Mankind Is Not the Main Cause of Global Warming

Thanks again to Subutai for allowing me to take on this challenge! I've enjoyed the debate we've had throroughly.For this round, I will go through my opponents rebuttalls, and defend my case against them, and then make my closing statements.A) CO2 Lag in temperature changesSo the first problem we should address with this rebuttal is that it implies that I am trying to prove that GHGs are the driving force behind all forms of climate change. This is not the case. Climate shift, historically, has been/can be driven by several factors, usually multiple acting at once. What I can and have proven, though, is that CO2 and other GHGs have been a factor in the majority of climate shifts, historically, and that modern global warming can be explained only by the increase of atmospheric CO2 due to anthropogenic influences.So, let's examine my opponents source number 2 for round 3. He attempts to demonstrate that CO2 increases have lagged warming, and therefore CO2 cannot be the cause of modern warming. This is not so. In fact, the very source he cited (source 2 round 3 [1]) states that though the warming may have been initiated by another factor in climate shift, the sudden increase of CO2 from positive feedback amplified the warming effect massively.This is corroborated by cross-reference with my arguments regarding the phanerzoic era, and positive feedback loops in CO2 release. "When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to release CO2. TheCO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2rise. Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the CO2 increase." [2] "If you actually read the papers, which claim there to be a lag, they almost all note how CO2 acts as an amplifier and how the results do not contradict AGW. There is new research (Shakun et al.), which argued that CO2 preceded the end of the last ice age, and may have (in part) led to the warm interglacial in which we live today. The following graph from the study demonstrates how CO2 may have been an important factor in the most recent deglaciation:" [3] The truth is that sometimes small amounts of warming are intitiated, and then CO2 release into the atmosphere causes massive warming. This can be misconstrued to say that other forms of climate forcing could be present, but analysis of paleoclimate data, and the factors that are forcing the climate currently, it can be seen that Anthropogenic CO2 release can be the only explanatory factor of modern global warming, despite CO2 lag. [4][5][6][7][8]B) Troposphere climate data.The rebuttal to this argument is simple. The data my opponent cites is, simply, incorrect. "Satellite measurements do show warming in the Tropsphere when a cooling bias from the Stratosphere is removed. Warming trends agree well with surface temperatures and model predictions except near the Poles. Differences between various analyses are largely due to analysis techniques and compensations for satellite data issues." [9]The data displayed, though not cited, by my opponent is based largely on Spencer and Christy 1992, which used collection methods that have since been significantly improved upon, and the modern satallite data collected shows us that the earth as a whole is indeed warming. [10] C) South Pole is cooling.Again, this is a false leap my opponent is begging you to make. He claims that ice is increasing in the south pole, and then states that it is therefore cooling. Cooling is not indicitive of increased ice formation. That is simply not true. The southern ocean has recorded to be warming. [11] The increase in ice anomaly is due only to a complex mixture of changing currents (brought on by global warming) and the hole in the ozone layer. [12][13]D) CO2 is saturatedThis argument is fairly weak, as the myth that CO2 saturation can occur has been debunked. The opposite has been conclusively proven with empiric evidence. The idea that CO2 saturation can occur is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the way that the greenhouse effect occurs. "This argument originates from Angstrom's work in 1901. We now know that the planetary energy balance is determined by the upper levels of the troposphere and that the saturation of the absorption at the central frequency does not preclude the possibility to absorb more energy." [14]The argument that my opponent is making is ancient (over 100 years old) and has since been debunked, as the modern atmospheric warming model now accounts for the simple force of convection. Essentially, this argues that the CO2 is in the atmosphere to absorb extra heat from the sun and heat the Earth. That is not how a greenhouse works, or how the greenhouse effect occurs. When a greenhouse is heated, the glass then keeps the hot air from escaping, which causes warming. The same goes for CO2. The earth is heated, and then releases this energy in the form of black body radiation. Increased CO2 concentrations prevents this radiation from escaping at the proper rate.E) Troposphere hot-spotThis counterpoint my opponent has made is going to follow the pattern that his counter-case has followed thus far. His case is based on data that has been collected incorrectly, and proven to have been collected incorrectly. Essentially, my opponent (through no fault of his own) is citing data and sources that are patently false, and lend no water to his case."Satellite measurements match model results apart from in the tropics. There isuncertainty with the tropic data due to how various teams correct for satellite drift. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program conclude the discrepancy is most likely due to data errors." [15] Improved data collection has shown that the data cited by my opponent was mired with error, and that improved data collection methods demonstrate a hotspot. [16][17][18]The "Consensus"My opponent, for whatever reason, decides to attack the recent media reports on the "scientific consensus" on AGW. I never cited a consensus, rather I only cited thousands of empiric studies with empiric evidence in support of AGW, and asked the voters to weigh these sources against the one single report published in conflict with AGW. A concensus is apparent though, but it I do not argue that the science is clear because there is a consensus. I argue that there is a concensus because the science is clear. By my opponents line of logic, we ought to deny scientific consensus due to the rare occasion where a consensus is totally false, but this is not proper logic. The truth is when a consensus is reached in the sceintific community (post scientific revolution/enlightenment era) that the consensus is right nearly 99.999% of the time! No we shouldn't accept something as the absolute and gospel truth just because there is a consensus, but in the face of overwhelming data and testimony from experts, versus sparse data from a splinter group of deniers, the only logical and reasonable belief to side with is that of the overwhelming evidence and expertise.Therefore, you must vote CON!Sources in comments