global warming

I will attempt to address my opposition's short argument, for there are ten thousand characters. May I also point out my opponent has already conceded to a rise in temperature from 1979-1998. I will skip right to the debate. ==Recent Land Temperatures== I will start with a straightforward argument, one that is quite often set forward by the pro on this debate topic. To see if the global temperature really is rising, we must look at the big picture, not just data collected from the last ten years. The reason for this is because, as every intelligent scientist knows, the temperature on the Earth is quite unstable, and often affected by sunspots. When the solar activity ceases, periods known as "maunder minimums" tend to occur. According to one Professor Lockwood, the sun's activity is falling off at a pace not seen in 10,000 years [1]. This happened around 1995-2000, which would explain why the Earth's temperature seems to be "cooling," as my opponent argued. In fact, Drew T. Shindell found that these minimums in solar activity can shave 0.3-0.4 degrees Celsius off of Earth's overall temperature [2]. The study conducted by Shindell found that in the last Maunder Minimum (1600-1700, roughly,) temperatures were widely affected. "Modeled global annual average surface temperatures were 0.34°C cooler in 1680 than in 1780 [2]. " [6] Since it has been established that the sudden "stoppage" of global warming can be explained due to sunspots and minimal activity, we can now look at the temperature over the last 50 to 100 years. This is roughly when greenhouse gases skyrocketed, which is believed to be the main cause of global warming. I would also like to state that the graph my opponent set forward was obviously sawed, and came from a non-trustworthy source [3]. My opponent's graph showed two of the following things: 1) Temperature over a 15 year period 2) A slight (possible) temperature fall that can EASILY be accounted to the drop off in solar activity. Also, the graph itself shows the major temperature imbalance, with temperature imbalance reaching up to 1.10 degrees Fahrenheit during 2008, which is minor compared to the 1.30 degree imbalance in 1998. Results from a much more trustworthy link, NASA, show that temperatures from 1880-2000 (before the drop-off in solar activity) steadily rose 0.8-1 degrees Celsius [4]. Not so coincidentally, methane and carbon dioxide have skyrocketed according to samples taken from both North and South Pole ice [4]. "Despite ups and downs from year to year, global average surface temperature is rising. By the beginning of the 21st century, Earth’s temperature was roughly 0.5 degrees Celsius above the long-term (1951–1980) average. " -Goddard Institute for Space Studies and NASA. In this graph, we see a variety of different things. First, there is a high imbalance between temperatures. However, we can also observe that the Earth's mean surface temperature has inclined, though not necessarily in a straight line. The data shown by this graph depicts that the temperature of the Earth is rising at a steeper rate over time, which coincides with the increased Co2 emissions over the past decades [5]. It has been shown that the globe is warming (insofar) on land. This satisfies one of the definitions of global warming, which is that the globe is warming on land. As of now, part of the resolution is negated. On to the second part, which will be a rise in oceanic temperatures. ==Oceanic Temperatures== My opponent shows an increase in the polar ice caps (which, as I remind the audience, comes from a non-trustworthy link,) but does not show the size or temperature of any other part of the ocean. It seems like the opponent is focusing on little things that seem to go against global warming, so I will try to look at the big picture. For now, there are graphs explaining the sudden increase in Arctic Ice, such as the following [7]: As the graph shows above, there has been a general warming across most of the worlds' oceans, which coincides with the atmospheric temperature. In response to the increase in Arctic Ice, we can see there is an isolated spot of cooling, but it is not generally a statistically significant trend. However, the Southern Atlantic Ocean has seen a two degree to a four degree increase in temperature (surface-wise. )Once again, we must look at the big picture. The possible increase in Arctic Ice (from August 2012 to August 2013) could be due to limited sun energy, an anomaly in unstable temperatures, etc. However, much like surface temperatures, the ice/temperature is very rocky, but it is clearly on a downward trend [8]. In fact, the data shows that there is a 3.2% decrease in ice per decade. What con also fails to show is the thickness of the ice, for an increase of thin ice does not necessarily coincide with lowering temperatures. Despite a rise in ice over the past two years, the oceans are undoubtedly hotter and the ice is still quite low. In the same year (2013) as the NASA satellite image was taken, the following statement was concluded:"October ice volume was around 20,000 cubic kilometers (approximately 4,800 cubic miles), meaning that ice volume in October 2013 still ranks among the lowest of the past 30 years. " -National Snow and Ice Data Center. To sum this rebuttal/argument up, we can see there is a small, normal spike around 2012-2013, and then a continuous downward trend from thereafter. In response to the Kevin Trenberth e-mail that my opponent pointed out, I would like to show what the E-mail actually said and meant. "Global warming is still happening - our planet is still accumulating heat. But our observation systems aren't able to comprehensively keep track of where all the energy is going. Consequently, we can't definitively explain why surface temperatures have gone down in the last few years. That's a travesty! " -Kevin Trenberth, ©2009. ==Overview of Next Round==I will end this round here having satisfied the definition of "global warming" and refuted my opponent's arguments. Of course, all of my evidence is very far from being stated. This was just an outline of what my case will look like. In the next round, I will go into further details concerning the following:-Changes in Migration-Animal Behavior-Hottest years on record-Density of Arctic Ice-Co2 Emissions-Glacial RetractionIn conclusion, all my opponent did was falsely state an E-mail and use biased evidence from a non-trustworthy link. He has also conceded that there was a period of warming, and stated a temperature WITHOUT evidence. I ask my opponent link me to his NASA Remote Sensing Systems that says there was an 0.36 degree Fahrenheit climb, because my graphs (which are must trustworthy) state an entirely different story. I thank my opponent for his time, and return the table to him. Good luck. Sources:[1] . http://wattsupwiththat.com... [2] . http://www.meteo.psu.edu... [3] . https://w3.newsmax.com... [4] . http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov... [5] . http://www.epa.gov... [6] . http://www.skepticalscience.com... [7] . http://www.epa.gov...[8] . http://nsidc.org...