Anthropogenic Global Warming is a Threat

This is data from only a small portion of a continent on a big Earth. It is not possible to conclude from this that wildfires is happening everywhere.This is what the source and argument was saying. That it's a threat in the western side of the states. I think it's well known that heat causes fire. This data is correlated to higher temperatures and earlier spring snowmelt, but is not certain that is the cause. The source gave good evidence that it is a cause.Conclusions: The authors confirmed in a large sample of cities that both cold and hot temperatures increase mortality risk. These findings suggest that increases in heat-related mortality due to global warming are unlikely to be compensated for by decreases in cold-related mortality and that population acclimatization to heat is still incomplete. (From your source)Con basically repeats me. As there is more heat deaths than cold.My own conclusion from this is that the density of American cities and people, and the lack of air-conditioning, leading to "stuffyness," is the cause of "heat deaths." Not heatwaves per say.This is still agreeing with my argument. Many American people and cities have A.C., regardless people still have to go outside. As if everyone had air-conditioning to prevent "stuffyness" everyone cannot just stay inside their houses.Mosquite? Is that such a threat? I deal with the possibility of getting those viruses every day. (I live near the equator, and seriously, there is no need to panic.)I don't think I need to explain the threat of death. Researchers from Oxford University and University of Florida found that a warming climate has led to more widespread disease and death due to malaria are largely at odds with the evidence, and that "predictions of an intensification of malaria in a warmer world, based on extrapolated empirical relationships or biological mechanisms, must be set against a context of a century of warming that has seen marked global declines in the disease and a substantial weakening of the global correlation between malaria endemicity and climate.[1][2]The cited source is a clear support for my previous assertion of greater plant productivity. If indeed your assertion about plant damage is true, then what need we worry about? So which is wrong? Which should I believe?As I said before"These long term projects show that while some plants exhibit a brief and promising burst of growth upon initial exposure to C02, effects such as the "nitrogen plateau" soon truncate this benefit"I didn't dispute that CO2 doesn't cause plants to grow. Over time however these will be truncated.I find myself unable to link this with the shrinking arctic. Can you explain?I'm unsure what you mean. Do you mean you cannot see a link between damage to ecosystem and a drying pond? As the source says"These surface waters are often hotspots of biodiversity and production for microorganisms, plants, and animals in this otherwise extreme terrestrial environment." as a shrinking pond would be damaging to these. From abstract, "Coupled climate-carbon cycle models suggest that Amazon forests are vulnerable to both long- and short-term droughts, but satellite observations showed a large-scale photosynthetic green-up in intact evergreen forests of the Amazon in response to a short, intense drought in 2005. These findings suggest that Amazon forests, although threatened by human-caused deforestation and fire and possibly by more severe long-term droughts, may be more resilient to climate changes than ecosystem models assume." How is this a threat?It may not be an extremely long term effect on the rainforest, however as the point was that when it becomes dryer more CO2 is released. I thought there was going to be more liquid water due to melting? Yes there will be more water, but this doesn't mean potable water. We can purify and boil some water, yet this doesn't get out certain types of harmful chemicals.How is rising sea levels a threat? At most, the relocation of low-lying populations to inner ground is all that is required, and humans are known to be highly adaptable.Rice paddies are being inundated with salt water, which destroys the crops. Seawater is contaminating rivers as it mixes with fresh water further upstream, and aquifers are becoming polluted. Estimates of sea-level rise are feared to considerably underestimate the scale of the problem. There are no proposed benefits to sea-level rise I mean that no data is recorded of the radiation coming to Earth.What I was trying to show was that heat is not escaping from Earth. It's irrelevant to how much is coming in. Besides this we do have data of what radiation is coming to Earth [3]As no threat is large enough or present to cause worry, the resolution is negated.I have shown that these are still threats. As only half were addressed by con. I state again no model fits the human fingerprint of global warming and I have shown it is a threat.The resolution is affirmedVote Pro[1]Peter W. Gething, David L. Smith, Anand P. Patil, Andrew J. Tatem, Robert W. Snow & Simon I. Hay (20 May 2010). "Climate change and the global malaria recession". Nature 465 (7296): 342–345. Bibcode 2010Natur.465..342G. doi:10.1038/nature09098. PMC 2885436. PMID 20485434.[2] "Don’t sweat it: Development and public-health initiatives will matter much more to malaria than the climate will". The Economist. 2010-05-19. Retrieved 2010-05-25. [3] http://lasp.colorado.edu...