Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming

I forgot to add this as a rule, but if you agree, I think Round 5 should be going over voting issues only. If you don't agree, then it can be a regular round. First, I will defend my own case and then I will move on to my opponent's case. Your 9th source twists the data that I have presented and does not present an accurate depiction of the facts. While it is true there was a drop in temperatures in post-war Europe and America, there were significant increases in temperature that more than made up for this after that period. In addition, the recent expansions in industrialization of Asia, America, and Europe are reflected with the increase in surface temperatures in these areas [1]. The models from the IPCC also show that this drop in temperature is not necessarily an anomaly because it is still. within the range of what is predicted by climate models that use anthropogenic as well as natural forces The cooling you describe after the war did not take place on a world-wide scale, in fact temperatures have been rising steadily in the past 30 or so years according to the graphs I have already presented. I cannot emphasize enough, however, the importance of these being SURFACE temperatures rather than troposheric temperatures. I'll get to that later. You also seem to be arguing that the Greenhouse Effect does not exist, which is kind of, well, rediculous. The fact is, the first time in 650,000 of Earth's history, the PPM for CO2 rose above 300 [2]. This is a very UNnatural phenomenon and can only be explained by humans' increased industrialization. What the evidence you have shown suggests is that the CO2 rise and temperature rises were TOTALLY unrelated. As you have failed to prove why the cooling temperatures caused CO2 reduction, I think we can disregard that piece of evidence entirely. Furthermore, "Decreasing CO2 was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago, the planet being nearly ice-free until CO2 fell to 450±100 ppm; barring prompt policy changes, that critical level will be passed, in the opposite direction, within decades...Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm, but likely less that." [3]. This is from NASA, and I fail to see why we should trust your sources (which may or may not be financed either in secret or publically by the Koch brothers or others in the gas industry) over an organization belonging to a government whose congress has 49 climate-change deniers [4]. Considering the oil and gas industry spend millions every year in lobbying congress (more so than environmental groups) [5], it would make more sense to say that it is those who were lobbyed by the gas industry are fixing data. Not the other way around. I will now refute my opponent's case. I'm going to refute his main points based on what his theory is to make it a little less confusing Cosmic rays Sorry for causing confusion, but what I meant was that you have not been able to successfully prove that there has been corrolation between the amount of cosmic rays hitting the earth and SURFACE temperature increase. In fact, your graph from source 1 of sun spot frequency shows absolutely no corrolation with surface temperatures when we look at just the last 100 years, implying that there are other forces involved besides solar activity OR that solar activity holds a neglegable sway over surface temperatures here on earth. I will leave the glaxy-placement argument alone b/c it ties in directly with what I am saying here. I.E. you have proven that solar activity/cosmic rays could POTENTIALLY cause climate change, but you have failed to use them to consistently describe the climate change we saw over the last century, in fact matching your graph from source 1 last round with my graph from source 1 this round proves that solar activity has little to no significant effect on the temperature (since your graph is unlabeled, I have to assume the black line is average number of sun spots b/c it does not match at all the temperature increase according to the IPCC)[1].In addition, recent studies done on the "Maunder Minimum" indicate that the bimming of the sun was only fractions of a percent and probably did not cause the "Little Ice Age" [6]. " 'The situation is pretty ambiguous,' said David Rind, a senior climate researcher at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who has modeled the Maunder Minimum." The article goes further, saying "Based on current estimates, even if another Maunder Minimum were to occur, it might result in an average temperature decrease of about 2 degrees Fahrenheit, Rind said. This would still not be enough to counteract warming of between 2 to 12 degrees Fahrenheit from greenhouse gases by 2100, as predicted by the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report." Global Warming on celestial bodies If we were to accept global warming on other planets as the main cause for global warming, it would make sense that we would see either roughly equivalent global warming on planetary bodies or, the farther from the sun we go out, the more warming we would see. However, using your evidence of warming on Pluto totally destroys that possibility because the warming there is much greater that the warming here on Earth. If it's the thickening of the atmosphere that's to blame in Pluto's case, then that means humans ARE to blame for the warming on Earth b/c we ARE thickening the atmosphere with the CO2 we are pouring into the atmosphere. Moreover "The radiation output of the Sun does fluctuate over the course of its 11-year solar cycle. But the change is only about one-tenth of 1 percent [of the sun's total output]—not substantial enough to affect Earth’s climate in dramatic ways, and certainly not enough to be the sole culprit of our planet’s current warming trend, scientists say" [6]. All this points to the fact that the sun is NOT the main cause of current climate change which has seen recording breaking temperatures, CO2 levels, and rising sea levels.Medieval Warm Period I'm sorry, but your books got their facts wrong. According to multiple climate models which recorded global temperatures over the past 1200 years, temperature fluctuations were less significant than those of today's [7]. NOAA goes on to say "In summary, it appears that the late 20th and early 21st centuries are likely the warmest period the Earth has seen in at least 1200 years" [7]. Why should we trust your book (who's author may or may not have been financed by members of the oil and gas industry) over an agency that works with an international organization, both of which have more resources and more data with which to study climate change and who's funding is more transparant? In addition, your sources still only prove that in these specific locations there was warming- not on a global scale. Holocene Climate MaximumThe Holocene period WAS warmer than today. However, only in the summer and northern hemisphere. It WAS due to astronomical forces causing heating. However studies have shown that this cannot be the cause of today's warming due to changes in the earth's orbit and rotation [8].Oceanic trends In the last round I have refuted this with data from source 1 indicating that using natural forces alone is not sufficient in explaining the global warming we have seen recently, which remains unrefuted. I therefore win this argument. 1) http://www.ipcc.ch... 2) http://climate.nasa.gov... 3) http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov... 4) http://www.businessweek.com... 5) http://www.opensecrets.org...6) http://www.livescience.com...7) http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov...8) http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov...