Global Warming has not accelerated the Water Cycle in the last 115 years

Unfortunately my opponent hasn’t fully grasped my main argument. It’s understandable if you haven't been following the news generated from my second citation. I can only assume that the news involving a possible polar flip in our life times isn’t as interesting to most people, or at least it doesn’t generate enough of a news bite to say in the news for long. I’m not actually referencing the continual weakening of the Earth’s magnetic field. Rather it’s in reference to a rapid, and unexpected weakening that is believed to be leading to a polar flip. The THEMIS satellites that are responsible for this discovery were launched around 2007 in response to increasing atmospheric anomalies that started to draw concern around 2005. The big issue THEMIS found which was what was reported in 2008 was that the Earth’s EMF northerly aligned fields when hit by northerly aligned Coronal Mass Ejections, CME, was ripping open rather than deflecting them. As it was put by the scientists involved. "To the lay person, this may sound like a quibble, but to a space physicist, it is almost seismic. When I tell my colleagues, most react with skepticism, as if I'm trying to convince them that the sun rises in the west. "[2]So according to the scientists would this do anything for Solar Cycle 24? "We're entering Solar Cycle 24. For reasons not fully understood, CMEs in even-numbered solar cycles (like 24) tend to hit Earth with a leading edge that is magnetized north. Such a CME should open a breach and load the magnetosphere with plasma just before the storm gets underway. It's the perfect sequence for a really big event. "[2]In other words, it’s loading the Earth's Atmosphere with an unusually large load of heat, and solar energy. My claim is this excess energy gets expressed as evaporation which is why figure 4 evaporation rates correlate to to cycles 24, but not any other cycle. So is this unusual? "We've seen things like this before, but never on such a large scale. The entire day-side of the magnetosphere was open to the solar wind. "[2]So yes, but never on this scale, and it’s this scale that makes it visible in the current cycle, but not any of the data my opponent brought up. His data all ends at 2000, and doesn’t go back far enough to see what the prior flip had. Not surprising since that would be 780,000 years ago for the last major flip, or about 40,000 years for the last minor flip that lasted only a few hundred years. I can understand my opponent not understanding my claim, but I did cite it so he could, if he had more time, read the source. I’m under no illusions about this argument ether. Many people will want to vote against me based on a belief that the claims of Global Warming must be true. For those I ask that you take the time to examine the data I’ve linked too. My methodology is sound for the generating of the graphs I have personally rendered, and the raw data is from a reliable source, NOAA. If you’ve verified data, and the methodology then you are left with only one question. Why does the evaporation rate so clearly correlate to cycle 24, and not any other cycle? Surely if it was Global Warming caused by man it should have started moving up long before 2005, but from a statistical standpoint it is flat throughout the entire period prior. This can only mean that the heat from global warming responsible for evaporation is either nonexistent, or so minor that it cannot be seen with a sample of the given size, but that cycle 24 is. Keep in mind that if you side with my opponent that his evidence for precipitation is deficient for the time period that this debate covers, and is heavily biased by our water management of the rivers via dams. His humidity data is also deficient for the time period, and is explained by Global Dimming caused by SO2. The data the he has that does cover the time period is cluttered with weather stations with an incomplete coverage of the time period resulting in a biased that favored the cherry picked statistic of “extreme” weather events. Had he picked a study that used a sum, or average precipitation, and accounted for nonresponse bias that the result with be similar, or identical, to my Figure 1 graph. I realize that it is difficult for many voters to vote against global warming. However, I have presented a sound case against the claim that global warming is accelerating the water cycle.