Resolved: Man-made Global Warming, on Planet Earth, Exists.

Now, back onto the debate.____________________________________________________________________________________Thank you, lannan13, for that impressive response. Unfortunately, he has broken the rules by refuting my graphs and data I had put out in round 2:"Round 2: Opening arguments and Constructive Case, NO REBUTTALS" I'm not sure if I should let it slide since this seems like my most fun debate, so that will be up to my opponent. I will first focus on rebuttals, then my contentions. Note that counter-rebuttals are now switched to this round as my opponent refuted my graphs in round 2, thus I must respond to these refutations or otherwise they will be seen as dropped.==Rebuttal 1: No Major/any Co2 increase==My opponent's graph is a graph of Co2 levels over the past 600 million years. In contrast, my graph is a graph on Co2 levels only throughout the past 650,000 years. My opponent's graph shows as time closes in on the present, the Co2 levels grow lower. However that is because we are looking at a much broader timeline and thus can't see all the needed details in the graph. Yes, we are at an all time low, but that doesn't mean Co2 levels aren't increasing [1]: I would like to point out that global warming doesn't mandate warming all throughout Earth's life. Global Warming happens anytime when Earth's temperature substantially increases, and that is what is happening. If Co2 levels are increasing, mainly due to human activity, and Earth's temperature rises at the same rate at the same time, then we already have good evidence man-made global warming exists.Also, it seems that my opponent uses a graph by Robert Berner. It is known that Berner's studies are very untrustworthy, especially this one. You can see in the following graph that his graph contains many errors [2]: "History of Atmospheric CO2 through geological time (past 550 million years: from Berner, Science,1997)... The shaded area encloses the approximate range of error of the modeling based on sensitivity analysis..." [2]My opponent then goes on to state that man-made global warming (or even global warming on general) does not exist simply because our Earth has been much hotter before, and then asks, "may I ask how did we survive that?" However this is a fallacy because:1.) I had already stated that global warming does not mandate a warming all throughout Earth's life, and recently it has been increasing, even though if not by as much as older times. Also, under the circumstances, one degree is still quite substantial.2.) We could not survive in those times as the human race had not even come to being, let alone the dinosaur race. Plus, the animals and forms of life during those times were specially adapted to the hot climate. Also, this is irrelevant as we are only debating the existence of man-made global warming, not if we are going to survive it.3.) Because of the sun being dimmer than now, higher Co2 levels would be needed in order to keep the Earth at a bearable temperature, or else the Earth would literally freeze over. This contention is negated.==Rebuttal 2: The Earth is Actually Cooling==Again, I must remind my opponent that global warming does not mandate warming throughout Earth's life. As you can see at the end of the graph, the temperature slightly increases back, thus proving global warming's existence, and, with the previous information I had given, man-made global warming as well. Just because the Earth has been hotter before doesn't mean it isn't warming again.When my opponent puts up his graph on the cooling of early 2000, again this is misleading, and Easterbrook's predictions have gone wrong from the first 10 years of data collected on the graph. Yet my opponent claims the IPCC studies are incorrect, which is untrue. The evidence is here [3]: “Figure 5: Don Easterbrook's global temperature graphic presented during the 2010 Heartland conference.” Then, down lower on the cited website [3], it is said: “So while the IPCC TAR projection was too high by about 0.12°C for the reasons discussed above [on cited website], Easterbrook's projections were too low by 0.28°C and 0.58°C. Despite all of these non-greenhouse gas factors acting in the cooling direction over this timeframe, the IPCC projection was still much closer to reality than Easterbrook's.” [3] On my opponent’s next graph, he shows that each millennium the Earth cools down by 0.3 degrees Celsius (0.54 degrees Fahrenheit) due to Earth’s motion away from the Sun. However, the study was conducted only for the last 2 millennia, when most of the millennia were basically Industrial Revolution and modern activity free. The IR started in 1790 [4]. At the end of the graph, the global temperature abruptly rises above the red line even before 2000, thus proving the existence of global warming, and man-made global warming. This is the same for my opponent’s next two graphs. My opponent’s last graph focuses on the contribution of the Greenhouse gases, and states that the contributions are very low. However that does not negate the existence of global warming or man-made global warming, it simply states that global warming is slow and weak. Thus, this contention is negated. ==Rebuttal 3: Arctic Ice and Sea levels== “First, I would like to state that Pro’s claim about the North Pole completely melting is bogus.” Never in this debate did I ever claim that. This is a straw-man. In my opponent’s Arctic Ice graphs, he shows that since nothing has happened to the Arctic Ice Sheet, global warming, and thus man-made global warming, cannot exist. However, again this is a straw-man since he simply takes a single photo for each year (which only shows the ice on a specific date) and then compares them. It is literally subjective to choose the worst of something on an earlier date and compare it with the best of something on a later specific date. For example, you could say that Whitney Houston is bad because she had an off-day, which is completely untrue. Also, although I don’t believe in all Arctic Ice melting, it is melting slowly and gradually [5]: And here is a graph on gradually rising sea levels, contradicting my opponent’s [6]: Thus this contention is negated and proved once again man-made global warming exists. ==Rebuttal 4: The Weather== “My opponent is claiming that Hurricanes are increasing due to Global Warming, but this claim is indeed false!” Again, never in the debate have I claimed that. What’s more, hurricanes aren’t actually linked to global warming in general [7]! “Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming “According to the National Hurricane Center, storms are no more intense or frequent worldwide than they have been since 1850. […] Constant 24-7 media coverage of every significant storm worldwide just makes it seem that way.” (Paul Bedard)” [7] The story is similar for tornadoes as well [8]: “Global warming may well end up making them more frequent or intense, as our intuition would tell us. But it might also actually suppress them—the science just isn't clear yet.” [8] Thus, either way, this contention doesn’t contradict anything about the existence of man-made global warming. ==Contention 3: Oceanic Acidification== A large portion of the Co2 emitted by the atmosphere is absorbed into the ocean. The more Co2 that is emitted into the atmosphere, the more is absorbed into the ocean, and thus the more acidified the ocean becomes [9]. This and warmer temperatures generally cause coral bleaching, which has happened more frequently recently due to its relatively narrow habitable temperature range [10]. Ocean acidification has increased by 30% since the Industrial Revolution [11]. This acidification can harm aquatic organisms, of which organisms that do not need oxygen take place and release greenhouse gases like methane, [12] thus proving that man-made global warming exists. ==Conclusion== I have refuted all my opponent’s arguments and have given out major information to support the existence of man-made global warming. Thus, the resolution stands affirmed. [1] http://co2now.org...[2] http://earthguide.ucsd.edu...;[3] http://www.skepticalscience.com...[4] https://www.google.com.vn...;[5] http://www.forbes.com...[6] http://www.nasa.gov...[7] http://www.skepticalscience.com...;[8] http://news.nationalgeographic.com...[9] http://www.teachoceanscience.net...[10] http://www.marinebiology.org...;[11] http://climate.nasa.gov...;[12] https://www.brainpop.com...;