Mankind Is Not the Main Cause of Global Warming

Thanks to subutai for posting an excellent opening round! I'm looking forward to this debate, as I am sure it will be an interesting one!So to kick this thing off I'd like to start by providing the readers with a quick road map of my case and how I aim to negate the given resolution.What I am going to do is set up the basis of a cause effect relationship between greenhouse gases (Such as CO2, Methane, and Water Vapor) and a warming trend, and then confirm this relationship with corroborating corollaries. This will prove that increased atmospheric GHG concentrations to create a warming effect on the climate.Next, I will begin to discuss why humanities effect on the climate creates an increased concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases, thus creating an anthropogenic cause for global warming.Then, I will establish why the current warming trend cannot be due primarily to natural causes.Finally, to seal in these arguments, I will discuss the consensus of the scientific community as a whole regarding anthropogenic global warming.Con's CaseI. The Greenhouse effect and Greenhouse GasesTo begin, let's examine what exactly makes a green house gas, a green house gas. Everyone has likely heard of the most common GHGs: Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), and Water Vapor (H2O). Why, though, do these gases cause a warming effect, while the gases most prevalent in our atmosphere, Nitrogen and Oxygen, cause no warming? A) Di-pole momentExamine the following diagram describing the molecular structures of the gases above. So here we have CO2, Methane, Water Vapor, Nitrogen, and Oxygen in either 3d models, or Lewis structures. The thing we must pay closest attention to is their molecular shape (VSEPR Theory). Carbon Dioxide is bent. Methane is tetrahedral. H2O is Bent. Nitrogen and oxygen, however, are Linear diatomic molecules [1].Now, every element has a different level of electronegativity. In an atom with an electronegativity disparity, a dipole moment forms [2]. This is essentially the formation of a magnetic field direction. CO2 and H2O due to their bent asymmetrical shapes have Dipole moments. The dipole moment "points" from the more electronegative towards the less electronegative. More +--> LessWhen an atom is struck by particular wavelengths of infrared light, the bonds in the atom begin to "vibrate" there are many kinds of vibration that can occur (bending, stretching, etc). [3] This causes the molecules to shift around, and in greenhouse gases, the dipole moment is shifted. Now atoms like N2 and O2 have no dipole moment, and no amount of shifting disrupts their symmetry. CO2 and H2O always have their dipole moment shifted by molecular vibration. Methane, due to the complexity of tetrahedral molecular shape, can undergo several vibrations that disrupt the symmetry of the molecule, and cause dipole moments to form.When a dipole moment is shifted or formed, much energy is released as heat. This is what happens in greenhouse gases [4].This is why greenhouse gases heat the earth when they are present in the atmosphere. Light from the sun strikes the molecule, and the infrared spectra that result in molecular vibration release heat energy into the atmosphere. Every single one of the billions of GHGs in the atmosphere are each acting as individual heat generators, catching and trapping energy from the sun, and heating the earth.B) Corollaries (Paleoclimate)Paleoclimates have historically been a major focal point of many debates on anthropogenic global warming. Therefore, I will preempt these arguments, so that time may be saved in the rebuttals. I will also reestablish the cause that I have described previously, and corroborate through corollaries.Many climate change skeptics have claimed that there is "No historic correlation" between the presence of green-house gases and global temperature. According to Royers 2006 [4] the data previously observed on the phanerzoic era has been contaminated, as it has not been adjusted for pH, which affects the molecular shape, atmospheric concentration, dipole moment, and molecular vibration potential of CO2. Quote Royer, "the temperature data correlate strongly with both the record of continental gla-ciation and atmospheric CO2". Furthermore, the famous Vostok Ice Cores show that "there is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (Barnola et al. 1987). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows that the main trends of CO2 are similar for each glacial cycle. Major transitions from the lowest to the highest values are associated with glacial-interglacial transitions. During these transitions, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rises from 180 to 280-300 ppmv (Petit et al. 1999). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr." [5]During the cenzoic period as well, CO2 was the driving force of Global warming, cite Hansen and Sato [6].II. Climate Sensitivity/CarbonAnother aspect of global warming that one must consider is "Climate sensitivity." Climate sensitivity is essentially the amount of expected change in global temperature as a result of increased retention of radiation (via GHGs). [7] Essentially, climate sensitivity tells us how much the temperature will change, given a certain amount of CO2 concentration increase [8] [10]. The reason that certain paleoclimates were not nearly as warm given the increased concentration of CO2 was due to lower climate sensitivity [9].Current studies have established an accepted measurement of modern climate sensitivity (a range between 1-4.1 degrees Celsius per doubling of CO2). This number is accepted by both supporters and skeptics of global warming [11].Furthermore, to preempt a rebuttal on the presence of water vapor concentrations, it has been observed that global humidity is increasing [12] [13].A) Carbon Cycle, atmospheric CO2, and "Tipping the Pot"A common rebuttal against the anthropogenic climate change case is the relative smallness of man-made CO2 compared to natural concentrations. The problem with this argument, is that it observes all carbon, rather than only atmospheric CO2. Carbon that is not in the atmosphere cannot affect climate change, and does not contribute to global warming. It can be seen that man-made CO2 almost always remains in the atmosphere, as the natural equilibrium of the earths carbon cycle is upset by the introduction of artificial CO2 And now in the industrial age where CO2 is introduced into the atmosphere in a myriad of ways, we can see that atmospheric CO2 levels are at a record level. Then, as GHGs warm the Earth, positive feedback loops occur. Thus, humanity has "tipped the pot."B) Positive FeedbackPositive feedback comes in many forms in climate change. The problem with global warming, is that said warming can result in the death of vegetation (due to droughts) and the warming of the ocean. Both of these further reduce the maximum absorption of the Earths carbon cycle, thus resulting in even more CO2 being released into the atmosphere. [14]These kinds of emissions are referred to as "indirect emissions" as humans did not directly produce these GHG emissions, they are directly responsible for the factors that resulted in this emission. This emission also comes from other human practices, such as deforestation, and pollution of the ocean.III. What makes anthropogenic warming different from natural warming?The key difference between the current modern global warming, and previous eras of natural warming, is that the current warming period is undoubtedly the fastest in the Earth's history. "Carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants are collecting in the atmosphere like a thickening blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm up. Although local temperatures fluctuate naturally, over the past 50 years the average global temperature has increased at the fastest rate in recorded history." The Global scientific community has reached a 97% consensus that the current trend cannot be accounted for by natural forces. 18 scientific associations have examined and produced data on the climate, and have stated "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver."[15][16][17][18][19][20][21]This is not an appeal to authority, as every single one of these quotes a backed by countless empirically verified, and peer reviewed studies. This is not a claim made by a single scientist, this is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence.A) Atmospheric Carbon Levels Atmospheric carbon levels, as previously mentioned, have never been this high. Record breaking levels of CO2 (a known GHG) have acted upon the Earth. Never before have atmospheric carbon levels been seen at this level. Natural CO2 cycles cannot account for this warming. Natural warming cycles of this Earth cannot account for how rapidly the earth is heating.IIII. Preponderance of evidenceThe evidence that suggest the reality of anthropogenic is, simply put, insurmountable. The weight of the evidence collected and scrutinized that points to the reality of anthropogenic global warming, when compared to the evidence presented against is like comparing the weight of a blue whale to the weight of a vole. Consider the following famous "Powell Charts."Peer reviewed climatology articles 1991-2012 Peer reviewed studies 2013 This isn't simply just scientists saying "I think anthropogenic global warming is real!"This is thousands of experts performing countless experiments, collecting endless data that they, as experts, have critically analyzed, and have found that the data demonstrates definitively that man-made global warming exists, and is the driving force behind climate change.SummaryThere is no room in the scientific community for climate change deniersSources in comments.