Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming

I. Greenhouse GasesBefore I begin, here is a chart showing which greenhouse gases absorb which wavelengths of light: [1]I. A. MethaneFrom the chart, it can be seen that methane has an absorption band (at 8 micrometres) that largely overlaps with water vapor, so an increase in methane has little effect on temperature. [1]Also, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill put out a lot of methane, but: "methane respiration rates increased to levels higher than have ever been recorded, ultimately consuming it and prohibiting its release to the atmosphere. What the Deepwater Horizon incident has taught us is that releases of methane with similar characteristics will not have the capacity to influence climate. "[2][3]I. B. Nitrous OxideIn addition to methane, the wavelengths of light that nitrous oxide absorb largely overlap with that of water vapor, so an increase in nitrous oxide also has little effect on temperature. [1]Also, a new by Lucky Savings" href="#">study found that cattle grazed on the grasslands of China actually reduce another greenhouse gas, nitrous oxide, meaning that agriculture reduces this greenhouse gas. [4][5]I. C. Carbon DioxideThere are many proofs that this amount of carbon dioxide will not affect temperatures, but I will post four. But first, again, the wavelengths of light carbon dioxide absorbs also largely matches up with water vapor, meaning it also has little effect on temperature. First, by the greenhouse effect, global warming should be starting from the lower atmosphere and moving to the surface, but this is not happening: ". .. by Lucky Savings" href="#">satellite and high-altitude balloon data confirm that the lower atmosphere is not trapping lots of additional heat due to higher CO2 concentrations. It is hard to know how fast the Earth's highly variable surface is warming, but it is warming faster than the lower atmosphere where the CO2 is accumulating. This is strong evidence that CO2 is not the primary climate factor. "[6]Here is a graph showing how the surface has warmed more than the troposphere: [1] (Blue line is troposphere temperatures)Second, CO2 is a lagging indicator. The most recent study on this concluded that the results of their tedious but meticulous analysis led them to ultimately conclude that "the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 +/- 200 years. "[7][8]Here is a graph showing this: [9]Third, CO2's effect on temperature is logarithmic, meaning that each additional increase has a smaller effect on the climate than the last. "The carbon that is already up in the atmosphere absorbs most of the light it can. CO2 only soaks up its favorite wavelengths of light and it's close to its saturation point. It manages to grab a bit more light from wavelengths that are close to its favorite bands but it can't do much more, because there are not many left-over photons at the right wavelengths. "[1][9]Here is a graph showing the logarithmic curve: [10]. Note how the pre-industrial to modern level increase has had less than a 0.2 C increase in temperature. Fourth, and most importantly, if greenhouse gases are warming the earth we are supposed to see the first signs of it in the patch of hot air 10 kilometers above the tropics. However, we don't see that. Here is the predicted "hot spot" of greenhouse gas caused warming: [11]While here is the actual atmospheric temperature variation: [9][11]Even so, CO2 has not correlated well with the climate anyway. Throughout the past 600 million years, almost one-seventh of the age of the Earth, the mode of global surface temperatures was ~22C, even when carbon dioxide concentration peaked at 7000 ppmv, almost 20 times today's near-record-low concentration. [12]Here is a chart showing CO2 concentrations and temperatures over time: [12]Overall, CO2 has a correlation coefficient of 0.44, which is considered poor. [13]II. The Hockey Stick The hockey stick is wildly inaccurate: "The dataset used to make this construction contained collation errors, unjustified truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, incorrect principal component calculations, geographical mislocations and other serious defects. These errors and defects substantially affect the temperature index. The major finding is that the values in the early 15th century exceed any values in the 20th century. The particular hockey stick shape derived in the MBH98 proxy construction a temperature index that decreases slightly between the early 15th century and early 20th century and then increases dramatically up to 1980 is primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal component. [1][14]Temperatures have been warmer than today as recently as 1300 ACE. "During the Medieval Warming. .. . Temperatures may have been as much as 2.5 degrees C warmer [than today] due to a southward shift of the climate belts. "[6]Here is a graph showing temperatures in Greenland over the last 10,000 years: [15]And on other side of the world in Antarctica: [15]Both clearly show that today's temperatures are relatively cool compared to earlier times. Why is the Medieval Warm Period not represented? "A senior IPCC researcher said in an email 'We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period. ' Christopher Monckton says "They did this by giving one technique, measurement of tree-rings from bristlecone pines, 390 times more weighting than other techniques but didn't disclose this. "[1]The hockey stick has little credibility. III. Arctic Sea IceI'm not going to get so much into this since I already disproved that CO2 causes warming, but I will say two things. One, here is a graph showing geomagnetic field strength (a measure of solar activity) and CO2 versus temperature (a measure of sea ice loss): [16]It is clear that solar activity is a lot more important than CO2 is in arctic ice loss. Two, my opponent neglects the Antarctic. If the greenhouse thoery were valid, temperatures in the Arctic and the Antarctic would have risen several degrees Celsius since 1940 due to the huge emissions of man-made CO2. .. Recently, a team led by the University of Chicago's Peter Doran published a paper in Nature saying, '. .. our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000'. The data from 21 Antarctic surface stations show an average continental decline of 0.008 degrees C from 1978 to 1998, and the infrared data from satellites operating since 1979 show a decline of 0.42 degrees C per decade. They report that satellite imaging shows increases in Souther Ocean sea ice parameters from 1978 to 1996 and an increase in the length of the sea-ice season in the 1990s"[6]Here is the Antarctic Sea Ice anomaly: [17]It's increasing, which is a sign of cooling. Sources. http://tny.cz...;