Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming

My opponent rebuttals summarized.1. Warming stopped in the 90s2. No correlation with CO2 and temperature 2a. CO2 lags temperature2b. Antarctic isn't warming2c. Climate in the 40s3. My main points 1. Warming stopped Con says James Hansen claimed the hottest year records are meaningless. We need the context here, just what Con posted it seems like Hansen was saying the differences between 2005 and 2010 were meaningless and small, not that it wasn't the warmest year. So it's a red herring and does nothing to rebut the actual record. Con commits 2 fallacies to prove his claim here, category error and a sweeping generalization. You can't make long term signal claims based on short term noise and this is exactly what Con is trying to do. A large impact on short term temperatures can happen, such as El Nino (Con posted a chart that points out El Nino, but Con doesn't seem to take this in account and still claims that global warming stopped. ) El Nino is an oceanic cycle that can suppress global warming for a while, but these cycles do nothing about long-term trends. [1]Foster and Rahmstorf used several tools to filter out short term noise to show the true long term trend [2] [3] You can see the complete removal process in the first video. http://www.youtube.com...I'm curious why Con posted the first chart, as it actually proves my point. Skeptical Science explains [4] Trend lines showing the sudden jump in temperatures in the 1995 La Niña (Green lines) and the 1998 (Pink lines) El Niño events. Brown line indicates overall increase in temperatures. The chart above clearly shows that temperatures have gone up. .. The overall trend from 1979 through November 2010 (Brown line) shows an unmistakable rise. Air temperatures are not the only or even the best way of determining the trends of warming. Most of the heat goes into our oceans [5]. So if Con's claim is correct, we should see a drop in the ocean’s heat records too. However the records show that the Earth is indeed warming, as if 1995 was nothing special. [6] [7]The claim is unsubstantiated and debunked.2. No correlationAs said above, there can be short term cooling over long term trends -such as La Nina- because CO2 isn’t the only forcing that exists. It's a well established fact in physics that Co2 does cause warming. To claim there can’t be a correlation is a contradiction to well established physical discoveries. [8]2a. CO2 lags temperatureCO2 doesn't always initiate warming, as I said in my opening statement a forcing can naturally change climate. Co2 did however amplify the warming in times past, in fact roughly 90% of the global warming happened right after the CO2 increase. The Antarctic ice core data does show changes in the CO2 does follow the changes in temperatures by about 800 years. However, we can't conclude that CO2 always lags temperature, as to do so would be another compositional fallacy. The changes in the temperature at that time are because of the changes of the Earth's orbit causing the Earth to obtain more seasonal sunlight. Why a lag? The lag is easily explained. As it’s just the Milankovitch effect. When ocean temperatures rise, the oceans will release more CO2, then this release will contribute the warming trend, causing more CO2 to be released . Thus CO2 can lag and lead [9]Shakun et al has shown that historically CO2 has mostly led temperatures“. .. Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation. .. These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2. .. [10]See the second video for more information. http://www.youtube.com...2b. Antarctic isn't warmingA paper produced by nature concluded "Central West Antarctica among the most rapidly warming regions on Earth" [11]. The Arctic argument can be debunked with what was already said above.2c. Climate in the 40sThe cooling was because of global dimming by aerosol emissions. This argument assumes a strawman, that CO2 is the only thing that controls climate. No proponent of A. G. W. claims this. The claim is that CO2 is the main driver of today’s warming. Take Mount Pinatubo for example. It dropped temperature, but this doesn't debunk CO2 correlations. Same in the 40s. There was a lot of aerosol pollution, volcanic activity, and solar forcing. All together this explains the cooling and doesn’t debunk my contention. [12][13][14]This is a well known effect called global dimming [15]3. My main pointsSince I’ve debunked Con’s claims, 1-2 are now relevant3. I don't understand why Con says this is a short-term correlation or that it's irrelevant. As the source studied the heat loss since 1970 and it’s relevant as the heat would come back causing warming. Con then repeats what's already been debunked. CO2 is the main driver of climate today. Some things such as water vapor isn’t a forcing agent, it’s a “feedback loop” as when CO2 levels go up, more water vapor gets in the atmosphere [16]. Con’s rebuttal is not really relevant to the argument.4. Skeptical Science explains it better than I could. “If an increased greenhouse effect was causing warming, we would expect nights to warm faster than days. This is because the greenhouse effect operates day and night. .if global warming was caused by the sun, we would expect the warming. . to be greatest in daytime temperatures. .. . we observe is a decrease in cold nights greater than the decrease in cold days, and an increase in warm nights greater than the increase in warm days. .. This is consistent with greenhouse warming. ” [17]5. From what I found on google the source of what Con posted is from the book "Every 1500 years, Unstoppable Global Warming" [18]. However it's a poor source, since I couldn't find the actual paper that's referenced. I do know there's a paper by John Christy and Roy Spencer that showed the troposphere was warming slower than the surface [19], which would be a problem in our current models. The information in these papers soon turned out to be false, as there were several errors made during the study. The adjustments that Christy and Spencer used at first was incorrect, but when the data was adjusted correctly, it was shown to be no problem in the climate models. [20] [21]All data now shows warming in the troposphere and cooling in the stratosphere. [22]The lead authors (including John Christy) said this on the first page“Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming. .. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite. .. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies. "Con is clearly using outdated sources.6. The claim has actually already been refuted by my argument 6 and 3. In order for CO2 to be saturated, more CO2 shouldn't add an additional greenhouse effect. "What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane. .. The change in outgoing radiation over CO2 bands was consistent with. .. expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect. .. This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using the latest satellite data. .. the observed differences in CO2 bands matched the expected changes based on rising CO2 levels. Thus we have empirical evidence that increased CO2 is preventing longwave radiation from escaping out to space. [23] Thanks again Con! Let the voting begin! Sources[1] . http://tny.cz...