Anthropogenic Global Warming Is Real

Con has changed the format, so I'll be addressing his arguments in a different order and style. Also, thanks again for the reply, Con. == The Significance of CO2 == Con puts forth two main contentions in this argument: CO2 is not the main underlying cause behind recent warming trends, and the Hockey Stick graph is invalid, thus temperatures were warmer 1,000 years ago than they are now. Because studies can be traded back and forth all day long, I'm going to refer mainly to the scientific consensus, which is an argument that Con completely dropped. First of all, the Hockey Stick graph has been a subject of controversy, but all in all, the scientific consensus and subsequent build-up of data has only bolstered the figure. Shortly after Mann published the paper in 1998, it fell under harsh criticism, which then initiated a large-scale review. Using various statistical techniques and proxy records, twelve data reconstructions were created -- all of which provided results that broadly matched the Hockey Stick. And more recently, independent studies are continuing to support Mann's paper, which essentially proves that the last couple decades were the hottest in the last millennium. . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://green.blogs.nytimes.com... Secondly, Con rejects the notion that CO2 has been the determinant factor behind recent warming trends. He claims that doubling Earth's CO2 levels will only lead to a rise of 1.39C, which is supposedly supported by the NOAA. Well actually, the NOAA predicts that temperatures would rise up to 5C. And, the average estimate within the scientific community is 3C, which is to be expected when incorporating all of the feedbacks. Water vapor and ice depletion initiates amplified warming effects, while clouds tend to be neutral, so the rate of warming is likely to speed up as temperatures continue to rise, which means CO2 is very significant. Con's assertions are not backed up by consensus nor the NOAA. . http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov... . http://en.wikipedia.org... == Natural Causes of Global Warming == Solar cycles have indeed influenced past warming/cooling patterns, notably being the cause of the Little Ice Age during the 17th century. However, when viewing the data charts and scientific conclusions reached, these sunspot variations cannot be the cause of the rapid warming explosion that's currently being observed. Con claims that solar radiation is responsible for over 50% of temperature increases since 1800, but Climatologists at NASA contend that solar radiation has only slightly increased, which has accounted for around 25% of Global Warming since the Industrial Revolution. And because satellite data demonstrate that solar radiation has declined over the last few decades, NASA places most of the blame on human activities and CO2. 1750 - present: . http://en.wikipedia.org... NASA review: . http://www.nasa.gov... Solar decline: . http://www.skepticalscience.com... On another note, Con admits that solar activity is not behind all of this warming trend, which means that feedbacks would have to play a role. However, Con asserts that positive feedbacks are not prevalent enough to amplify warming, and that negative feedbacks keep Earth's climate in check. But if this is the case, then what constitutes the other 50% of Earth's climatic changes since 1800? Essentially, Con's position is untenable according to even his own evidence. The fact of the matter is that solar radiation isn't responsible for rising surface temperatures; the Industrial Revolution and CO2 is. == Consensus and Hockey Stick == Again, Con attempts to list a bunch of scientists and peer-reviewed papers in order to formulate a consensus that discredits the Hockey Stick graph, but as I already pointed out, 82% of all Earth scientists feel that Global Warming is mainly caused by human activities. Con dropped this argument, so he does not get to use a made-up consensus to dismiss the Hockey Stick graph. == Urban Heat Island Effect == Con not only violated the rule stating that sources of information cannot be attacked, but he referred back to the same argument without addressing NASA's solution to the issue, which is to adjust the data accordingly. Urban Heat Island effects are homogenized with other data retrieved from oceans and rural areas, but Con's source claims that isn't good enough. Well, urban and rural heat records trend in exactly the same manner as each other, which means the effects are practically non-existent. Basically, this is a non-issue that has been blown out of proportion, and it does not provide an alternative cause for Global Warming. . http://www.skepticalscience.com... == Greenhouse Fingerprint == Con is making the same mistake that Creationists do. There is much debate as to HOW Evolution and man-made Global Warming occur, but not much debate as to IF the two occur. And yes, it is odd that the climate models were mistaken, but that does not invalidate all of the science racked up over the years. Moreover, Con hasn't addressed why the Stratosphere is cooling while the Troposphere is warming, which is indicative of a Greenhouse Effect, so. .. == Water Vapor Feedback == Here, Con assumes that because water vapor is a integral regulator of Earth's climate, CO2 cannot have any substantial effects, which is incredibly erroneous. Water vapor levels are largely independent of human actions, which means that the current temperature anomalies must be *caused* by something else. It's been established that solar radiation and other natural phenomena are not responsible, so that leaves anthropogenic carbon emissions. The release of CO2 initiates the Greenhouse Effect, and water vapor feedbacks come into play AFTER temperatures rise. So, even if water vapor ended up being the driving force behind Global Warming, increases in CO2 were chiefly at fault for beginning that process, which is very significant. And for the record, water vapor acts as a *positive* feedback: . http://www.nasa.gov... == Carbon Sinks == Con is essentially describing the same effect, just with a different process. In the end, it doesn't matter, for if CO2 emissions force rises in temperature, then oceanic carbon solubility falls, thus the process accelerates itself. So, no matter the cause, the end result is the same -- a problematic scenario sparked by humanity. == Summary == Overall, natural events can only account for a small portion of recent temperature increases, which are currently the hottest on record in over a thousand years. These rises coincide with the Industrial Revolution, which is adequately described by the Greenhouse Effect that's driven by CO2 emissions -- attributable to human actions. Also, warming patterns are expected to accelerate due to positive feedback amplifiers, which will make future temperatures skyrocket to historic highs. All of this is tied to the *reality* of Anthropogenic Global Warming -- the resolution has been proven. == Conclusion == Con dropped numerous arguments, especially in his 3rd round. Most notably, Con failed to address the scientific consensus and the temperature correlation with fossil fuel usage. There are also sub-points that were glossed over, such as the way that NASA deals with the Urban Heat Island Effect, the steady solar cycle, etc. Con also tried to let his sources speak for him, but he must elaborate on the specific arguments he wants addressed when considering the sizable information within his sources.