Anthropogenic Global Warming Is Real

I hope it will be not just entertain, but also educate readers about facts they may not know. I thank Pro for giving the link to comment section, so in a good faith I will interpret his definitions in context of what was said there. I offered not to use Climategate leaks and similar arguments so I encourage voters to look there before blaming me of not using some types of relevant arguments in this debate. I can discuss corruption of GW alarmism in comments or next debate. *Clarification of rules* "attacking sources" - saying X is corrupt or funded by Y so his data are irrelevant I believe that bringing relevant evidence of specific source being obsolete, incomplete, interpreted in wrong way or scientifically not relevant does not violate the rule. *Foreword* Climate change and always changed. There is undeniable evidence that humans influence local microclima by means of urbanization (use of land, air conditioning, heating). The global warming being blamed on CO2 emissions which we are discussing is very different matter. I will show evidence that recent warming is caused mainly by natural phenomena and so called Global Warming Alarmism based on computer modeling of CO2 effects is falsified as a scientific hypothesis. *Con Arguments* CA1) Scientific opinions and so called scientific consensus concerning AGW There is clearly no general scientific consensus in favor of AGW as may be believed in non-academic public. Just in USA more than 30.000 scientists signed petition against it [1]. [2] cites at least 800 Peer-reviewed papers supporting skepticism to AGW. Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change made report [3] in 2009 which refutes most of IPCC claims. [4] and [5] show interesting ratios of scientific opinions and accelerating increase of sceptic voices in academia (even former believers in AGW). [6] express opinion of one those. On top of it, scientific consensus is no alternative for scientific method. Science is not democracy. CA2) Relevance of recent warming compared to the past Prof. Carter in his presentation [7a] from 2:42 min puts recent warming and cooling in historical context of climate change and shows statistical insignificance of recent warming. From 5:27 min he shows periodicity of natural temperature change (ice-ages, warm periods) and it is clear that recent warming fits into natural periods. Even the rate of change is examined in [7b] from 1:30 on. CA3) Sources of data, bias For sources of data see [3], chapter 3. Surface data used by IPCC is biased by "urban heat island effect" [6],[7d],[3] and many temperature sensors used clearly do not meet basic criteria at all [7d]. CA4) Sun, sun spots, fluctuations Sun is clearly major cause of climate fluctuations as can be seen in [1b],[3] chapter 5, [7c] from 7:35 min and [8]. [8] puts it in reasonably detailed while easy to understand way. CA5) Missing greenhouse signature See [3] section 3.4 Fingerprints, [6], [6b]. Model based predictions do not meet the experimental data. CA6) Ice cores data Temperature rise first, then rise CO2 levels [6]. It is clear what causes what. Rising temperature decreases solubility of CO2 in ocean [9]. Later fall in temperature shows no positive feedback. Sea cores show a more cooling lately. [7b] CA7) Computer models versus experimental data "Hockey stick graph" is not plausible, it is merely computer simulated data fitted to controversial graph of recent temperature measurements without Medieval Warming Period. See [3] subsection 3.2.1 (for quick inspection figures from 3.2.1 to 3.2.5 should not be missed, but closer inspection of subsection is advised ). *Con Refutation of Pro arguments* CR1) Greenhouse Effect CO2 has logarithmic progression of GH effect/concentration in atmosphere [7c] from 2:00 min. Experimental data show the GH effect of CO2 and even stronger GH gas as methane do not cause significant changes in global temperature. It may be because of much stronger negative feedback such as creation of clouds and others [1b],[3] sections 2.1, 2.6, [7c], [8]. CR2) Fossil fuels to be blamed As long as CO2 is not significant cause, this argument is not plausible. See CA5, CA6. CR3) Natural phenomena cannot be responsible This is directly refuted by CA2, CA4 at least. Natural phenomena are undeniably responsible for both fluctuation in global climate as well as for its stabilization by negative feedback. Natural changes of atmospheric concentration of so called GH gases are not only possible cause of climate temperature fluctuation! Graph Pro cite shows lot of natural temperature fluctuations thus refuting his own argument. CR4) Positive feedback [7c] from 3:00 on shows that predictions of alarmists rely on positive feedback. They mostly ignore important negative feedbacks like cloud formation that keeps temperature stable. See [3] page 17 citing Lindzen et al. : "the cloudy-moist region appears to act as an infrared adaptive iris that opens up and closes down the regions free of upper-level clouds, which more effectively permit infrared cooling, in such a manner as to resist changes in tropical surface temperature. "; "more than cancel all the positive feedbacks in the more sensitive current climate models". Se also [8] or [3] whole section 2.1 for more details. On top of that, if a positive feedback was prevalent, our ecosystem would not be stable and our climate would go crazy in past temperature fluctuations. *Conclusion* My opponent presented somewhat simplified view about climate science. He relies on notion that greenhouse gases are almost only phenomena to be blamed for climate change. Therefore he is unaware of complex natural causes behind fluctuation and stabilization of climate temperature and rely on so called scientific consensus to back his view. As I showed this is not the case. In my view Pro's sources are very incomplete and some of them obsolete in contrast to sources presented by me. *End note* I am sorry to be very spartan in my arguments heavily consisting of citation of sources. I tried to use my limited space to introduce opponent to my sources asap so he can allocate his space in following rounds in advance for detailed debate on specific issues. I did my best to limit number of sources I needed to illustrate science behind climate change phenomena. I spent lot of time in order to cite parts of it to make it more accessible without having to go through whole source and thus saving time of my opponent and other readers. *Sources* [1] Global Warming Petition Project: . http://petitionproject.org... [1b] Environmental effects. .. : . http://www.petitionproject.org... [2] 800 Peer-reviewed papers skeptical…: . http://www.populartechnology.net... [3] NIPCC report: . http://www.nipccreport.org... [4] More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent. .. : . http://epw.senate.gov... [5] Climate Momentum Shifting: . http://epw.senate.gov... [6] David Evans: No smoking hot spot: . http://www.theaustralian.com.au... [6b] Evidence CO2. .. : . http://www.youtube.com... [7] Prof. Robert Carter: Is CO2 the Cause? [7a] Part I: . http://www.youtube.com... [7b] Part II: . http://www.youtube.com... [7c] Part III: . http://www.youtube.com... [7d] Part IV: . http://www.youtube.com... [8] Prof. Patterson: Sunspots. .. : . http://www.youtube.com... [9] Oceans. .. : . http://icecap.us...