The Earth is currently going through a global warming phase.

Normally, I would break my argument into two parts, the first to counter his arguments, and the second to present my own. However, in this case, much of the counters to his arguments and graphs feed into my arguments. So instead, I will present my argument and tie it to his when they come to that point. I will then present a short section to refute the remaining parts of his argument that are not dealt with by my own argument. The warming of the Earth. The first thing that one needs to do is first look to see if the earth temperatures appear to be warming or not. There are several ways to try to calculate this, from surface temp readings, to ocean borehole readings, to satellite readings, etc. As such we will take a look at two of these. 1) Surface Temp readings My opponent starts by showing some pictures and claiming that they are surface temp reading stations. However, nothing in the pictures indicates that claim, nor does my opponent provide any information as to what stations these are. As such, these pictures are absolutely unverifiable as they stand. I would request that my opponent let us know what stations these are and for what measuring institute so that they can be double checked and verified. My opponent goes on to also point to the Heat Island Effect [1]. According to the EPA, "The annual mean air temperature of a city with 1 million people or more can be 1.8–5.4ï¿½F (1–3ï¿½C) warmer than its surroundings. " Turning to CityMayors. com [2], we can see that there are only 410 cities in the entire world with populations over 1 million and only 9 of those cities are in the USA [3]. This represents only a small number of ground sensors compared to how many are actually used. Even though my opponent believes that this causes a false reading for heat, he is mistaken. The heat that accumulates due to heat islands is real heat on the Earth, and as such, should be taken note of. Of course, if you only sample heat island, then you are not getting an accurate representation and so inaccurate data. This will be easy enough to see, since if that was the case, we would see a difference from the other measuring sources. Now to show the actual temp readings. Since these are still in question for accuracy, let us move to the next measuring source. 2) Satellite temp readings My opponent admitted that satellites are accurate temp readers, "To avoid the Heat Island Effect it's best to use Weather Balloons or Satellites. " So let us take a simple look at these. First, I'd like to point out that my opponent's graph is horribly misleading. Temp changes of a single degree Celsius are significant differences, however, he uses a graph with a Y-axis range of 30 degrees and no axis lines in an attempt to hide any growth. Here, you can go right to the source [4] and look at the graphs any way you wish. In the graph below, we go ahead and combine satellite temp readings from two different measuring techniques along with the surface temps, all onto one nice simple graph (sadly, satellites only go back to the 80's, so we don't have as much history with these as we do with the surface readings). This clearly shows that the surface readings match pretty darn closely the satellite readings, and so we can conclude that the heat island effect has no real effect on the total measuring process at all. Let us look at another chart which also compiles multiple readings, including borehole readings. From these, it is easy enough to notice that we are in a warming phase. Please note that this has nothing to say about it being man-made, or even not part of a natural cycle (that can be a later debate if we wish). Now, I will address some of the graphs that by opponent tossed up after his last sentence. I will simply refer to them as graphs 1-8 based on their vertical position. Since my opponent added no commentary, nor explanation for these graphs, I will do the best that I can. Some of them I have tried to look up to find their original sources and for some, no source could be found. Graphs 1 and 2 These two appear to show the temp coming back down. However, it is important to note the site that they came from [5]. It turns out, that our satellite temp readings can read the temp at 4 different levels. At these levels satellites have found that 2 of them (surface and upper troposphere) are warming a good deal, the lower troposphere is only slightly warming and the lower stratosphere is actually cooling. What my opponent has done is selectively only shown the data that supports his case and ignored the rest. "'I think it points out that the atmosphere is more complex than the computer models currently simulate,' says Dr. Roy Spencer, senior scientist for climate studies at the Global Hydrology and Climate Center (GHCC) at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. ‘However, it does not by itself substantially alter the expectation that some amount of global warming will occur in the future. ' Spencer and Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, are trying to account for the unexpected temperature patterns. By explaining the contrary behavior of atmospheric and surface-level temperature trends, they hope to improve computer models used to simulate the world's climate. This would provide a better picture of how severe or mild global warming will be over the next century. A stronger-than-usual warming trend in 1998-99 was associated with a strong El Niï¿½o event, while the slight cooling in 1999-2000 coincides with the ongoing La Niï¿½a phase. The overall trend in the lower tropospheric data is approximately steady: the temperature increases by approximately +0.047oC per decade. " When you have the actual scientists talk about their own data, it still points to a warming, just not as strong of a warming as on the surface. Graph 3. This shows the strong El Nino (as mentioned in [5]) of the 98 – 99 year, which then drops into a La Nina (also mentioned in [5]). This is followed by some warming, and then a drop in the 2008 year. This 2008 is another La Nina [6]. As it was pointed out in [5], atmospheric temps are more influenced by the El Ninos and La Ninas. Graph 4. I cannot find a source for this (what is "DMI"? ), however the graph itself says that it is only for the 80+N arctic zone, which is cherry picking data and so not an accurate representation of the average global temp. Graph 5. This one has absolutely no info for me to even try to find a source. Normally, I'd like to simply say that this shows warming, so it is agreeing with my side of the debate, but proper sourcing is far more important. Graph 6. This is a graph for the temp for thermocouples, not global temp. Graphs 7 and 8 These graphs show a time frame too small to matter. As mentioned in R1, the temp can go up and down, but the trend is what matters. My opponent takes a 6 year chunk (2002 – 2008) and attempts to show that we are cooling. However, if you take 2000 – 2006, that chunk would show that we are warming, a lot. As such, the data is too small to get an accurate reading. The larger data ranges that I have provided show much more clearly the actual trend of warming. Sources - . http://www.debate.org...