Humans are the main cause of global warming

CO2 CorrelationFirst, what my opponent seems to fail to take into account, is that the Earth is in the middle of a 30-year cooling trend. "Because PDO cycles last 25 to 30 years, Easterbrook expects the cooling trend to continue for another 2 decades or so. Easterbrook, in fact, documents 40 such alternating periods of warming and cooling over the past 500 years, with similar data going back 15,000 years. He further expects the flipping of the ADO to add to the current downward trend. "[1]Then why was 2010 the hottest year ever? "The "hottest year" claims confirm the case for political science overtaking climate science. The “hottest year” claim depends on minute fractions of a degree difference between years. Even NASA's James Hansen, the leading proponent of man-made global warming in the U. S. , conceded the "hottest year" rankings are essentially meaningless. Hansen explained that 2010 differed from 2005 by less than 2 hundredths of a degree F (that's 0.018F). "[2]"There has now been no net warming since 1997 -15 years with CO2 rising with no global temperature increase. Since 2003, the trend is negative. "[3]And a graph: [4]Second, my opponent provides this way out of whack graph, even though I have posted many graphs accurately showing the correlation between solar activity and temperature. I'm not to be mean and provide a new argument, so I will simply leave the audience with something to consider: Remember the laws of thermodynamics. Even if the sun's activity has leveled off, there will still be increases in temperature for a short while because the sun is still producing more energy. Sun For my opponent's first point, I would like to thank him for conceding that the sun's activity is decreasing also, further supporting the conclusion that the Earth is cooling, which I mentioned above. Also, this further disproves the idea of CO2 causing global warming becuase CO2 concentrations are continuing to go up exponentially. (Also, I realize this might be in contradiction with my earlier point, but I encourage readers to look at overall levels, and the fact that the MWP was longer than this time's warming). As for my opponent's second point, he hasn't proven anything wrong because your graph doesn't show correlation at all. In addition, he drops ALL the other stellar data I provided in the last round. Cosmic Rays My opponent has provided no rebuttal to my cosmic ray point; all he has done is make another claim about CO2's causation of the current warming. I will simply provide a short rebuttal and a graph. [5]There is clearly not that much correlation, especially today when temperatures are decreasing. Now on to a research paper on the topic:The highlights of the paper are: ► 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. ► CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions. [6]Once more, my opponent has failed to respond to my arguments on cosmic rays. PDO/AMO My opponent is claiming that I have not provided a "10 year correlation record of PDO/AMO", although I'm sure I have in the numerous graphs and quotes I've made on this topic. I'll provide another graph: [7]As we can see, there is extremely large correlation, and that the sun spot number and climate is extremely correlated. And when broken into the last century, has a stronger correlation then CO2. PDO is also considered a large factor in the current warming, and its statistical correlation is extremely high and should never be considered unworthy as a component in warming [8]. The facts where presented, the current correlation since 1880 was not strong enough to mean CO2 was a large factor, as it was under a .5 R correlation. The PDO (a natural forcing) had higher correlations by factors of two. Position in Galaxy I would like to thank my opponent for presenting the whole quote, but it does not help his case one bit. My opponent can obviously not see that this was a point agreed upon by the creators of that article. Notice that "militants" say, not ISIL. What ISIL says is: "To put it another way, the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is the result of changes in solar activity, not the cause of it. Climate change is natural, continuous, and caused by changes in solar emissions. "[9]Obviously, my opponent misread my quote. Now I will post the very last thing on cosmic rays: The following table sets out a comparison of the predictions of two climate theories - the CO2 warming theory and the Sun/Cosmic Ray theory - and actual real world data. Issue Prediction - CO2 Theory Prediction - Sun/Cosmic Ray Theory Actual Data Which Theory Wins Antarctic and Arctic Temperatures Temperatures in the Arctic and Antarctic will rise symmetrically Temperatures will initially move in opposite directions Temperatures move in opposite directions Sun/Cosmic Ray Troposphere Temperature Fastest warming will be in the troposphere over the tropics The troposphere warming will be uniform The surface warming is similar or greater than troposphere warming Sun/Cosmic Ray Timing of CO2 and Temperature Changes at End of Ice Age CO2 increases then temperature increases Temperature increases then CO2 increases CO2 concentrations increase about 800 years after temperature increases Sun/Cosmic Ray Temperature correlate with the driver over last 400 year na na Cosmic ray flux and Sun activity correlates with temperature, CO2 does not Sun/Cosmic Ray Temperatures during Ordovician period Very hot due to CO2 levels > 10X present Very cold due to high cosmic ray flux Very cold ice age Sun/Cosmic Ray Other Planets' Climate No change Other planets will warm Warming has been detected on several other planets Sun/Cosmic Ray [10]Medieval Warm Period [10]This comes from ocean sediment studies. In other words, very reliable. I also provided ice core and tree ring data which are also very reliable. These are certainly worthy statistics and my opponent has dropped them. The Sun I already countered all of this earlier. Also, "Temperatures have been increasing since 1980 faster than can be explained by the sunspot cycle length, indicating a possible human CO2 contribution. The recent increase of the cycle lengths explains why there has been no warming since 2002. Temperature changes are expected to follow Sun activity changes due to a time lag resulting from the large heat capacity of the oceans. "[10]Conclusion "Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity? It is about 0.28%. [11] Thanks again to my opponent for the debate. Sources:[1]: . http://www.forbes.com...[2]: . http://www.climatedepot.com...[3]: . http://wattsupwiththat.com...[4]: . http://www.drroyspencer.com...[5]: . http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...[6]: . http://www.sciencedirect.com...[7]: . http://www.climate-skeptic.com...[8]: S. Fred Singer et al. , “Climate Change Reconsidered. 2011 interim report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change” The Heartland Institute, (2011)[9]: The ISIL Source[10]: . http://members.shaw.ca...; [11]: . http://geocraft.com...