth is under a period of cooling. (5) You can see in terms of more Warming in the evidence in which Scientists use Ice Cores Earth has actually been Cooling the past Mellenium. You can see that in terms of Gasses contribution to the Green House Effect the major contributer is Water Vapor and it's at 95% to CO2's 3.6% and this is the overall contribution including man made and natural. When we look to the chart on the left we can see that Man-Made CO2 does have a higher contribution to the atmosphere than Water Vapor, but that's because we do not create much water vapor as humans. Even with this evidence we can see that CO2 does not have any effect what-so-ever compared to Water Vapor. (6) Where might those CFCs be on this graph you may ask. Why it's under the Misc. gases section. Contention 3: Artic Ice. First, I would like to state that Pro's claim about the North Pole completely melting is bogus. Al Gore stated that the Artic Ice would be completely melted by 2014, but he is incorrect then and now. Jan. 6, 2012: The Coast Guard Cutter Healy breaks ice around the Russian-flagged tanker Renda 250 miles south of Nome. The Healy is the Coast Guard’s only currently operating polar icebreaker. The vessels are transiting through ice up to five-feet thick in this area. The 370-foot tanker Renda will have to go through more than 300 miles of sea ice to get to Nome, a city of about 3,500 people on the western Alaska coastline that did not get its last pre-winter fuel delivery because of a massive storm. (7) Let's go back to 2007-2008 and see if his claim was justified in the Artic Ice activity. Hmmm... It seems that he is incorrect, but let's look further into the near past. How about 2012-2013? (8) We all remember the Climate Scientists that got stuck in Arctic Ice Earlier last year correct? Then a Russian Ice Breaker tried to free them, but got stuck. Can you guess what they were studying? They had predicted that all the Arctic Ice had melted due to Global Warming and that Earth would get flooded massively. Boy were they wrong. (9) (10) Dr. Koonin, former head of the Department of Energy under President Obama, has stated that the Global Warming scare is not suttle. This is because that he has found 3 things wrong and highly incorrect about the scare. 1. Shrinking of Artic Sea ice doesn't acount for the gaining of the Antartic ice. 2. The warming of Earth's temps today is the same as it was 30 years ago. 3. The sea levels rose at the same height and rate in the 20th cenury. (11) Contention 4: Sea Levels Here is another corralation that must happen. If the Ice Caps are completely melted as Pro claims then the sea level would have risen completely drowning tons of land. The graph above is raw satellite image data of the sea level rise over an 8 year period showing that there is little to no change in the Sea Levels rising. (12) The sea level rises, on average, about 3 inches per century and it has been found to not even been rising at all. This graph is the sea levels off the cost of French Guyana which is one of the areas which is predicted to be flooded due to Global Warming, but as you can see by the graph (which goes to 2008) the sea level is currently on a downward trend. (13) The source is the PDF within the link.Contention 5: The Weather My opponent is claiming that Hurricanes are increasing due to Global Warming, but this claim is indeed false! The hurricanes since the year 1900 to 2008 have actually been decreasing. The slope of this downward slope is .0016. Though it is small the hurricanes are still in a downward trend. As a matter of fact not only are Hurricanes on a downward trend, but they are at an all time low as in the year 2010, there was only 68 Hurricanes Globally, which is an all time low in the past 40 years. How about Tornados you may ask? In the graph above you can see that tornados are at an all time low in the past 60 years! (14) But what about Hurricanes? Here is a graph showing the number of days between hurricanes and this shows that the number of days between hurricanes is greatest at 76 days between hurricanes.The slope of this line is zero showing no trend of a massive storm increase. Sources 1. (http://www.drroyspencer.com...) 2. (http://www.sustainableoregon.com...) 3. (http://www.cnsnews.com...) 4. (http://newsbusters.org...) 5. (http://newsbusters.org...) 6. (http://www.geocraft.com...) 7. (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com...) 8. (http://ginacobb.typepad.com...) 9. (http://www.nytimes.com...) 10. (http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com...) 11. (http://joannenova.com.au...) 12. (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org...) 13. (http://wattsupwiththat.com...) 14. (http://wattsupwiththat.com...)

I. The Sun Is Warming Since the Other Planets Are WarmingI admit, the sun is cooling currently, but the correlation between the sun and the climate is reinforced by this by my earlier proof that the Earth's temperature is stabilizing, and thus beginning to cool. The sun is warmer now than at any time in the last 11500 years. [1] "Moreover, changes in the heliospheric magnetic field have been linked with changes in total cloud cover over the Earth, which may influence global climate change. Here we report that the measurements of the near-Earth interplanetary magnetic field reveal that the total magnetic field leaving the sun has risen by a factor 1.4 since 1964. "[2][3]This can be seen in this graph: [3]Recently, the sun has cooled compared to recent times. But one, climate lags behind solar activity, and two, this is being seen in the recent temperature slowdown. ". .. the Sun is now changing from its Solar Grand Maximum to its Solar Grand Minimum. The Earth heats up after a Solar Grand Maximum, lagging a bit after the peak. With a Solar Grand Minimum now on its way, a "global cooling" may be on the horizon--a natural oscillation occurring in much longer solar cycles. "[4]Changes in the Sun can account for major climate changes on Earth for the past 300 years, including part of the recent surge of global warming, 300 years, including part of the recent surge of global warming. [5]This can also be seen in climate data: [6]. Longer term, here is a correlation of a solar proxy to a temperature proxy for a period of 3000 years. Values of carbon-14 (produced by cosmic rays, hence a proxy for solar activity) correlate extremely well with oxygen-18 (temperature proxy). The lower graph shows a particularly well-resolved time interval from 8,350 to 7,900 years BP. The above graph summarizes data obtained from a stalagmite from a cave in Oman. Finally, we see the correlation between temperature and CO2 & solar activity: [7]. It's easy to see the sun is more determinent. On the planets, here are some solar system wide effects: Sun - "Recent Activity Highest in 8000 Years [meaning it's not just the 11-year cycle] and magnetic field has decreased in size by 25% 300% increase in galactic dust entering solar system Mercury - magnetosphere experiencing significant increases Venus - 2500% Increase in Green Glow Mars - Rapid Appearance of Clouds, Ozone and"Up to 50% Erosion of Ice Features in one year alone Jupiter - Plasma Torus increasing and"Jupiter"s Disappearance of White Ovals since 1997 " recent increase in storms Io - "observing same changes -" 200% Increase in Density of Plasma Torus and Ionosphere 1000% Higher Europa - Much Brighter Than Expected Ganymede - 200% brighter Saturn's - Plasma Torus 1000% Denser and"Aurora First Seen in polar regions in recent years Uranus - featureless in 1996, now exhibiting huge storms since 1999 and markedly brighter in 2004 than in 1999 Neptune - 40% Brighter, Near Infrared Range " 1996 " 2002 Triton - Severe atmospheric changes, warming Pluto - 300% increase in atmospheric pressure. [8]. You can't be telling me all of this is a coincidence. Also, on Pluto, it is moving further away from the sun despite the fact it is warming. II. The Sun Via Cosmic Rays Is Causing Global Warming Looking at the Earth's long climatic history, it is easy to see the correlation: [9] [10]Low clouds means warmer temperatures: "Cloud cover has decreased over the past 39 years globally, and temperatures have risen during that time. This global decrease in cloud cover alone could account for all surface warming observed since the 1970s. "[11]So more solar radiation (and galatic positioning) causes fewer cosmic rays, which cause the creation of fewer clouds, which leads to warming. This was confirmed with the Svensmark experiement: "Preliminary results show that these faux cosmic rays indeed have an effect on the atmosphere: When high energy protons stream in, production of nanometer-sized particles in the atmosphere increases by more than ten times. "[12]In addition, for the predictions made by the AGW theory and the cosmic ray/solar theory, the latter is the effects currently being experienced. [6] For example, the AGW theory predicts the fastest tropospheric warming will be in the tropics, and the cosmic ray/solar theory predicts the warming will be uniform. The surface warming is similar or greater than troposphere warming. The latter theory wins. [6]Finally, it is clear the cosmic ray/temperature correlation: [6]. "The graph below a correlation between the cosmic ray counts and the global troposphere temperature radiosonde data. The cosmic ray scale is inverted to correspond to increasing temperatures. High solar activity corresponds to low cosmic ray counts, reduced low cloud cover, and higher temperatures. The upper panel shows the troposphere temperatures in blue and the cosmic ray count in red. The lower panel shows the match achieved by removing El Nino, the North Atlantic Oscillation, volcanic aerosols and a linear trend of 0.14 Celsius/decade. "[6]III. Oceans Are Causing Global Warming "Current research also shows that Earth's oceans are now beginning to cool. It is also now clear that temperatures over the last century correlate far better with cycles in oceans than they do with carbon dioxide; and, the temperature cycles in oceans are caused by cycles of the sun. "[4]The PDO correlates extremely well with global warming, and is not caused by humans. [13] Ocean currents correlate better than CO2: [14]In fact, Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature, and 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature. Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. [18] IV. The 1500-Year Cycle The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was globally warmer than today, and in both hemispheres: "Chinese temperatures were 2 to 3 degrees C higher than present during China's climate optimum. " ". .. during the Medieval Warming. .. . Temperatures may have been as much as 2.5 degrees C warmer [than today] due to a southward shift of the climate belts. " ". .. the central Argentinean area had more precipitation during the Medieval Warming than today. Temperatures may have been as much as 2.5 degrees C warmer due to a southward shift of the tropical rainbelts. " "The largest anomaly was a rapid warming-4 degrees C-between 350 B. C and A. D 450, reflecting a warmer climate in equatorial East Africa. " "On Signy Island, halfway between Antarctica and the southern tip of South America, there clearly shows the Roman Warming. .. , the Dark Ages [cooling]. .. , the Medieval Warming, the Little Ice Age, and the 20th century warming-which is cooler to date than the Medieval Warming. "[15] From Medieval manuscripts, it is easy to confirm that Europe was warm during the MWP, but so was the southern hemisphere: [16]. This means it was a global event, and not a see-saw hemisphere event. "Indirect evidence suggests that the average temperature was as much as 1.5 degrees Celsius warmer [during the Medieval Warm Period] than today. "[17] [17] V. Three Equal Warmings Period Length Trend(Degrees C per decade) Significance 1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes 1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes 1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes 1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes [19] [20] Conclusion Putting this all together, "For example, the authors of a paper by NASA's JPL remark '. .. has compared the minimum aa [index of geomagnetic activity] values with the Earth's surface temperature record and found a correlation of 0.95 between the two data sets starting in 1885. The solar irradiance [solar activity] proxy developed from the aa minima continues to track the Earth's surface temperature until the present. '"[21] There. Cosmic rays, the sun, and all the Earth's natural cycles have a .95 correlation. Sources . http://www.debate.org...;

Okay thanks, it works now. That's okay, but scientifically the O has to be capitalized, because if you don't it's Cobalt2. Hence Cobalt is Co and Carbon Dioxide is CO2, so please remember to wirte it correct, thanks!Contention 1: CO2 and its effects. I deeply appologize for mistaking for what my opponent had stated as it came from my opponent's 7th source in his second round, but let's move on.The fact is that the Warming from it's effects are so microscopic that it does not cause the effects that my opponent has brought up and to mention that he has DROPPED this portion stating how much Warming Gasses come from humans and it's very microscopic. I'll be posting that graph bellow. Now once again if we look at this chart we can see that the gasses that are these Warming gasses and compare it to how much mankind has contributed to the Warming equation we can see that it is very microscopic at best and has no impact upon the globe as it is just so small and microscopic. This is an important point that my opponent dropped as it shows that humans are not contributing to Global Warming, but rather something else is. Prehaps is the cows who's manuer produces more methane now for some strange reason? Just in case the graph doesn't post I'll post it's information bellow. GAS -- GREENHOUSE EFFECT -- HUMAN EFFECTWater Vapor ------ 95.000% -- 0.001%Carbon Dioxide -- 3.618% ---- 0.117%Methane ----------- 0.360 ------ 0.066%Nitrous oxide ------ 0.950% ---- 0.047%Misc ----------------- 0.072% ---- 0.047%Total ----------------- 100% ------- 0.278% [1]Remeber the Warming numbers that I have posted last round that CO2 is the equilivence to 1 GWP. We can also see that my Numbers that I've allowed for my calculations were more moddested as it showed more of an increase than my opponent is showing and that was from one of his earlier graphs. Once again it's a 0.15 F increase of temperature and that's assuming there's a 105 ppm increase compared to the mere 40 ppm increase that my opponent has shown which means that the temperature under these numbers would drop to around 0.06 F. Again there isn't a large enough amount of emmitions produced from humans to cause a great difference in a global meltdown that my opponent is predictings. If we observe the above Greenland Ice Core we can see that though it's been heating up we can swee that on average it's a whole lot colder than what it is on a normal basis. This is also acknowledging that humans have only been around in the past 10,000 years or so we can see that this Ice Core is still colder than normal even with the emmission that are produced today. Now if we observe the above graph of the past 400,000 yeasrs we can see that the CO2 rates in our atmosphere has flutated the exact same way in this cycle both before and during the existance of human beings. We can see that the temperatures and CO2 levels have been going up and down randomly for the past 100 thousands years and it is observed that this occured before the industrial revolution. We can also see that right now we are in a warming period so that arguing that humans are because of this is post hoc. Not to mention that we are in the coldest of the warming periods in Earth's history! We can see that once again despite contrary to belief we can see that though there may be warming the fact is simply that there is no human warming.What I'm showing on my logerithum is that there is no corrilation to what my opponent is stating and this shows that more CO2 doesn't harm the atmosphere and destroy it like that of what my opponent is stating. Contention 2: Earth is cooling.My opponent drops the hot spot argument so we'll move on to the next argument. Once again we can see that the IPCC and Al Gore are inccorect as the hocky stick graph is a bust. As I've shown in earlier rounds and they have been dropped in showing that the Earth's temperature has indeed been way hotter then current and on an average basis at that. My opponent has also dropped my opening graph in C1 r2 That also showed that CO2 levels are at an all time low! Thus once again disproving my opponent's theory. Here we can see that even though CO2 levels are increaseing that the temperature in recent years has actually decreased on the linear scale. Also the US Senate Committe on Envirnment and public works also took a stab at this issue. They found that the Hocky Stick graph was also bogus in 2006. “Today’s NAS report reaffirms what I have been saying all along, that Mann's ‘hockey stick’ is broken,”Senator Inhofe said. “Today’s report refutes Mann's prior assertions that there was no Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age.” “This report shows that the planet warmed for about 200 years prior to the industrial age, when we were coming out of the depths of the Little Ice Age where harsh winters froze the Thames and caused untold deaths. “Trying to prove man-made global warming by comparing the well-known fact that today's temperatures are warmer than during the Little Ice Age is akin to comparing summer to winter to show a catastrophic temperature trend.” [2]Here we can see that they've found that this warming of the similiar to what my opponent is trying to prove is indeed bogus. Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter had shown through his research at University of East Angila in the United Kingdom that the Climate Change increase had actually froze from 1998-2006 showing that this so called Global Warming had actually stopped. [3] Contention 3: Artic Ice and Sea Levels.I do not concede the arugment as it shows that there is a plus or minus .3 mm increase or decrease each year which as I've shown in previous graphs in previous rounds that it's a cycle. The graph bellow is proof of the cycle of what I'm talking about. Plus even if it was caused by Global Warming my opponent still has to prove that it was caused by HUMANS in order to take the win here not to show that it exists. According studies done by Ola Johannessen we can see that the Greenland Ice Sheet is growing! Also we can see from the same study is that the Artic was actually warmer in the 1930's than today! [4] s://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com...; alt="" />Here we can see that the Antartic Ice has been increasing recently, but you may ask what about the Artic Lannan? Well let's look. s://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com...; alt="" />Well I'll be, not only is the artic ice growing, but it's getting thicker and thicker. According to studies we can see that if we tack on one more year to my opponent's graph we can see that he fails to tell you that from August 2012 to August 2013 that the Artic Ice grew 533,000 square miles and this is according to NASA charts. Contention 4: Hurricane and Tornados If we observe the above graph we can see that there is no net increase in violent Hurricanes nor their wind speed. We can see that my includes more years and hence more data which disproves my opponents. Plus when you add in my R2 graph, which was unrefuted, you can see that there is zero if not a decreasing trend when it comes to hurricanes.Contention 5: Ocean AcidificationClimatoligist Rodger Pielke sr. has found that in the past when the Ocean has gained heat the Ocean has lost that heat within 2 years of which it was gained. Who has been quoted saying, "certainly indicates that the multi-decadal global climate models have serious issues with their ability to accurately simulate the response of the climate system to human- and natural-climate forcings." [5] This shows that the Ocean cannot be gaining this gaining an over exaggerated amount of CO2 causing the acidification that my opponent has been claiming. We can actually see that my opponent's graph actually fits within the amount of pH varriation that I have stated last round which further prooves my point. Sources1. (http://www.geocraft.com...)2. (http://www.epw.senate.gov...) 3. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk...) 4. (https://books.google.com...)5. (http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu...)

I would first like to apologize for not posting any graphs; my computer's internet is down and I am writing this from my 4G iPad. I will point out the graphs with their respective sources at the appropriate times. Now on to my arguments: I. Various Universal Causes I. i. Cosmic Rays I. i. a. Position Every approximately 135 million years, Earth enters a more populated area of the Milky Way, and as a result, more cosmic rays hit the Earth, which causes cooling. Currently, we are in a less populated area of the Milky Way, which means that less of these cosmic rays will be hitting the Earth, which means less cloud formation, and of course, warming. [1] for the source on this hypothesis. I. i. b The Sun The sun can also cause it: "The implications, if true, had potentially enormous implications for the debate about natural causes of warming. When the sun is very active, it can be thought of as pushing away cosmic rays from the Earth, reducing their incidence. When the sun is less active, we see more cosmic rays. This is fairly well understood. But if Svensmark was correct, it would mean that periods of high solar output should coincide with reduced cloud formation (due to reduced cosmic race incidence), which in turn would have a warming effect on the Earth, since less sunlight would be reflected back into space before hitting the Earth. Here was a theory, then, that would increase the theoretical impact on climate of an active sun, and better explain why solar irradiance changes might be underestimating the effect of solar output changes on climate and temperatures. "[2] "Since he first suggested his hypothesis over a decade and a half ago, Svensmark and other researchers have slowly been putting together research to test it. " The results were: "Scientists found that when shielding was removed and natural cosmic rays allowed to hit the chamber, cloud seeding increased dramatically, and it increased substantially again when additional artificial cosmic rays were added. Svensmark appears to have gotten it right. "[3] Proof here is in the next sub-sub point. I. i. c. The Sun: part II The sun's cycles have a lot to do with temperatures also. "In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth's atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and thus cooler it will be. Because the sun's magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth's atmosphere (the stronger the sun's magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth. "[4] "Svensmark matched the data on cosmic rays from the neutron monitor in Climax, Colorado, with the satellite measurements of solar irradiance from 1970 to 1990. Over the period between 1975 and 1989, he found cosmic rays decreased by 1.2 percent annually, amplifying the sun's change in irradiance about four-fold"[5] So, as the sun's activity increases, so does the temperature. Graph 1: View the Correlation between Solar Activity and Temperature in Source 6. This graph clearly shows that temperature goes up and down with solar activity, because an increase in solar activity directly correlates with an increase in average temperature 1-2 years later. I. ii. Rest of the Solar System The Sun clearly is in a warmer phase, because all of the other planets have increasing temperatures as well. "In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row. Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun. "[7] "'Global warming on Neptune's moon Triton as well as Jupiter and Pluto, and now Mars has some [scientists] scratching their heads over what could possibly be in common with the warming of all these planets … Could there be something in common with all the planets in our solar system that might cause them all to warm at the same time? '"[8] Two things can be drawn from this. One, that if other planets are warming, that it is only natural for the Earth to be warming as well. And second, that even if all these planets did have natural causes, then that is a sign of Earth's natural climatic change, instead of man-made. II. Earthly Causes II. i. Ocean Currents Ocean temperature anomalies seem to be rising-along with the temperature. ". .. one can model past temperatures as a linear trend (that started well before CO2 was added in any substantial quantity) and periodic bumps. .. . .. temperatures over the last 100+ years look a lot like a linear trend plus ocean cycle-driven bumps"[2] What is causing all the bumps? : Graph 2: Omitted: The Pacific Decadal Oscillation Has an Enormous Effect on Tempetature in Source 2 II. ii. The 1500-Year Cycle This has to do with a cycle of the climate that can explain the warming. "Through at least the last million years, a moderate 1500-year warm-cold cycle has been superimposed over the longer, stronger Ice Ages and warm interglacials. "[5] Graph 3: 1500-Year Cycle in Source 11 There are two things we can conclude from this graph. First, that up-and-down cycles are normal for the long-term climate. This century's global warming is nothing new. The second thing we can conclude, is that today's global warming is not as bad as the Medieval Warm Period's peak yet, and the Medieval Warm Period was less than the Holocene Maximum Period. "Even more important, the earth is not "the warmest it has ever been. " In fact, the earth was much warmer during the Medieval Warm Period when human agriculture flourished! "[9] "The scientists found evidence that on average, every 1,470 years, plus or minus 500 years, cold, ice-bearing waters, which today circulate around southern Greenland, pushed as far south as Great Britain. "[10] There seems to be a full cycle of up-down-up temperatures of the climate every 1470 years. And this goes as far back as at least 1 million years ago. Currently, we are in an upswing of temperatures, just coming off of the Little Ice Age, the peak to be in a few hundred years, making the peak-to-peak difference between today's global warming and the Medieval Warm Period a little less than 1500 years. So today's Global Warming is a natural, cyclical occurence. Conclusion: And as a final side note, I would like to present this graph that helps disprove the anthropogenic cause theory, regarding again, ocean temperature anomalies: Graph 4: Two 51-Year Periods: Which Is Man and Which Is Mother Nature? Source 2. Sources: [1]: MacRae, Paul: "Alarm: Global Warming-- Facts versus Fears" [2]: . http://www.climate-skeptic.com... [3]: . http://www.forbes.com... [4]: . http://www.eutimes.net... [5]: Singer, S. Fred, and Dennis T. Avery: "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years" [6]: . http://www.petitionproject.org... [7]: . http://news.nationalgeographic.com... [8]: . http://www.livescience.com... [9]: . http://www.isil.org... [10]: . http://www.sciencedaily.com...

I have found NUMEROUS articles and scientific study that our evolution of man, homo sapien, has been around for around 200,000 years. Scientific fact has completely botched your first argument that, "everything was created by the Judeo-Christian God about 7,000 years ago". In conclusion, I have already defeated PRO's argument that he said he will be debating. http://www.npr.org... www.universetoday.com/38125/how-long-have-humans-been-on-earth/https://en.wikipedia.org... www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-13874671 www.earthmagazine.org/.../comment-how-long-have-humans-been-altering-earths-cli...

So many people have asking me that does the bad environment is causing because of the modern technology? The answer is not really or strongly No! The topic is going to be telling by 3 main reason. First, the pollution. There are so many kinds of the pollution like: air pollution, or noise pollution. Next, because of the tall building. As we can see now a day there are a lot of tall building like skyscraper. After the smoke blow up to the are that are near the building the smokes are not going to leave away. Then, the construction of some industry are build near the city. This is the very important cause that make the environment is bad. As I said " The smokes that come from the industry seems like a very terrible things that we can't believe.


Question: Is mankind's impact the main cause of global climate change?

The primary cause of global climate change is not solely due to human activities.
My adversary appears to hold the view that if a group of scientists supports a theory, it must be accurate, and considering alternative perspectives is futile. This is the epitome of groupthink, and science has previously succumbed to this mentality. Not long ago, in 1969, Ray Davis designed and executed an experiment to measure the number of neutrinos originating from the Sun's nuclear fusion. Unfortunately, as Ray Davis described it, he obtained a "socially unacceptable result." He detected fewer neutrinos than expected if the prevailing scientific consensus was accurate at the time. Astrophysicists and theoretical physicists ridiculed him and his findings. No amount of refinement could ever locate those missing neutrinos.
In 2002, while battling Alzheimer's disease, he was awarded the Nobel Prize for his work. Scientific groupthink had refused to update or address the issue within the Standard Model of physics because the group said so. The transcripts from Nova's "The Ghost Particle" will shed light on the wrongdoings of the political body of scientific consensus.
Scientific consensus is in direct opposition to philosophy. At its core, it is an appeal to popularity argument. Believe this because these individuals believe it to be true. It is a rebellion against a well-reasoned argument.
It is not disputed that CO2 is a component of the greenhouse effect, nor is man a source of CO2. What is in dispute is whether the added CO2 has contributed to climate change at all. One complementary claim to my evaporation data is that the greenhouse effect is at saturation, and adding more greenhouse gases results in diminishing returns, leading to negligible changes. I am not fond of the concept of greenhouse saturation because it is similar to my opponent's CO2 argument. It is a lot of hypothesis and rhetoric, rarely accompanied by data to support the claim. However, my figure 1 fully supports this claim. If we are to believe Mann, an expert in climate change, then if we warm the Earth, we should see more evaporation. If CO2 were to blame, we should observe a correlation between CO2 and evaporation.
I have no reason to doubt Mann's claim because anyone with an oven or dehydrator can test it. However, if it is true, this is what the correlation between CO2 and evaporation from 1980 to 2005 looks like. This is what a zero correlation appears like.
Figure 3

Got it. From this round I will refer to Carbon Dioxide as CO2.Also, my round 2 sites are incorrectly entered. Here they are in respective order:http://climate.nasa.gov...http://climate.nasa.gov...http://climate.nasa.gov...http://data.giss.nasa.gov...http://earthguide.ucsd.edu...http://climate.nasa.gov... ==Rebuttal 1: CO2 and its effects==The statement that humans are not contributing to the emission of greenhouse gases is completely false. Many sites [1-3] point out that humans are, in fact, the most major cause of warming in modern days."Natural changes alone can’t explain the temperature changes we’ve seen." - Union of Concerned Scientists [2]"Scientists have closed the case: Human activity is causing the Earth to get hotter." - Environmental Defense Fund [3]And, if we were to agree with my opponent's logic, then his arguments are contradictory to his third graph - where he states that Carbon Dioxide is correlating with temperatures perfectly, which is true [4][5]: Keep in mind that both charts show increasing temperature and temperature increase rates, but short after the Industrial Revolution began, contrary to my opponent's selective graphs where he tries to disprove warming by selecting a range of 10,000 years, when really the Industrial Revolution only started in the 18th century [6]. My opponent's third graph, as proven, is contradicted by my opponent's statements above. Let us look at his two halves of his chart combined [7]: If the warming effect of CO2 is minimal, then how would the temperature correlate with it so perfectly? And even then, in the years before, the temperature would drop almost instantly after it reached its peak, but the warming period we are in is actually holding itself up there, rather than just being pulled down. Also, we cannot use this graph anyway as the time scale is way too large to see our effects in recent years. Moreover, his charts could be misleading as he has not cited any links to substantiate his second, third and fourth charts. Let us look at his fourth chart.His fourth chart tells us that water vapor and other natural causes cover the vast majority of contributions to the greenhouse effect, whilst human emissions only cover about 0.28% of contributions. However, this is very misleading, because it does not count in ANY OTHER FACTORS. For example, we already know that humans have deforestated the vast majority of forests on Earth [8]: Wildfires, which already contribute to the greenhouse effect [9], are affecting the area of forests worldwide [8]: Trends in wildlife area burned in wildfire in U.S. "“Wildfire emissions can have remarkable impacts on radiative forcing,” says Liu." - USDA [9] "Tropical deforestation contributes as much as 90% of the current net release of biotic carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This change may represent as much as 20% - 30% of the total carbon flux due to humans - i.e., rivaling the carbon release due to fossil fuel burning." - Global Change [9]Humans, as shown bove, are acidifying the ocean and deforestating (cutting down trees from forests), which is labeled as one of the more major causes of the greenhouse effect on my opponent's chart. As for my opponent's logarithm argument, this is also contradicting the correlation of CO2 and temperatures because the logarithm would not be able to cause a perfect correlation. Thus this argument is null.==Rebuttal 2: The Earth is cooling==My opponent states that his hot spot argument was dropped, when in reality I had responded to this with two paragraphs of evidence. My opponent is straw-manning here. My opponent even goes on to state that I dropped his CO2 argument, to which I responded with even more text. That went unrefuted by my opponent.Also, the "Hockey Stick" graph is actually proven many times to be quite accurate (at least in the warming period) by studies of different sources, like corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. All confirm that the 20th century saw the most dramatic increase in global temperatue in recent history."Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920." - Skeptical Science [10]Note that my opponent's next graph is a very selective one and that its time scale is literally over a ten-year period. Plus, the grap shows the temperature variations, which ends up being above zero. This graph is contradictory to my opponent's arguments.Also, my opponent's quote and evidence that global warming as stopped is also quite selective as it is over a period of 8 years. My opponent is blatantly biased as he only used selective time periods instead of an actually unbiased time period, where it focuses on where humans have been speculated to have started to contribute to global warming.==Rebuttal 3: Arctic Ice and Sea Levels==Again, my opponent's graph here only shows a time period of 45 years. Let us look at a graph starting from 0 CE, and as we can see towards the end the sea level rises dramatically [11]: s://motherjones.com...; alt="Different ways to measure sea level over time" /> As you can see the sea level has risen over 20 cm since the start of the Industrial Revolution and has been very consistent throughout this period.My opponent then goes on to reinstate his argument that Arctic Ice is increasing, which I had already refuted with my NASA evidence, which was collected in late 2014, while my opponent uses data from 2006 and 2013. Even then, my opponent only uses two photographs of the Arctic Ice, each from two single, separate days, which again is subjective because it doesn't show anything over time, but rather it only shows separate days. Again disregard this piece of evidence. Also, even though I concede the Antarctic Ice expansion, I had proven Arctic Ice was losing ice more than twice as fast than the Antarctic Ice grew. Thus this point is null.==Rebuttal 4: Hurricanes and Tornadoes==My opponent drops my argument that tornadoes do not link to global warming.My opponent is misunderstanding my hurricane intensity argument. It has been shown that when sea levels rise (which I proved true) stronger hurricanes get stronger, but weaker hurricanes show little to no trend. [12] "But more significantly, Elsner found weaker hurricanes showed little to no trend while stronger hurricanes showed a greater upward trend. In other words, stronger hurricanes are getting stronger. This means that as sea temperatures continue to rise, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land will inevitably increase." - Skeptical Science [12]My opponent even states that I dropped his R2 graph, which I responded to throughout the debate. The link was only broken. My opponent keeps straw-manning that I drop his arguments when a lot of my arguments have been left unrefuted. I ask my opponent to stop.==Rebuttal 5: Ocean Acidification==My opponent is saying that since the ocean has not acidified to a certain point that can be deemed critical. However my opponent must notice that small parts of the ocean are acidifying to the point that organisms are dying and being replaced with anaerobic organisms, which produce methane, which further contributes to global warming. Parts of this are directly caused by normal everyday pollution, which an kill animals and bleach corals, which has been proven above to have alreday happened.==Dropped arguments== My opponent drops the following arguments/rebuttals:- That CO2 levels have been ising exponentially over the last few centuries- That CO2 levels 600,000,000 years ago are irrelevant since not even the dinosaurs had existed then- That my opponents graphs are very selective and biased- That the Arctic is losing ice more than twice as fast than the Antarctic is gaining ice- That tornadoes do not have a link to global warming- That ocean acidification, even if not at a critical level, is affecting the temperature of the surroundings.I would like to remind my opponent that he must not respond to these dropped arguments in the last round as I cannot respond to them. Any new rebuttals to these dropped arguments should be disregarded.==Conclusion==I have effectively refuted all my opponent's arguments, countered my own, and also proven that my opponent has dropped some of my arguments.The resolution is affirmed.[1] http://planetsave.com...[2] http://www.ucsusa.org...[3] http://www.edf.org...[4] http://www.skepticalscience.com...[5] http://warmgloblog.blogspot.com...[6] https://www.google.com...[7] http://www.skepticalscience.com...[8] http://www.globalchange.umich.edu...[9] http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov...[10] http://www.skepticalscience.com...[11] http://www.motherjones.com...[12] http://www.skepticalscience.com...

I think the main confusion lies in us as humans. But i consider what youve said.

Correlation and CausationConsider the Cenozoic era (the last 65 million years). Overall, solar activity increased 0.4% over this period. "Because Earth absorbs about 240 W/m^2 of solar energy, that brightness increase is a forcing of about 1 W/m^2. This small linear increase of forcing, by itself, would have caused a modest global warming through the Cenozoic Era. " The CO2 levels caused a much higher forcing. In contrast, atmospheric CO2 during the Cenozoic changed from at least 1000 ppm in the early Cenozoic to as small as 170 ppm during recent ice ages. The resulting climate forcing, as can be computed accurately for this CO2 range using formulae in Table 1 of Hansen et al. (2000), exceeds 10 W/m^2. It is clear that CO2 was the dominant climate forcing in the Cenozoic. "[1]In fact, the temperature changes correspond to the CO2 changes. ". .. there is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (Barnola et al. 1987). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows that the main trends of CO2 are similar for each glacial cycle. Major transitions from the lowest to the highest values are associated with glacial-interglacial transitions. During these transitions, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rises from 180 to 280-300 ppmv (Petit et al. 1999). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr. "[2]This graph shows the CO2-temperature correlation over the last 700,000 years: Excess CO2 traps heat. Considering the recent global warming, satellites measure less heat escaping out to space, at the particular wavelengths that CO2 absorbs heat, thus finding ". .. direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect. " In other words, the Earth is retaining more of the heat that it receives from the sun that it received from before. This excess heat manifests itself through global temperature increases. "If less heat is escaping to space, where is it going? Back to the Earth's surface. Surface measurements confirm this, observing more downward infrared radiation. A closer look at the downward radiation finds moreheat returning at CO2 wavelengths,leadin to the conclusion that '. .. this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming. '"[3][4][5]Evidence of Mankind's Influence on the Recent Global Warming TrendIt would be rather coincidental if the recent rise in global warming happened to start just around the time that humans started to emit large quantities of greenhouse gases. However, there is direct evidence as well, in addition to the already established correlation between temperature and CO2. Now, it is known that CO2 levels are increasing. "In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million. " CO2 levels are increasing at a level not seen in at least 500,000 years, if not longer. [6]Here is a graph showing CO2 concentrations over the last 10000 years: [7][8]Now, carbon has several isotopes, three of which are C12, C13, and C14. C14 is radioactive, and has a half life of around 5,730 years. The CO2 emissions that humans make come from fossil fuels. Thus, if humans were the cause of the excess CO2, we'd except the C14/C12 ratio to decline, because, while there is a relatively constant amount of C14 in the atmosphere due to continuous replenishment (when a neutron collides with a regular nitrogen atom, a C14 atom and a proton result), the amount of C14 in the Earth has steadily decreased because it is not replenished, and since fossil fuels come from the ground, almost pure C12 is being ejected into the atmosphere. Indeed, it is observed that the C14/C12 ratio has declined. And thus, if humans were the cause of the excess CO2, we'd except the C13/C12 ratio to decline, because plants find it easier to take in carbon dioxide with a C12 atom than one with a C13 atom, implying that plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than the atmopshere and, since animals eat plants (either by directly eating then or eating something that eats plants), also implying that fossils also have a lower C13/C12 ratio than the atmopshere, implying that we'd see a decline in the C13/C12 ratio as well. Indeed it is also observed that the C13/C12 ratio has declined. [9][10][11]This can be observed in the graph below (this is the C13/C12 ratio over the last 650 years; the C14/C12 ratio graph was too big to put in the debate): The evidence that this excess CO2 is the cause of the recent global warming is voluminous. One piece of evidence is a comparison of warming in the troposphere and stratosphere. Because the CO2 is in the upper troposphere, the troposphere temperature would increase, while the stratospheric temperature would decrease, because there would be less heat reaching the stratosphere. "Computer model estimates of the ‘human influence’ fingerprint are broadly similar to the observed pattern. In sharp contrast, model simulations of internal and total natural variability cannot produce the same sustained, large-scale warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere. "[4][12][13]This graph shows this: [4]Another piece of evidence is the frequency of cold days and nights. Because the sun only shines in the day time, is the sun was causing global warming, the days would warm faster than the nights, while if greenhouse gases were causing global warming, this wouldn't be observed. It is the latter's prediction that is observed. "What we observe is a decrease in cold nights greater than the decrease in cold days, and an increase in warm nights greater than the increase in warm days. "[4][14]This can be shown in the below graph: [4]Overall, the evidence shows that human-emitted greenhouse gases are the cause of global warming. CO2, in addition to other gases like methane and nitrous oxide are being emitted by humans in very large amounts, and this is manifesting itself in an increase in the average global temperature. Climate Sensitivity and FeedbacksClimate sensitivity is the amount the temperature would rise if the CO2 concentration were doubled. Obviously, if there's a large climate sensitivity, then increases in CO2 have large effect. It is known that the climate sensitivity is around 1 degree C. However, this can be amplified through feedbacks. Positive ones amplify the sensitivity, while negative ones diminish the sensitivity. The evidence overwhelmingly comes down on the former, that positive feedbacks are happening. Increases in CO2 cause temperature increases, which are amplified by water vapor and the effect on clouds. "Since the radiative effects associated with the buildup of water vapor to near-saturation levels and the subsequent condensation into clouds are far stronger than the equilibrium level of radiative forcing by the non-condensing GHGs, this results in large local fluctuations in temperature about the global equilibrium value. "[15]This can be shown in the below graph: Further, increases in CO2 affect the carbon cycle in this way: Global warming can result in the death of vegetation (due to droughts) and the warming of the ocean. Both of these further reduce the maximum absorption of the Earths carbon cycle, thus resulting in even more CO2 being released into the atmosphere. And with this, CO2 increases even more. In other words, CO2-caused temperature increases are amplified by positive feedbacks and the mechanics of the carbon cycle. So, the positive feedback amplifies the climate sensitivity. How much it is amplified can be determined through study. Using a Bayesian statistical approach, which is “the dominant [method] in the literature”, these findings support the notion of climate sensitivity as maximum 4 degrees C, a mean of 3 degrees C, and likely not lower than 3 degrees. [16]The graph below gives a statistical analysis: [17]The mean is around 3 degrees C. The CO2 that humans emit thus has an effect of 3 degrees C per doubling of CO2. This can be shown by the fact that CO2 concentrations have increased from around 275 ppm to around 400 ppm. This is an increase of around 40%. This should manifest itself with a temperature increase of a little less than 1.5 degrees C. Indeed, temperatures have increased around this amount over the last 150 years. The anthropogenic-forcing climate models thus match observations. [18]In other words, in addition to the direct evidence of how the Earth is warming, the climate models based on a greenhouse gas cause to global warming explain almost perfectly the recent global warming. This is a lot of evidence for a human case to the recent global warming. ConclusionGreenhouse gases cause global warming because of their heat trapping abilities. Humans have been emitting vast amounts of greenhouse gases over the last 150 years, and this shows itself on the CO2 measurements. The atmospheric warming pattern and greater heating at night are evidence that the recent global warming is caused by those human emitted greenhouse gases. These increases are amplified through the water vapor and cloud positive feedbacks and the positive feedback that arises through the climate cycle. The climate sensitivity ends up being around 3 degrees C. Finally, the CO2-temperature record shows that the two correlate with remarkable correlation. SourcesSources in comments.

We do not agree! Are we having a debate or a discussion? You are contending that global warming is killing people, yet you offer no evidence linking any deaths to global warming. I am contending that global warming cannot kill anybody, because man-made global warming is a hoax. I would expect in your next and final round, you would try and prove that global warming exists, and then link it to some deaths.

Outline:Most of Pro's case is focused on CO2. I will prove that CO2 as no threatening potential, even when combined with our other emissions. In order to win, Pro must prove that CO2 is a major threat, as that is the core of his argument.Rebuttal I: CO2 Global Warming PotentialPro argues that humans also give off many other emissions. I acknowledged this in my last round and discussed it's potential as well. Those gases have huge GWPs but are simply too small in the scheme of things."Assuming the increase in the other gases ppm were the same proportionately, we would be responsible for an increase of nearly 0.20°F. This leaves 1.33°F left that human's are not responsible for."Men's emissions simply don't account for the number needed to assume the whole of Global Warming is man-made. Methane and Nitrous, as a whole, doesn't match up to CO2 emissions alone. Making up a combined 1.31% of all Global Warming, humans making up 0.113% total (1). As for F gases, they are so few that they, with all their potential, only make up less than 0.072% of all Global Warming Potential. They are all combined to form the Misc section. We see the total GWP of Misc, Methane, Nitrious, and CO2 in a visual display. Pro's numbers are correct, but they only represent what percent of the total MAN-MADE GWP those gases make up. But when compared to the total GWP from both men and nature, it only account for 0.278%. This is far too small to be a threat to the World. I've already discussed this, and will display the chart again.GAS -- GREENHOUSE EFFECT -- HUMAN EFFECTWater Vapor ------ 95.000% -- 0.001%Carbon Dioxide -- 3.618% ---- 0.117%Methane ----------- 0.360 ------ 0.066%Nitrous oxide ------ 0.950% ---- 0.047%Misc ----------------- 0.072% ---- 0.047%Total ----------------- 100% ------- 0.278% 1) http://www.geocraft.com...Rebuttal II: Deforestation and Indirect Emissions.I understand this argument well. I've debated it before. CO2 emissions from Deforestation is calculated into the amount listed above. Making up a pretty percent of our total emissions. Deforestation, however, isn't an issue. US forests are larger today than they were 100 years ago.(2) The US's forest growth is 42% larger than it's forest harvesting. The world replants almost every tree removed, with the UN (apart from the US) replanting 1.7 billion trees (3) and the US replanting 1.5 billion trees a year (4), the world isn't far behind it's deforestation rate. At a total replanting rate of 3.2 billion trees a year + plus ever tree planted by lumber companies. Many lumber company replants trees they cut down to ensure they always have a supply. Forests are not disappearing at close to the rate most people assume they are. It would take over 150 years for the forests in the world to be cut in half, based off US/UN replanting alone. With Lumber Companies replacement programs and all other private replantings, as well has natural Forest Growth, we may never see it at the current rate of deforestation.As for CO2 emitted by Deforestation, it's outwieghed by the amount of CO2 consumed over the lifespan of all the trees we replant. Cutting down a tree and turning it into lumber releases 1,200 lb of CO2. Ever tree we replant consumes 12,000 lb throughout it's life. This adds up, as in one year we will release 2.3 Gigatonnes cutting down trees, but the trees replanted that same year will consume 19 Gigatonnes in their lifes. A mighty profit. After the 88 years it would take to cut down every tree that is alive at this moment, we will have emitted 237.6 Gigatonnes, but the trees we replanted would have consumed a grand 661.17 Gigatonnes by then, after calculating the total consumption of CO2 every year. The first year's trees would consume 6.7 Gigatonnes by then, the next years would consume 6.67 Gigatonnes, and so on. As for ocean pollution, this is true that Ocean Pollution is a bad situation, but Pro hasn't proven that it's enough of a threat to make the Resolution true. CO2 and all it's emittions simply aren't strong enough to support Pro's case and prove the Resolution.CO2, at it's GWP, has far to go before it's a major issue. Until then, Human's aren't leaving around nearly a large enough amount to hurt the environment. Total World Emissions, including humans, only accounts for slightly above 3% of the total Green House Effect. It and every other gas Pro mentioned makes up in total 5%. If you only look at the Man-Made gases, it's only 0.555% of total effect. We know CO2 isn't that bad in the scheme of things because of how CO2 levels were around 7000 PPM in the Cambrian Period, and yet the temperature was only 10ºc higher, showing the CO2 doesn't have nearly the effect Global Warming Alarmists are predicting. Pro's own rebuttal only makes this more clear, as we will see.2) http://forestry.about.com...3) http://www.un.org...4) http://forestry.about.com...Rebuttal III: Global Warming Cycle.Yes, CO2 is 400 PPM now, which is pretty high compared to recent cycles, temperatures are still lower than any other warming period. This is prove supporting my case. This Global Warming Period has the highest CO2 PPM (and I never said we weren't responsible for the increase in CO2, as we are, just that CO2 isn't a huge threat) and yet it is the coldest warming period to date. This is clear evidence that CO2 isn't a threat.I already knew the charts were 50 years out of date, I was hoping Pro would notice, as the charts only proof that while CO2 rises during the warming periods, it doesn't cause the warming, otherwise we would be in the hottest warming period in the last 400,000 years. Looking at the charts again, we see that, at 400 ppm, CO2 is high, but we know Global Temperatures is 1.53°F higher than 1900 at this very moment, which makes it the coldest period. Looking at the charts, we see that the coldest warming period is about 2.2°c warming than the 1950 record, while today isn't even a forth that. "As you can see, CO2 emissions are actually much much higher than they have ever been in natural history - 100 PPMs higher than ever." -ProThis is ignorant of my arguments about how high CO2 was in the Mesozoic and Cambrian Eras. Despite the high amount of CO2, which only looks high compared to recent history, both the Cambrian and current temperatures are well under what people claim they should be. We are colder now than any other warming period in recent history, despite high CO2, because CO2 isn't that big of an issue.As for Pro's R2 points, they are mostly an Argument From Authority, from a group of people who are paid to question how humans effect Global Warming, not how Nature might also effect it.Conclusion:CO2 and all the Gases humans release do not have the power needed to prove Man-Made Global Warming is a threat. As far as numbers and data go, The mass of Global Warming we see is natural, and would happen with or without human involvememt. As said in my R2 case, CO2 has been rising since 9000 years ago, and despite high amounts of it, we still have the coldest Warming Peroid in the last 400,000 years.

there's no question that temperature and CO2 is correlated. you can see that in the links i provided, historically. here is that they are more than just correlated, but tied together http://www.skepticalscience.com... you can click on "advanced" for advanced explanations of the science. or you can read the simpler versiosn. it is pointless for me to repeat what it says. it gives an example of measuring the sun that gets refracted back to the earth from the CO2. and then it explains that there are ways to 'check your math' with alternative methods that pretty much then corroborate the findings. i could go on explaining it all, but that is unnecessary when you can read it yourself. con seems to eb conceding that a third of the warming is from the sun. my resolution can still stand though as all i said is that man made reaosns was significant. even if we accepted a study that said it was like two third of warming from the sun... it is still signficant from man, and that's all i resolved. even if you found a study to say otherise, the overwhelming consensus of studeis says that the sun is only a fraction of the warming cause, less than half.

we cannot really stop global warming.. it's just that we may lessen its harmful effects to man... we may improve our energy efficiency to lessen this one.

Regarding over 300 animals have gone extinct can you give me some sources regarding that? And do you ever heard of "survival of the fittest"? While it is true pollution, discrimination is cause by certain human, that does not mean that all human cause that. Lets say that A murder B, A did not put on trial but instead C (relative of A). So you saying it is fine to execute C just because C is relative of A? You see, we cannot just point a finger to overall of human population just because certain people do wrong. Instead we should punish those who do it instead. Regarding overpopulation, we have another alternative right? Im pretty sure we have the technologies to make colony on moon or Mars, or even Dyson sphere if we put all of our effort to that.

While what you state is true, this is a red herring. As seen from your same source, the consensuses holds. "4. DiscussionOf note is the large proportion of abstracts that state noposition on AGW. This result is expected in consensus situ-ations where scientists â€˜. . . generally focus their discussionson questions that are still disputed or unanswered ratherthan on matters about which everyone agreesâ€™ (Oreskes 2007, p 72)." [6]-stupidapeHowever, not about everyone does agree with this. Several problems were found with each of the studies that declared 97% of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change occurs. For example, one such study was found to have only included 5% of respondents as climate scientists[11]. Then the very same study we are looking at above, used only the evidence that takes a position on anthropogenic climate change(for or against) and declared that 97% of climate scientists agree on it, when actually, that's only 97% of climate scientists who take a position, and doesn't take into account that some may believe it is inconclusive. It was found, in fact, that about 15% of climate scientists, when asked to rank 1-7 where 1 is not convinced at all, and 7 is very much convinced that anthropogenic climate change is occuring, ranked from 1-4. Which is a significant amount of scientists who doubt it or are unsure(where 4 would be unsure).[12] Just because majority of climate scientists agree, doesn't mean we can just immediately dismiss the evidence and opinions that suggest climate change is not real."False, as shown above, the 97% censuses is true. " -stupidapeWell, as shown above, it's actually 85% who believe somewhat or more in anthropogenic climate change, and only 34.59% are absolutely sure[12] which means, technically, a majority have some doubts lingering in their minds otherwise they would have ranked it as 7. .6 degrees Celsius to be exact. That is significant considering the rate of change. Ego systems do not have the ability to adjust to such rapid change. Also, the majority of the temperature change is happening in the last few decades. [7] As for the Co2, being a small amount this is another red herring. Due to positive feedback cycles the amount is increased dramatically. You can see that in the previous debate. Finally, natural Co2 is cycled naturally, unnatural Co2 accumulates as a greenhouse gas. [12]-StupidapeThere are a number of problems with global climate models(GCM's) though, which is what this claim that the earth is warming is based off of. There is the general coldness problem, which indicates that the real temperature is actually colder than what the GCM's indicate. [13] Since we don't have a completely reliable way of measuring the global temperature, it can't be concluded that there even is warming. "Natural Co2 emissions counterbalance themselves, [12] sun activity is at a low. [13] Other variables have been accounted for. [10]"-StupidapeHowever, it's been proven that the Earth's position in orbit and rotational axis is changing, to the point where it's getting slightly closer to the sun. This also would result in warming, which is not mentioned at all in the tenth article you linked, so it hasn't been accounted for. [13] "Compared to the thousands of peer reviewed scientific articles that do support climate change."-stupidapeThere are likely more studies than just those 90, I doubt skeptical science put up every single study that goes against anthropogenic climate change. Also, just because there is a smaller amount of studies, doesn't mean they can somehow be dismissed as easily as you have. You need to analyze them and compare them to the studies claiming anthropogenic climate change is real. Then you determine which ones have the more valid claims. Since you have not done this, most likely, it is too soon to claim anthropogenic climate change is real, thus there is room for doubt. "As for the incorect climate models, only one model can be correct. Therefore the majority will be incorrect. It would be a waste to make redunant correct models."-stupidapeThis doesn't provide anything substantive since you didn't claim to know which one is correct, so again, how do we know the entire globe is even warming if we aren't sure we have the correct climage model?Sources:[11] http://www.nationalreview.com...;[12] file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/The_Bray_and_von_Storch-survey_of_the_pe.pdf[13] http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...

*****REBUTTALS***** "Signs that the Earth is warming are recorded all over the globe. The easiest way to see increasing temperatures is through the thermometer records kept over the past century and a half. Around the world, the Earth's average temperature has risen more than 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.8 degrees Celsius) over the last century, and about twice that in parts of the Arctic.This doesn't mean that temperatures haven't fluctuated among regions of the globe or between seasons and times of day. But if you average out the temperature all over the world over the course of a year, you see that temperatures have been creeping upward." First off, ma'am, your source is just an article. It does not present any real statistics, or give any scientific measure on how global warming is real. While I have provided sources that explain in vast detail, and have the numbers to dis-prove global warming. I have even posted stats showing that Global cooling is actually happening."Scientists say global warming is real.Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain that most of it is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels. These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all major industrialized nations."You still have yet to prove how this is a phenomena. You must prove to me how this is an actual super-ficial occurrence, that has not happened in the past. You must also find a source and evidence to prove this, which you have not done, thus your claim is baseless and false."I went onto this website(the one you gave to me) and I found this:http://climvis.ncdc.noaa.gov......The trend(temperature) is going up."Look at the lines closely this time. The straight line sets the average temperature as un changed. Also notice how drastic the lows become. This is proof that global warming is not occurring. "There is an error in this image... If this year, 2012, is not even over yet how can it be on the graph? Another error with this argument is that we are not debating snow but we are debating temperature. This has no point to even argue about.This shows that the temperature is rising. Also it came off of the website that just said it was decreasing. This website has false information because of this. "First of scientist can predict whether patters for the following months easily, based on results. Your claim that we can't do this just seems absurd.Also snow plays a huge part in temperature. If there is more snow fall, how is global warming occurring? ****MY CASE**** Now this is the easy part. Contention 1: Global Cooling.This point is dropped. My opponent has not been able to show proof that global cooling is not occurring, and has not posted any evidence to global warming actually occurring. Please extend. Contention 2: "Global Warming" Has happened before.My opponent has also not been able to prove or dis-prove that "Global warming" is not a common occurrence. By his terms, and by mine own, we see that global warming is supposed to be a significant event. My opponent has yet to prove how this is currently not another earth cycle. He has not even attempted to respond to this argument anyways, so Please Extend.****CONCLUSION****My opponent has hopelessly dropped my entire case, and fails to provide actual sourced evidence (other than articles) for any of his claims. This proves that global warming doesn't actually exist, and is instead a theory and a concept, thought up by scientists, which has yet to be fully proved.Please vote CON.Thankyou.