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

My opponent agreed that the rule violation is a misunderstanding (see comments section). Whether you want to leave it alone or make it a conduct loss is up to the voters. Now let's get to the debate. I also appologize if I do not get to everything ahead of time as I will likely run out of characters. Contention 1: CO2 and Temperatures. Firstly let bring up just how much these accused compounds exactly warm the Earth's atmosphere. CO2 for example has the global warming potential of 1. Here are the other numbers. Carbon Dioxide -- 1Methane -- 21Nitrous Oxide -- 298-310CFC's -- VariousWater Vapor -- 0.25 [1] Now I just want you to keep this in mind for this next part here. We may observe that humans release approximately 35 gigatons of CO2 a year. [2] This is only 4.3% of the total amount of all Global Warming Gasses, however it is incrediably small when it comes to comparing the rest of the Global Warming gasses. If we observe the chart bellow we can see that Water Vapor is a large Contributor to Global Warming at 95% and CO2 comes in second. But here's the kicker. If we look at the Human contributed part that I'm about to post in the graph bellow we can see that it's very miniscule of 0.117% of all total Warming gasses. Now let's do some quick math here. CO2's increase was from what my opponent is claiming is from 295 ppm to 400ppm, a total of only 105 ppm. 1 Gigaton of CO2 is the equilivent of 2.13 ppm. [3] This means that increase of 105 ppm means a total of 49.29 gigatons. Since 1 gigaton of CO2 is the equivilance of .004% of the Greenhouse effect that means that 49.29 gigatons means an aditional .21% increase to Global Warming. This would account for a grand total of a 0.15 F increase in global temperature. This is a very measly amount and we can see that with my opponent's claims a simple 0.15 F increase isn't enough to melt glacers and have the effeccts that he is speaking of and it proves that this is NAUTRAL not man-made to fulfil his effects if they were real. Now remind yourself that Pro said in Round 2 that CO2 is responsable for LARGE amount of Global Warming. As we can plainly see here that this is incorrect. My opponent goes and attempts to manipulate data by showing back as far as 1955, but when we push things back to the year 1900 we can see that temperature levels are actually decreasing on a linear slope. Let us observe the above graph. Here I would like to point out the that the increase from Pre-Inustrial to Industrial era and the doubling of the CO2 leveling lead to a decrease in it's temperature. Also we can see that the 10 mile "hot-spot" above the tropics is actually absent. "The computer models show that greenhouse warming will cause a hot-spot at an altitude between 8 and 12 km over the tropics between 30 N and 30 S. The temperature at this hot-spot is projected to increase at a rate of two to three times faster than at the surface. However, the Hadley Centre's real-world plot of radiosonde temperature observations shown below does not show the projected CO2 induced global warming hot-spot at all. The predicted hot-spot is entirely absent from the observational record. This shows that atmosphere warming theory programmed into climate models are wrong." [4] Contention 2: Earth is cooling Here we can see the plotted Global Warming Hot Spot that was suppose to be there according to the IPPC, however we'll see that they're wrong. Why, it appears that this hotspot doesn't even exist! [7] You're probably asking yourself, why am I seeing this graph again? This is because the more CO2 we get the less warming there is. If we observe this graph we can see that the Warming has decreased with more CO2 that we've recieved. This shows that CO2 doesn't have that much of an impact on the tempterature like the math that I've proved it in my last contention. [5] Now I will agree that Eastbrook isn't good with predicting temperature change, but the IPCC is even worse, but whatever is causing the change it is highly unlikely that it's man made. Contention 3: Artic and Sea Levels THough my opponent likes to blow things out of perportion we can see that these sea levels rise and fall on their own. It's a natural cycle as I showed last round. The trend shows only a mere +/- 0.30 mm per year. "The Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory estimates the rate of sea level rise at 1.42 plus or minus 0.14 mm/year for the period 1954 to 2003. This is less than the estimate of 1.91 plus or minus 0.14 mm/year for the period 1902 to 1953, indicating a slowing of the rate." [6] We can see that 2.8 inches per 50 years isn't that much of an appocolyptic threat. Here is a graph from NOAA which shows that the sea level rise is very small and that the IPCC is way off as well as many other Warming "experts". [8] In the above graph we can see that despit Artic Ice slightly decreasing we can see that it follows the same patern throughout the year as the Ice melts in the summer and freezes in the winter. We can see that my opponents' sea ice level predictions are incorrect. [9] Which if sea ice is decreasing then explain the great sea ice exspansion of Antartica in 2012 shown bellow. It had a total of 20,000 miles more ice than average. Contention 4: Weather The NOAA has shown that Tornados are less frequent and occur less and less. Now the irony behind this is that it comes out at the same time as my opponent's sources which claims the exact opposite. [10] Also I do wish that my opponet reposts link number 7 as it is broken and I cannot access it, so for now I continue to extend across my NOAA Hurricane graphs from last round. Contention 5: Ocean Acidfication Here I Would like to report that we do not emmitt Cobalt2. (I know you meant CO2) If we do some basic Chemistry we can see that 1-6 on the pH scale is acid 7 is neutral and 8-14 is base. The Ocean on average is 8.2 which is a base. Now let's add in the factor of the average coral reef needs CO2 and the average reef can varry from 9.2 to 7.6 throughout the day and night showing that there is no accidfication. This CO2 added envirnment has been seen to increase coral growth by 2 cm per year. We can also see that these areas very by 0.3 pH pending on the area. [11][12] 1. (http://cdiac.ornl.gov...) 2. (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov...) 3. (http://www.geocraft.com...) 4. (http://www.friendsofscience.org...) 5. (http://joannenova.com.au...) 6. (http://www.lavoisier.com.au...) 7. (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org...) 8. (http://www.c3headlines.com...) 9. (http://www.almanac.com...) 10. (http://wattsupwiththat.com...) 11. (http://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com...) 12. (http://beforeitsnews.com...)