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

Got it. From this round I will refer to Carbon Dioxide as CO2.Also, my round 2 sites are incorrectly entered. Here they are in respective order:http://climate.nasa.gov...http://climate.nasa.gov...http://climate.nasa.gov...http://data.giss.nasa.gov...http://earthguide.ucsd.edu...http://climate.nasa.gov... ==Rebuttal 1: CO2 and its effects==The statement that humans are not contributing to the emission of greenhouse gases is completely false. Many sites [1-3] point out that humans are, in fact, the most major cause of warming in modern days."Natural changes alone can’t explain the temperature changes we’ve seen." - Union of Concerned Scientists [2]"Scientists have closed the case: Human activity is causing the Earth to get hotter." - Environmental Defense Fund [3]And, if we were to agree with my opponent's logic, then his arguments are contradictory to his third graph - where he states that Carbon Dioxide is correlating with temperatures perfectly, which is true [4][5]: Keep in mind that both charts show increasing temperature and temperature increase rates, but short after the Industrial Revolution began, contrary to my opponent's selective graphs where he tries to disprove warming by selecting a range of 10,000 years, when really the Industrial Revolution only started in the 18th century [6]. My opponent's third graph, as proven, is contradicted by my opponent's statements above. Let us look at his two halves of his chart combined [7]: If the warming effect of CO2 is minimal, then how would the temperature correlate with it so perfectly? And even then, in the years before, the temperature would drop almost instantly after it reached its peak, but the warming period we are in is actually holding itself up there, rather than just being pulled down. Also, we cannot use this graph anyway as the time scale is way too large to see our effects in recent years. Moreover, his charts could be misleading as he has not cited any links to substantiate his second, third and fourth charts. Let us look at his fourth chart.His fourth chart tells us that water vapor and other natural causes cover the vast majority of contributions to the greenhouse effect, whilst human emissions only cover about 0.28% of contributions. However, this is very misleading, because it does not count in ANY OTHER FACTORS. For example, we already know that humans have deforestated the vast majority of forests on Earth [8]: Wildfires, which already contribute to the greenhouse effect [9], are affecting the area of forests worldwide [8]: Trends in wildlife area burned in wildfire in U.S. "“Wildfire emissions can have remarkable impacts on radiative forcing,” says Liu." - USDA [9] "Tropical deforestation contributes as much as 90% of the current net release of biotic carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This change may represent as much as 20% - 30% of the total carbon flux due to humans - i.e., rivaling the carbon release due to fossil fuel burning." - Global Change [9]Humans, as shown bove, are acidifying the ocean and deforestating (cutting down trees from forests), which is labeled as one of the more major causes of the greenhouse effect on my opponent's chart. As for my opponent's logarithm argument, this is also contradicting the correlation of CO2 and temperatures because the logarithm would not be able to cause a perfect correlation. Thus this argument is null.==Rebuttal 2: The Earth is cooling==My opponent states that his hot spot argument was dropped, when in reality I had responded to this with two paragraphs of evidence. My opponent is straw-manning here. My opponent even goes on to state that I dropped his CO2 argument, to which I responded with even more text. That went unrefuted by my opponent.Also, the "Hockey Stick" graph is actually proven many times to be quite accurate (at least in the warming period) by studies of different sources, like corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. All confirm that the 20th century saw the most dramatic increase in global temperatue in recent history."Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920." - Skeptical Science [10]Note that my opponent's next graph is a very selective one and that its time scale is literally over a ten-year period. Plus, the grap shows the temperature variations, which ends up being above zero. This graph is contradictory to my opponent's arguments.Also, my opponent's quote and evidence that global warming as stopped is also quite selective as it is over a period of 8 years. My opponent is blatantly biased as he only used selective time periods instead of an actually unbiased time period, where it focuses on where humans have been speculated to have started to contribute to global warming.==Rebuttal 3: Arctic Ice and Sea Levels==Again, my opponent's graph here only shows a time period of 45 years. Let us look at a graph starting from 0 CE, and as we can see towards the end the sea level rises dramatically [11]: s://motherjones.com...; alt="Different ways to measure sea level over time" /> As you can see the sea level has risen over 20 cm since the start of the Industrial Revolution and has been very consistent throughout this period.My opponent then goes on to reinstate his argument that Arctic Ice is increasing, which I had already refuted with my NASA evidence, which was collected in late 2014, while my opponent uses data from 2006 and 2013. Even then, my opponent only uses two photographs of the Arctic Ice, each from two single, separate days, which again is subjective because it doesn't show anything over time, but rather it only shows separate days. Again disregard this piece of evidence. Also, even though I concede the Antarctic Ice expansion, I had proven Arctic Ice was losing ice more than twice as fast than the Antarctic Ice grew. Thus this point is null.==Rebuttal 4: Hurricanes and Tornadoes==My opponent drops my argument that tornadoes do not link to global warming.My opponent is misunderstanding my hurricane intensity argument. It has been shown that when sea levels rise (which I proved true) stronger hurricanes get stronger, but weaker hurricanes show little to no trend. [12] "But more significantly, Elsner found weaker hurricanes showed little to no trend while stronger hurricanes showed a greater upward trend. In other words, stronger hurricanes are getting stronger. This means that as sea temperatures continue to rise, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land will inevitably increase." - Skeptical Science [12]My opponent even states that I dropped his R2 graph, which I responded to throughout the debate. The link was only broken. My opponent keeps straw-manning that I drop his arguments when a lot of my arguments have been left unrefuted. I ask my opponent to stop.==Rebuttal 5: Ocean Acidification==My opponent is saying that since the ocean has not acidified to a certain point that can be deemed critical. However my opponent must notice that small parts of the ocean are acidifying to the point that organisms are dying and being replaced with anaerobic organisms, which produce methane, which further contributes to global warming. Parts of this are directly caused by normal everyday pollution, which an kill animals and bleach corals, which has been proven above to have alreday happened.==Dropped arguments== My opponent drops the following arguments/rebuttals:- That CO2 levels have been ising exponentially over the last few centuries- That CO2 levels 600,000,000 years ago are irrelevant since not even the dinosaurs had existed then- That my opponents graphs are very selective and biased- That the Arctic is losing ice more than twice as fast than the Antarctic is gaining ice- That tornadoes do not have a link to global warming- That ocean acidification, even if not at a critical level, is affecting the temperature of the surroundings.I would like to remind my opponent that he must not respond to these dropped arguments in the last round as I cannot respond to them. Any new rebuttals to these dropped arguments should be disregarded.==Conclusion==I have effectively refuted all my opponent's arguments, countered my own, and also proven that my opponent has dropped some of my arguments.The resolution is affirmed.[1] http://planetsave.com...[2] http://www.ucsusa.org...[3] http://www.edf.org...[4] http://www.skepticalscience.com...[5] http://warmgloblog.blogspot.com...[6] https://www.google.com...[7] http://www.skepticalscience.com...[8] http://www.globalchange.umich.edu...[9] http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov...[10] http://www.skepticalscience.com...[11] http://www.motherjones.com...[12] http://www.skepticalscience.com...