Anthropogenic Global Warming Is Real

== ERRATA== CR4) NASA actually acknowledges solar cycle being responsible for past warming [12] … - it meant to point at source [13], I am sorry for typo. ==NOTE== As presented relevant sources to describe climate phenomena in my previous posts, its is now time to summarize data and claims presented by both me and my opponent. Like before, I will cite previous sources with numbering used in previous rounds and any new sources will start wit number 17. ==MAIN ARGUMENTS SUMMARY == SUM1) CO2 GH GAS SIGNIFICANCE There is no controversy between PRO and CON about CO2 being a greenhouse gas, but its significance towards AGW is being disputed. CON cited sources explaining why CO2 is not being significant and that under very generous assumptions (eg. CO2 is as strong GH gas as H2O, CO2 caused all warming between 1900 to 2000 [NOAA being cited as source of data] ) [16] show that if we doubled CO2 concentration, the upper limit of temperature increase is 1.39 ï¿½C. This includes all positive and negative feedbacks since the hyperbola is a best fit of empirical data provided by NOAA (data that my opponent defends). This rules out any kind of "Hockey stick" graph caused by CO2. Lots of Mann's assumptions are refuted in [16] too, notably that CO2 is responsible for 26% of total GH forcing, which is roughly around 5% as is supported by numerous sources cited by CON and explanation in [16]. PRO fails to provide reliable quantitative estimation of CO2 GH forcing that would refute my sources aside of correlation of temperature rise and industrialization. But that notion is supported only by hypothesis that natural phenomena couldn't cause that which brings us to next point... SUM2) NATURAL PHENOMENA AND RECENT WARMING Both PRO and CON agree natural phenomena caused cyclic climate change in the past. Question being discussed is whether this could significantly influence climate change since start of industrial age. Figures I cited in CR2 covers correlation of several natural phenomena with increase of global temperature from 1800 to 2000 and it is important to note, that increase in CO2 output do not correlate with temperature increase nor with glacier shortening ratio. It also shows perfect correlation between sun activity and arctic air temperature. PRO try to deny this fact claiming that solar activity was constant for recent century. He supported his very strong claim by single source in CA4 (the second is just temperature data) which contains NO such a claim! After being ask to show how his source supports his claim, he merely re-posted a link without quotation and blamed me for repeating myself (sic!), not addressing the matter (sic!) saying I have been refuted (sic!). I have read my opponent's re-posted source two times very carefully and found no explicit nor implicit information supporting PRO's claim! So I must conclude that PRO merely misinterprets the only figure there in very alarming way. On this basis he wants refute serious scientific papers!!! Since this problem is central to whole debate I will provide even more sources. Namely [17]: "Extending this correlation to the present suggests that solar forcing may have contributed about half of the observed 0.55ï¿½C surface warming since 1900 and one-third of the warming since 1970", [18] say: " ...annual solar irradiance variability accounts for 74% of North Hemisphere temperature anomalies from 1610 to 1800 and for 56% of variance from 1800 to present." and [19] say: "In discordance with the greenhouse effect, we believe that sunspots are the major contributor to short term climate change associated with global warming." and "Solar research quickly led to the discovery of sunspot data, which was strikingly convincing. Not only did it match historical climate data, but also coincided with human advancements/achievements throughout history. For instance, Columbus' explorations occurred when aurora numbers were high, indicating sunspot occurrence, and ultimately warmer weather. Other historical events such as the Renaissance and the Viking colonization showed close relationship with climate change, as a result of sunspots. Finally, the Irish Famine of the 1800's occurred when no auroras were present, causing colder weather and the failure of crops. In addition, sunspots have proven to have a drastic effect on the climate of Earth through the heating of our atmosphere. Sunspots are known to contribute to the formation of volcanoes, which in turn determines the composition of our atmosphere, and ultimately our climate. From this data, we can confidently state that the solar cycle of sunspots closely relates to historical climate change throughout history." Note that [17] and [18] do only deal with irradiance and Svensmark hypothesis [12] is not accounted for. Also see that my source [3] cites original scientific papers of both "sides" of debate and reviews whole scientific debate, so everyone can check it. ==COMMENTS TO MINOR ARGUMENTS== C1) "Hockey stick" graph is defended by PRO on bases of computer models of few scientists and denial of MWP. He thinks that it beats "more than 200 peer-reviewed research papers produced by more than 660 individual scientists working in 385 separate institutions from 40 different countries that comment on the MWP" [3] page 69. C2) PRO says he rebutted my claim of UHI temperature bias in CA3 and merely re-post his source again. So lets examine the source that was posted in 2006. The author (if you click at his name) describes himself as: "Former musician, turned tree planter, turned software engineer." and source where he points at NASA GISS analysis show only that some steps were taken to deal with it. The author however cannot evaluate whether the adjustments were sufficient. My source is study released in 2009 that takes NASA adjustments up to that time into account and finds that adjustments are inadequate. Therefore it was PRO's source that was rebutted, not mine. C3) In CA5 PRO claims it doesn't matter IPCC was wrong. But how can he blame CO2 on basis of models that are wrong about how CO2 warms atmosphere? C4) POSITIVE VERSUS NEGATIVE WATER FEEDBACK This area is to a large extent unknown. Many papers are being released recently discovering both positive and negative feedbacks. Some of recent papers finds strong positive feedback of water vapor like [20], which is being criticized by [21], some finds prevalent negative feedback [22]: "Water vapor feedback in climate models is positive mainly because of their roughly constant relative humidity (i.e., increasing q) in the mid-to-upper troposphere as the planet warms. Negative trends in q as found in the NCEP data would imply that long-term water vapor feedback is negative—that it would reduce rather than amplify the response of the climate system to external forcing". Note these feedbacks are related to temperature, not CO2 so PRO must defend his hypothesis that CO2 significantly causes temperature increase to even start this argument. C5) Carbon sinks Ocean takes less CO2 because temperature increase (solubility), not because its full. If CO2 pressure rise solubility rise. If CO2 doubles plants grow much faster (= photosyntetize more CO2). See the sources I cited because I am out of space. ==NOTE== PRO's lack of attention to sources is alarming as we see and he blames me for his own misconduct. ==SOURCES== [17] J Lean 1998: http://journals.ametsoc.org...(1998)011%3C3069%3ACFBCSR%3E2.0.CO%3B2 [18] J Lean 1995: http://www.geo.umass.edu... [19] Orbital Forcing: http://www.orbitalforcing.com... [20] Dessler 2008: http://www.agu.org... [21] Spencer 2009: http://www.drroyspencer.com... [22] Paltrige 2008: http://www.springerlink.com...