Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory is Correct

1. Greenhouse effect No one denies, let alone disputes, that the greenhouse effect exists and keeps the warm much warmer. What is under dispute is how much of the greenhouse effect, related to human emissions, causes climate change. My opponent keeps claiming that the effect of this is significant, but as I have shown, this is not the case. I have provided multiple studies which refute climate alarmism: high climate sensitivity. About half of the greenhouse effect which alarmists are worried about is due to clouds. If this is not the case, human induced climate change is extremely small. Observational evidence contradicts the positive feedback cloud assumption that the IPCC and others assume, making it very unlikely that greenhouse gasses have caused significant warming in the 20th century [1]. Further, if the climate was so sensitive to CO2, we would see this correlation in the geologic record. However, when you look at the record, CO2 either shows no correlation or lags temperature increases. If CO2 was a large driver of climate, we would not see no correlation in the data. There have been periods where it is extremely warm with little CO2, and periods where it is cold with a high amount of CO2. But how do we know that CO2 is not a significant part of the greenhouse effect? Simple, actually. Even using IPCC estimates, human emissions only account for 0.45% of the greenhouse warming in a particular year, which means humans have only contributed to 0.1 degrees C of warming in the 20th century, or about 1/7th. To put it in other words, 99.55% of the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with human carbon emissions. How, then, could CO2, without significant positive feedback (which my opponent has not proven) cause global climate change? The fact is, sensitivity is extremely low in relation to CO2, and therefore humans have a very insignificant impact on global warming [2]. Further, her argument as to how strong the greenhouse effect is--which is correct--focuses on the wrong gas. In fact, water vapor, not CO2 or other man-produced emissions are the largest cause of the greenhouse effect. Further, the vast majority of all of these gasses is not man made. My opponent claims feedbacks are positive, but this is unlikely the case. Clouds, the largest feedback mechanism we know of, decreases the amount of radiation which hits the earths surface, which means that as CO2 causes more clouds (based on AGW theory), the feedback is negative, which often cancels out the warming from greenhouse gasses. Strong evidence suggests that, "[n]et feedbacks in the real climate system — on both short and long time scales — are probably negative."[3]To argue that the climate system is insensitive to CO2 does not claim that the climate is not sensitive to anything. If specific feedbacks caused by CO2 is negative that does not mean the climate will remain in stasis or cooling. Clouds, a negative feedback, actually support the cosmic ray theory--which my opponent has ignored. The clouds in the case of CO2 will cause cooling, however, cosmic rays create clouds. If the sun is more active, fewer cosmic rays reach earth, and reduce cloud cover. Reduced cloud cover means a lower albedo, which leads to warming. In fact, the climate system is very sensitive to fluctuations of cosmic rays, and cosmic rays are a viable canidate for the majority of the recent warming [4]. AGW theory claims that the decrease in cloud cover is caused by the small warming from CO2, which means more light hits the surface, and more warming. However, they are confusing cause and effect. How do they know that warming caused the clouds to decrease, and not vice-versa? Do clouds cause temperature change, or does temperature change cause clouds? Observational evidence supports the first: clouds cause temperature change. This means that it is a negative feedback in the case of CO2, and a positive one in the case of a cosmic ray flux. Research has demonstrated that the climate is very sensitive to changes in cosmic rays, which amplifies the solar effect greatly [5]. The graph my opponent has is from the IPCC 2007 report, it attempts to display the different causes of climate change by demonstrating how sensitive the climate is to each forcing, and, therefore, how much of the recent warming was caused by each forcing. However, this graph is based on models which have failed to reproduce observed data. They cannot explain the pause in warming, they describe feedbacks (see clouds) incorrectly, their sensitivity is off, their predictions so far are off, they fail to incorporate cosmic ray flux and other natural forcings, etc. The graph only takes into account irradience. But ignores... Magnetic fields, Earth rotation, cosmic rays, and 1500 year cycles. The argument that solar forcings only affect climae through irradience, or that the sun has little effect, is not supported by the facts [6]. The graph underestimates the effect of clouds which is likely significant, and overestimates the effect from CO2. Further, the graph ignores things humans do to cool the climate (aerosols, for example). 2. Added emissionsDroughts always happen, crops aren't dying they're thriving, and if the third world were to develop proper government systems they would be able to clean the water sources and increase the amount of usable water. The GMO argument proves my point... If climate change is real and we are affected, humans will adopt technologies to support our society, increase efficiency, and feed the world. I don't see how that is a negative! Further, as I argued with other empirical evidence, increased CO2 will benefit agriculture and reduce the strains which we have currently put on it. Recent increasing crop yields occured regardless of GMO's. The first GMO crop was tested in 1986, and the first tests in America began in 1987 [7]. Therefore it is safe to assume GMO's were not used in crops until the late 1980s or early 1990s. Crop yields have been increasing since at least 1960, and after the introduction of GMO's I dont see a faster increase in crop yields [8]. The fact is, warming will increase agriculture and reduce deaths. Warming, as demonstrated by observations not models, actually increases precipitation and reduces the water crisis--helping crops. Efforts to reduce emissions would actually harm people around the world, not help them [9]. Dropped argumentsMy opponent has dropped all of my arguments regarding a natural cause. The more caused by nature, the less caused by humans. If nature as I demonstrated has the power to warm the world significantly, and as I demonstrated is a very viable suspect in the cause of warming, AGW theory is thrown out the window. Further, AGW's predictions fail. The true mark of a theory is without doubt its ability to predict phenomena.– Science and Hebrew Tradition, “On the Method of Zadig,” p. 20 [10]. AGW failed to predict the warming pause since 1997, cooling since 2001, and all models predict too much warming. If AGW theory cannot predict what has happened, that means the conclusion is false, and should be revised. The fact that it hasn't isnt science, its turned into politics. ConclusionAGW theory fails on all accounts. Humans play a very negligible role in global warming. Feedbacks are negative, natural causes much better explain the recent warming, AGW has made false predictions, the pause weakens the case for AGW, and the tropospheric hotspot is gone, it doesn't exist. The fact is, the scientific case for AGW is non-existent. Vote CON1. Roy Spencer. "The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled The World's Top Climate Scientists", Encounter Books, 2010. 2. Robert M. Carter. “Climate: The Counter Consensus”, Stacey International, 2011. 3. http://www.drroyspencer.com...;4. http://www.phys.huji.ac.il...;5. Ibid6. Carter. “Climate: The Counter Consensus”7. http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org...;8. http://wattsupwiththat.com...;9. http://www.jpands.org...;10. http://www.paulmacrae.com...;Note: if my sources say page not found, delete the / at the end of the link and refresh page, it should work.