Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory is Correct

1. Greenhouse Effect In the past 100 years, as this graph quite clearly illustrates, CO2 has at least doubled.The impact of that was previously illustrated, as being between 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C. As the temperature in the past 100 years has risen 1.53 degrees F, clearly that sort of impact is completely possible.I will now explain why.The climate is very sensitive to greenhouse gases, contrary to my opponent's argument. Without greenhouse gases, it is speculated that the earth would freeze. [1] Until the last couple of hundred years, anthropogenic global warming was obsolete; everything was simply climate.Without taking into account feedbacks, the warming would be around 1.25 degrees C. [2]Once feedback is taken into account, it then rises to the now three times stated 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C. Feedback is basically saying that as the Earth warms, the Earth (namely the ocean) absorbs the warmth, thereby keeping the Earth in a cycle of warmth, by releasing more heat into the atmosphere [3] Therefore, even if the effect of greenhouse gases are minimal, at only around 1 degree C, the effect that those subsequent feedbacks have, and then the warmth thereby warming the Earth again creating more feedback, is quite dramatic. [3]By arguing that the climate is insensitive to CO2, you thereby argue that the climate, in and of itself, is insensitive. This would make it insensitive to what you argue that it IS sensitive towards; such as the solar irradiance, volcanoes, etc.. While the Earth is not as sensitive as sometimes brought up to be, everything is as obsolete in changing the Earth's temperature as you claim CO2 is. This figure basically says that the Earth is more sensitive to CO2 than it is to solar instances. I know it's ridiculously hard to read, and to be honest, I have been staring at it for about 15 minutes, and still barely understand it, but that is what it says [4]. It is also hard to argue climate sensitivity at the level you seem to be inferring towards, when you look at past instances. On average, the temperature changes 6 degrees C through each interglacial period, which is tough to explain when arguing that the climate is insensitive. [4]2. Causes of EmissionsI would concur. 3. Effects of Added Emmisons Perhaps running out of water was a bad choice of words. I would have more aptly said "experiencing water shortages", as "running out of water" implies that water is leaving our Earth, which of course, is impossible except for the water taken to space by astronauts, which is negliible, and rock colliding into other rock, which happens at an obscenely low level. I therefore won't attempt to refute your refution, because it's entirely valid. I will defend my re-iteration of my statement quite briefly. Droughts have riddled our country [5] and many others, especially hurting vegetation prices in the U.S.A.. [6] Many crops are dying all around the globe, as stated, and we are experiencing a global crisis of getting people in 3rd world legitimate water. [7]I would rather we not get into an argument about GMOs. This is not the topic of the debate, and frankly, one side thinks the other is paranoid, while on the other side thinks the first side is apathetic towards overwhelming evidence. While quite simply, CO2 = more crops, on a more intense level, it only would do so for a backyard garden or irrigated crops. The warming from CO2 is causing droughts, thereby causing, admittedly slightly lower crop productions for non-GMOs. As I said, crop production is NOT falling, however, the only reason it hasn't gone down about 5% is because of GMOs, which have taken it up around 30%. [8] Severe drought won't help a plant, it will kill it, though I will admit that GMOs and more CO2 will decrease water need (though not to the point where a literal lack of water would not harm it at all).[1] http://www.ipcc.ch...; [2] http://monthlyreview.org...[3] https://www.commondreams.org...[4] http://www.skepticalscience.com...[5] http://www.livescience.com...[6] http://www.drought.gov...[7] http://www.gemi.org...; [8] http://www.agbioworld.org...