Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming

I appreciate your commitment. I. The Current State of the Galaxy AND the Sun? That Is Very Unusual, Since they Do Not Necessarily Correlate I. i. The Rest of the Solar System ". .. it was noted the planet [Mars] was experiencing rapid warming, similar to what the Earth is currently undergoing. .. . The Martian icecaps are melting at a perilous pace. .. . . .. and that both [warmings on Earth and Mars] can be explained by changes in solar irradiance. "[1]"Global warming was detected on Jupiter last year, and the warming is apparently behind the formation of a second red spot. Global warming on Neptune's moon Triton has also been noted, with severe atmospheric changes as a result. And even tiny Pluto has experienced moderate warming in recent years, with temperatures rising a full 3.5 degrees. The common denominator in all these cases, the Earth included, is of course the Sun, which is in the middle of an extremely active period at present. "[1]So yes, all of these bodies are indeed warming, and it can all be attributed to increases in solar irradiance. I. ii. The Position of the Milky Way Galaxy ad Cosmic Rays"With the new results just published in the recognised journal Geophysical Research Letters, scientists have succeeded for the first time in directly observing that the electrically charged particles coming from space and hitting the atmosphere at high speed contribute to creating the aerosols that are the prerequisites for cloud formation. "[2] So yes, there is direct proof. Here is a picture explaining how cosmic rays create cloud formation: [2] And here is the proof for all of this: [3]And finally, I know how much my opponent likes long-period graphs, so I thought I would go back 500 million years: [4] So as shown, cosmic rays create clouds, so fewer cosmic rays create fewer clouds. And, fewer cosmic rays mean more sunspots, which means increased solar activity, which means warming (I will get to this hypothesis later). And, fewer clouds means higher temperatures. And, even if cosmic rays and temperature were diverging, you are ignoring the laws of thermodynamics (I will also get to this later). II. Earthly Causes II. i. Ocean Current AnomaliesThe graph my opponent presented, when looked at closer, is actually self-defeating. You can see that when the PDO index is negative, temperatures decline, when the PDO index is nil, temperatures remain at the same level, and when the PDO index is positive, temperatures rise. Everyone can see the correlation: [Your Graph+My Paint Work] Why are they diverging? Because there has been more positive PDO this year than negative, meaning that there will be more warming. This cannot be attributed to man because there is no correlation between CO2 levels and the PDO. "A warm Pacific (positive PDO Index) as we found from 1922 to 1947 and again 1977 to 1997 has been found to be accompanied by more El Ninos, while a cool Pacific more La Ninas. Since El Ninos have been shown to lead to global warming and La Ninas global cooling, this should have an affect on annual mean temperature trends in North America. "[5]Again, the correlation can be better shown in these graphs:The correlation is very strong here, and, ocean currents rise and fall just before temperatures directly, meaning that ocean currents cause direct temperature changes, not the other way around: [5] And again, here. As a side note, the upward linear trend started way before CO2 was added in any substantial quantity (i. e. temperature growth is not accelerating). It correlates perfectly: [6]And finally, I advance this graph again because it shows perfectly my argument. Notice how temperatures start to rise 2-3 years after a PDO cycle change, again indicating that ocean currents cause direct temperature changes: [6] II. ii. Clouds: A Continuation of Point I. ii. This is from an experiment at CERN called CLOUD: "Scientists found that when shielding was removed and natural cosmic rays allowed to hit the chamber, cloud seeding increased dramatically, and it increased substantially again when additional artificial cosmic rays were added. "[7]"They [Researchers] put realistic mixtures of the Earth's atmospheric gases into a large-reaction chamber, with ultraviolet light as a stand-in for the sun. When they turned on the UV, microscopic droplets of sulphuric acid-cloud seeds-started floating through the chamber. "[8]"Carslaw et al. point out that cosmic ray intensity declined by about 15 percent during the last century 'owing to an increase in the solar open magnetic flux by more than a factor of 2. ' They further report that 'this 100-year change in intensity is about the same magnitude as the observed change over the last solar cycle. '"[9]So yes, there is direct proof of the inverse relationship between cosmic rays and cloud formation. I already proved this correlation in point I. ii. , so I will not repeat it here. III. The 1500-Year CycleI will show this graph again, and go even further back than my opponent: [9]So indeed, the Medieval Warm Period and the Holocene Climate Maximum were higher than today. And, there is ample evidence that the Medieval Warm Period and Holocene Climate Maximum were hotter than today:"Chinese temperatures were 2 to 3 degrees C higher than present during China's climate optimum based on pollen data and the souther limits of permafrost. ""The Mediterranean region, including the coast of North Africa, got more rainfall during the Medieval Warming period than it does in our time. "". .. during the Medieval Warming. .. . Temperatures may have been as much as 2.5 degrees C warmer [than today] due to a southward shift of the climate belts. "[8]The Medieval Warm Period and the Holocene Climate Maximum were clearly higher in all areas. Here are some graphs showing this:China: [8]South Africa: [8]As shown, again, the Medieval Warm Period was a lot higher in temperature than today, which was eclipsed [MWP] by the Holocene Climate Maximum. [10]So, today's warming is clearly not unprecedented. "These are the Medieval Warm Period, which is well known, but also a period during the toga-wearing Roman times when temperatures were apparently 1 deg C warmer than now. "[11] This is backed up by tree ring research. "Indirect evidence suggests that the average temperature was as much as 1.5 degrees Celsius warmer than today. "[12]So why this unprecedented warming in your graphs? Because it is scaled badly. It has only gone up 1 degree Celsius. Explain all of the evidence I have. IV. The Sun This is wrong for one reason: thermodynamics. The sun's activity level is so high that even when it stabilizes, there is still going to be an increase in temperatures. Notice temoerature increases are leveling off as the sun's activity decreases. Still, even if that wasn't true, there is a lag between the lines. The lag is that the sun is 15 years ahead of the temperature. The temperature decrease is just starting. The lag: [8] Sources:[1]: . http://www.dailytech.com...[2]: . http://wattsupwiththat.com...[3]: . http://climatereview.net...[4]: . http://members.shaw.ca...[5]: . http://wattsupwiththat.com...[6]: . http://www.climate-skeptic.com...[7]: . http://www.forbes.com...[8]: Singer, S. Fred, and Dennis T. Avery: "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years. "[9]: MacRae, Paul: "Alarm: Global Warming-- Facts versus Fears. "[10]: . http://tucsoncitizen.com...[11]: . http://www.dailymail.co.uk...[12]: . http://www.thefreemanonline.org...