Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth.

Thanks to my opponent for such a great debate!Counter-rebuttals==Counter 1: Contradiction?==My opponent asserts that my glacial, sea level and temperature figures are contradictory. He never considers the fact that there were sudden but brief drops in temperature near to the increase in ice, which both his and my figures agree upon.I don't agree with the way my opponent presents why the amount of ice on Earth is increasing. More glaciers =/= more ice. Simply because there are more glaciers being observed doesn't mean the *amount* of ice is increasing. Don't count on trusting the use of his graph, because it is in a way irrelevant to what we are trying to discuss on this contention.==Counter 2: Hiatus==[Remember: The hiatus is said to have happened in more recent years, so more recent data can be cited.] Con tries to save his argument by stating that I made an appeal to authority to newness, and assumes that it is "not a rational reason at all". So what is he implying here? Is he implying that we should trust older methodologies simply because I supposedly committed one logical fallacy that isn't even that much of a negative effect? So far, that's the only basis he has for his argument, and the reason why we can't accept his basis in this case is because it is simply common sense. In most, if not all debates, we are inclined to use the newest and most updated sources, thus more trustworthy sources. We shouldn't try to attack the sources of others simply because it is "an appeal to the authority of newness", because it isn't - it's just common sense.Where his argument is relevant is interesting, because he seems to not know which one is right or wrong. Even so, the graphs would *still* support my argument. Con doesn't even know if either of them ACTUALLY ARE right or wrong. And with the huge consensus and observed evidence supporting it, the answer leans way towards the Pro stance [1-3]: ==Counter 3: Correlation vs. Causation==Here my opponent essentially nitpicks the slightest flaws in correlation and claims these flaws are deciding factors. First of all, there isn't even supposed to be a direct correlation between CO2 and sea levels - they are FAR from correlating to each other. The CO2 is emitted, then temperature rises, then ice melts, THEN sea levels rise. You can't expect a perfect correlation when they are that far away from each other. Secondly, why must it correlate so perfectly? If they correlate and they are reasonably close, then what does it matter?==Counter 4: Solar Activity==I am shocked that my opponent has assumed that I made an unsupported assumption, *when it is undeniably clear I made a citation supporting my argument.* Let me repeat that. Clearly.And why would we need data from prior to the alleged increase when this is simply logic and facts? The reasoning I had given *perfectly* fits with the scenario being discussed. But if my opponent still isn't happy about that, then I'll explain why it is still null. The warming on Earth is known as global warming. Warming means steady temperature increase. Key word: temperature. So if temperature increasing means pan evapoation is increasing, then why is temperature almost universally agreed to be increasing yet there seems to be no trend in figure 11 for pan evaporation? Obviously this doesn't make sense. So is that figure very trustworthy? The answer: probably not.Also, just to top it off, figures agree that the increase is solely due to human effects [4]: ==Counter 5: Dust Bowl==My opponent continues to not give me a valid reason for the decrease in the median. Of course, he did talk about the droughts and terrible heat waves, but since when did we find out that the aftermath of heat waves would be sudden and big cooling worldwide?And yes, Con did provide extensive explanations about methodological bias, but that wasn't the only thing that caused figures to show a sudden cooling. The other thing was the fact that humans started to use more sulphate aerosols, which cool the Earth [5]. So Con has yet to come up with another reason for the decrease.==Counter 6: Feedbacks and forcings==I apologize for this contention - somehow it got cut out. I will not present the previous graphs, but rather build onto it.So far, we can conclude that positive feedbacks dominate climate and thus amplify the effect of forcings significantly. Climate sensitivity is essential in climate science - it is the rise of equilibrium global land-sea mean temperature each time CO2 concentration is doubled [6]. "It is defined simply as the global mean warming that is reached in equilibrium (that is, after a long time) after doubling the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere." - Anthropogenic Climate Change: Revisiting the facts [6]With feedbacks, climate sensitivity is about 3 degrees Celcius [7]: The increasing CO2 emissions are predominantly anthropogenic. Combine the forcings increase with the feedback amplification, and you get increasing temperature caused by humans.My opponent seems to not be able to respond to the planets contention, so I will allow them to respond in their next arguments.==Conclusion==Con fails to disprove the evidence I have put forward, making assumptions that are difficult, if not impossible to justify. Thus, I affirm.==Sources==[1] http://www.skepticalscience.com...[2] http://www.skepticalscience.com...[3] http://warmgloblog.blogspot.com...[4] http://www.alternet.org...[5] https://www.skepticalscience.com...[6] http://www.pik-potsdam.de...(p. 4) [7] http://www.skepticalscience.com...I await my opponent's arguments!