Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth.

I will enumerate more of my opponents graphs.Figure 12: Global Glacier Cumulative Volume ChangesFigure 13: Proportions of growing and shrinking glaciers in 2009Figure 14: Sea Levels since 1870Figure 15: US Stations reporting continuously from 1900 to 2000Figure 16: Feedbacks vs Forcings GraphPart 6: Contradictory Glacial, Sea Level, and Temperature DataFigure 12 is interesting not because it counters any of my argument, but because it puts my opponents temperature, and sea level data in contradiction with it. If you look at 1970 in Figure 12 You'll notice the volume of glacial ice is higher than any point from 1870 to 1970. How did we get more Ice in 1970? If we accept that the melt of glaciers is caused solely by heat, and if we accept ether Figure 2, or the corrected Figure 6 then we have a problem. The dates leading up to 1970 don't show any noticeable decline in temperature that would explain it, and the Figure 14 sea levels don't show any stabilizing or drop in sea level to address where this extra water for the ice even came from.We're locked into another contradiction similar to the one that I started with. Ether the Glacial data is correct, and temperature, and sea level is incorrect. The Inverse of that, or both are wrong.There are a couple of issues with Figure 12 that will need to be disclosed and accounted for before we can con to a decision about which data is correct. According to my opponent's source the number of glaciers represented from 1946 on back is in the single digits. It's not until about 1960 that we have about 30 glaciers represented in the sample. If we take a look at Figure 10 we can see that this is the point where the yearly median drops below zero implying slightly colder than average temperatures.If you look at Figure 12 at 1980 you'll notice the angle of decrease shows a slowing which would imply that the temperature decreased, or had a slower accent than in prior years. In Figures 2, and 6 no such indication is given, but in Figure 10 the early 80's shows another decline in temperatures before the 90's where it finally moves above zero implying higher than normal temperatures, and thus a steeper decline in volume.In other words Figure 12 is in less contradiction with Figure 11 then it is with Figures 2, 6, and 14.However, Figure 12 also suffers from exaggeration of features due to changing sample size. This is address in my analysis in step 4, and when I brought up the causes of the differences between Figure 7 and Figure 8. Adding in a thousand weather stations radically altered the graph which is why step 4 restricted weather stations to existing at the start and end of the analysis. So where does the sampling look like for Glaciers? My opponent's source is very nice to graph it out for us to see on their intermediate discussion of glacial ice.Figure 17: Number of observed glaciers As you can see just prior to 1976 there was only about 45 glaciers in the data. Then it spontaneously has about 20, nearly half of the prior sample, added in. This continues until the early 80's where that with a sample of just over 90 has doubled the sample. Then throw out the 90's regular sampling increased, and this would further exaggerate the changes because we hasn't sampled the glaciers in that method in the past.Now I'd love to download the generate the data properly myself. My opponents source does point people towards it here: wgms.ch/data_databaseversions/ However the data isn't high quality like the GHCN dataset, and would require more time than I have in this debate to properly process. It also doesn't have what I would consider a high enough quantity of data. It barely has 30 glaciers sampled regularly, and I'd personally prefer 100 before I started making definitive claims about what the data says. Even the source claims that they have 228 glaciers in the data, and the only way for that to work with the sample graph is if glaciers skip years, and aren't fully represented every year, and across every season in a year.Part 7: Hiatus Proof?My opponent is under the mistaken belief that I've proven the hiatus to be false. Unfortunately Part 1 of my argument does everything, but that. I've proven only that two parts of the global warming argument about the hiatus are in stark contradiction with each other. That only proves one, or both are wrong. Unfortunately it doesn't prove which one is actually wrong. Parts 2, 3, and 4 are the evidence that undermines Figures 2, and 6 strongly suggesting that data in both cases is flawed. It's up you the judges to choose which you believe. However, using my opponent's reasoning that “because more recent updates are and should be seen as more trustworthy” is counter to logic, reason, and debate. It is an appeal to the authority of newness, and not a rational reason at all.Part 8: Correlation vs CausationMy opponent seems to be under the impression that my only focuses on the temperatures, and doesn't refute humans as the cause. There is a phrase in statistics that you may have heard. “Correlation does not imply causation”, but that's only half the phrase. These other half is, “There is no causation without correlation”. Simply put if there is no correlation between global warming and human activity as Figure 10 shows then humans are certainly not the cause. However, if you believe Figure 2, or 6, and that they correlate to human CO2 activity then there is the additional burden of proving that the correlation causal, and not just correlational.It's an unfortunate asymmetry in statistical arguments. There is a possibility that even if there isn't a correlation that maybe the correlation is just smaller than can be measured with the available data, but that would yield that human activity is an insignificant factor in global warming.As for correlation issues my opponent has another problem. If we believe Figure 14 we'd expect out CO2 emissions to map over it, and show a visible correlation. Now both CO2, and Ocean levels have gone up over time, but just going up isn't enough. Sea levels have a nice smooth mathematical curve built into it. I'd have loved to have put both the CO2 and Figure 14 together, but my opponents source linking to the data to do that leads to a 404 error:http://www.pol.ac.uk...Figure 18: CO2 Emissions If you notice between 1950 and 200 there is a bulge in out CO2 emissions, and between 1980 and 2000 a different rate of increase until 2000 where it is in line with an exponential trend that started in 1870. These features would be expected in the Sea Levels data if they were strongly correlated, but it looks like by the seal levels that it's an exponential trend that never varies in the way out CO2 emissions do. My data is courtesy of Source 8. Now if my opponent can find the source for this Figure I'd be happy to merge the sea level in so we can see just how much it doesn't correlate. Most other sources only give about 10 years of data.Part 9: Solar ActivityMy opponent is under the impression that he can wave his hands, and assert an argument, and data is null just because it doesn't conform to his world view. He'd have to explain the lack of movement in the past data, and give an appropriate alternative for Cycle 24 correlating, but not prior. NASA's assessment in 2008 on the effect of Solar Storms due to this unprecedented phenomenon had no prior data. Outside of the last decade this was never observed before. Claiming that we should see all layers heat up as he claims to try to ‘nullify' is nothing more than an unsupported assumption.Part 10: Dust BowlMy opponent makes the claim that I hadn't explained the downward change in the median, and then attempted to assert that it must be from a change in methodology. Though I'm not against this possibility claiming that a change in any of the graphs is due to a methodology change requires further explanation. Parts 2, 3, and 4 are extensive explanation of methodological errors. However, I did explain the change in the graph even if it was indirect. In the 1930's there was a excessive drought, and heat waves. Part of this being clearly represented in the data is due to the United States having the best most consistent weather station data for the last century, and even more so in my opponent's Figure 15 because it is only the United States of America 600 weather stations vs my sample of 1170 weather stations. Now this event very much did occur, and is verified in the EPA Heat Wave Index that shows the 30's were exceedingly bad even by today's standards, and you can read source 5 to see further analysis on this Great Depression causing event if you doubt the 30's heat waves weren't hell on Earth.Now why the 30's was Hell on Earth is anybody's guess. We know it was bad, and man made CO2 emissions were even lower so blaming them enters into contradiction with the present high emissions. Personally I'd love it if there was enough pan evaporation data to verify that there was, or was not a correlation with sunspots, but the available GHCN data is too small for that period evaporation data.Part 11: Contention 4My opponents 4th contention appears to be missing an actual argument to go with it, or even a time period to show the change in forcing, and feedbacks over time. Perhaps he will clarify in the next round what he was going after with it.Part 12: Earth, Mars, and VenusI'm out of time, and characters so I will have to cut my response a bit, and hope to come back to this part if possible.I await my opponent.[8] http://cdiac.ornl.gov...