Resolved: Man-made Global Warming, on Planet Earth, Exists.

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...)