Global warming (full resolution in debate)

I. Greenhouse gasYou cant concede a observation, it is not an argument they are generally fact. We agree on what it is, but what it does. II. The greenhouse effect Before I refute the graph, I would like to note the graph STILL PROVES MY POINT. It may look convincing, as we see a scary increase. But this is actually false. I wish everyone to read the graph. It shows, as I argued, 380 ppm. Yes, as I argued. Hence even with the scary graph, my opponents argument still fails as I refer to last rounds 1.6/100,000 analogy. My opponents graph fails to prove his point. My opponent then produces a quote, which again seems scary. Lets look at the facts. First, one has to prove a significant correlation with temperature and CO2, which never has happened. The correlation is weak, and the correlation is very short (last century). Further, correlation does not equal causation, something my opponent has brushed over many times. Also, the last few hundred years are the only correlation they can gather up, and there is none. My opponents quote only works if they find a correlation for thousands of years, but there is NONE. Further, my opponent forgets CO2 may cause COOLING. Yes, cooling. This says it better then I can: "Carbon dioxide is a powerful aerial fertilizer, directly enhancing the growth of almost all terrestrial plants and many aquatic plants as its atmospheric concentration rises. And just as increased algal productivity at sea increases the emission of sulfur gases to the atmosphere, ultimately leading to more and brighter clouds over the world's oceans, so too do CO2-induced increases in terrestrial plant productivity lead to enhanced emissions of various sulfur gases over land, where they likewise ultimately cool the planet. In addition, many non-sulfur-based biogenic materials of the terrestrial environment play major roles as water- and ice-nucleating aerosols; and the airborne presence of these materials should also be enhanced by rising levels of atmospheric CO2. Hence, it is possible that incorporation of this multifaceted CO2-induced cooling effect into the suite of equations that comprise the current generation of global climate models might actually tip the climatic scales in favor of global cooling in the face of continued growth of anthropogenic CO2 emissions."[1]My opponent then cites a graph again to show humans make most of the CO2, well I will cite another graph: Natural made CO2 - 3.502% Man made - 0.117% (based on concentrations, the graph is not based on concentrations)[2] My opponents soruce for this is nasa, not to be rude but nasa? Way to find a bias source. They source the IPCC, political funded motivated etc. And again, many non bias eer reviewed studies actually prove (as well as canadian government estimates) the same data I am finding. [2] III. "Proof"Pretty much drops my line of argunmentation. Further, he has still filed to find correlation, cause he cant. As I have nothing to refute here, here are graphs:Short term - No correlation. CO2 rises, tempertures begin to fall?Long term: http://www.geocraft.com... (note this graph shows millions of years, and there has been only a rise in CO2 recently, but still a downward trend, temperturs doing their ups and downs)No correlation, either. My oppoent fails on all accounts. Cycles:Mentioned above? Look at the fact I have been spewing. http://www.isil.org...**Note older cycles are warmer then today without CO2 from human causes**GH theoryMy opponent quotes, as will I:"Over 95% of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. But because water droplets held in suspension (clouds) make almost as good a reflector as they do a thermal insulator, there is little rise in daytime temperatures due to the greenhouse effect. "[3] source 2Why is it like this? water vapor = most abundant and most powerful. Note, water vapor is 99.999% natural. [2] source 2CONCLUSION:My responses seem short, but I think m graphs do the talking, a picture is worth 1000 words. Before anyoen votes on this debate, I recomend the re look II on pros "proof" this round. Problems with my opponents case:a) he finds no current or long term correlation of CO2 and temperture [I did both]b) forgets water vapor is the most powerful and abundant greenhouse gas, and is 99.999% naturalc) forgets the influenc of the PDO ocean cycles in temperture. My opponent dropped these argunments:Mars is heating as well, leading to suspect sun causes gloabl warming. Crucial in the debate. We are in a part of the galaxy where we will get more heating (less populated area = more heat, natural cause)PDO and other ocean currents causing global warmingMy opponent has failed to fufill his BOP in this debate. [1] http://www.co2science.org...[2] http://geocraft.com... [3] http://www.geocraft.com... (question 3)