Global Warming is Largely Man-Made

GHG Ratios: This was not a huge drop. I had previously explained that that 'weak warming caused by more carbon dioxide will lead to more water vapor in the atmosphere, which will then amplify the weak warming through water vapor’s role as the atmosphere’s primary greenhouse gas. Water vapour is responsible for much of the greenhouse effect, but only because warmer air masses, on average, contain more water vapor. In short, water vapour acts a feedback, not a forcing[1]' The quantities are irrelevant of water vapour are irrelevant when my contention regarding climate sensitivity remains unchallenged. Climate sensitivity is the crux of this debate, and if my opponent cannot refute my claims, he has essentially lost. Industrial CO2 Doubling: This next contention is unfounded and a bare assertion, so I'm not going to waste character space rebutting it. Tropospheric Hot Spots: Con then claims that AGW models are invalidated by the lack of a tropospheric hot spot. There is a tropospheric hot spot. [2][3][4] Yet even if there were not, it would not disprove AGW because tropospheric occur regardless of heat source, as they are caused by lapse rates. [5] I. E. If the warming was caused by a brightening sun or reduced sulphate pollution, you'd still see a hot spot. All that the IPCC temperature signature in your source predicted was a greater forcing of temperature. Ice Core Cooling: Once again an unfounded and bare assertion, without any statistical backing. I've shown in my previous contentions that warming is undoubtedly occurring, and those contentions have been dropped. Historic CO2 Fluctuations: It's upsetting that you don't cite any sources, because this could be a good argument. [1] . http://www.realclimate.org...[2] . http://www.cgd.ucar.edu...[3] . http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov...[4] . http://www.nature.com...R2: None of this is especially relevant, Con is arguing about how good the IPCC are at forecasting temperature and long term climate sensitivity. I have proven that warming is occurring, and Con has not even touched by arguments. Con concedes Easterbrook was falsified, but then goes on to claim CO2 is at an all time low. As I've previously mentioned: 'Because of this, atmospheric carbon dioxide is at the highest levels in approximately 15 to 20 million years[1]. Many skeptics claim that historically, carbon dioxide levels have been much lower, particularly around 500-600 million years ago[2]. But the carbon dioxide level is not the only factor that affect global temperature[3]. Additionally, this position fails to account for the differences in solar activity, that was drastically different from current levels. This position also fails to explain why a comprehensive analysis of carbon dioxide levels over the last 540 millions years concluded that "Periods of low CO2 coincide with periods of geographically widespread ice. " This is clearly visible in this graph, where the shaded periods are periods of widespread ice. "Because of this, atmospheric carbon dioxide is at the highest levels in approximately 15 to 20 million years[2]. Many skeptics claim that historically, carbon dioxide levels have been much lower, particularly around 500-600 million years ago[3]. But the carbon dioxide level is not the only factor that affect global temperature[4]. Additionally, this position fails to account for the differences in solar activity, that was drastically different from current levels. This position also fails to explain why a comprehensive analysis of carbon dioxide levels over the last 540 millions years concluded that "Periods of low CO2 coincide with periods of geographically widespread ice. " This is clearly visible in this graph, where the shaded periods are periods of widespread ice. [1] . http://www.sciencemag.org...[2] . http://www.lavoisier.com.au...[3] . http://www.ipcc.ch...R3:Arctic Ice: Arctic ice has increased but this is down to ozone levels over Antarctica having dropped causing stratospheric cooling and increasing winds which lead to more areas of open water that can be frozen[1]. Sea Level: Con essentially ignores all my substantial evidence of record mean global sea levels, and just repeats his old statistics, and after that concedes sea levels are rising, but once again states without any modicum of objectivity, that the evil IPCC were off. This is not relevant. You have conceded my rebuttals - sea levels are rising. [1] . http://www.sciencemag.org...R4:The general consensus on this topic is inconclusive. I really don't see it's relevance. To win this debate, Con should have refuted my claims about and climate sensitivity, that is the crux of debate, and he has failed to do so. Con has consistently struggle to provide coherent positions and reliable evidence throughout the debate. Ultimately, the science is conclusive and much of my initial contentions have been dropped.