Global Warming is not significantly affected by human activity

My opponent points out that my response was significantly shorter in an attempt to make it seem weaker. Length of the response has nothing to do with the quality of it. It's not about the amount of words in your argument, it's about the amount of argument in your words. The main reason why my opponent had such a large argument is because he decided to explain the entire process of global warming, which was completely unnecessary. In my opponent's second paragraph, he addresses the fact that we "should've" had an ice age, but we didn't. In this way, my opponent's attempts to debunk my claims. I do not see the point of the paragraph. It is evident from the graph that I provided that cool-downs and peaks do not occur on a perfect 100,000 year schedule, and there are variations, plus or minus 10,000-15,000 years. My opponent also says that "we are heading towards another Ice Age in the opponent's view". My argument never centered around Ice Ages. Yes, I believe we are heading towards an Ice Age that will only occur in several more millenniums, but that is not my argument. My argument is that global warming is a naturally occurring process which humans have little to no control over. My opponent must have the graph wrong, because the last ice age occurred less that 50,000 years ago. If so, how in the world was there supposed to be an ice age in the 1950s? Next, my opponent addresses the CO2 concentrations and shows a little cloud diagram. Although humans pump tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, global temperatures are not changing proportionally. According to my opponent's diagram, volcanic CO2 emissions reach up to 319 million tonnes per year, while human-burned fossil fuels produce 29 billion tonnes a year. That means that humans put out at least 90 times more CO2 into the air than nature does. If we are the cause of global warming, then logically, global temperatures would increase by an enormous factor. But do they? The graph that I provided clearly shows that there has not been any earth-shattering increase in temperature as there should have been when humans are increasing the amount of CO2 from its natural levels by a factor of 90. The rest of my opponent's argument is also different facts about how much CO2 humans are putting into the atmosphere. I will note that my opponent pays no attention to temperature itself, but only focuses on the changes in CO2 amounts. We are not arguing about CO2, we are arguing global warming, which is the change in temperature, not CO2 concentration. As I proved in the above paragraph, global temperature is not changing proportionally to the amount of CO2 increase, meaning that although there may be a correlation, it is not strong enough to base your entire argument on it. It so happens that CO2 is not the number 1 greenhouse gas. Water vapor is. Water vapor accounts for up to 70% of the greenhouse effect. Water vapor is everywhere and when its amount increases, so does the global temperature. While CO2 also plays a role, it is minuscule compared to water vapor and humans have no effect on the amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere. . http://www.popsci.com... This debunks my opponent's entire argument. Something else that I would like to note is that most/all the graphs my opponent uses are using information about the last 100-200 years. Of course, on those graphs the temperature is actively increasing with CO2 because of how "zoomed in" they are. If you look on a broader scale (the graph that I provided), it is obvious that CO2 levels cycle just like global temperature, and my opponent simply zoomed in on the peak, so it seems like it is forever increasing. I will now recap my points and show that humans have little to no impact on global warming. 1. Even though CO2 concentrations have increased by a factor of 90, the temperature has not increased anywhere near that amount, suggesting that there is not such a strong relationship between CO2 and global temperatures. While CO2 does make a difference, the correlation and effect is not strong enough to make any conclusions and base entire arguments on it. 2. The cycle of global warming followed by ice age, followed by another global warming has been going on for hundreds of thousands of years, and we currently reaching the peak of temperature. Humans have little to no impact on this naturally occurring process. 3. CO2 is not the "biggest" greenhouse gas, water vapor is. Meaning that with an already weak correlation between CO2 and temperature, CO2's impact was just proven even smaller because it is not the only nor most effective greenhouse gas. Water vapor accounts for up to 70% of the greenhouse effect, meaning CO2 accounts for less than 30% of it (because there are many other greenhouse gases such as methane). As a result of these three main points, I believe it is reasonable to conclude that humans have no significant impact on global temperatures. Thank you for the good argument.