Global Warming Exists (2)

RebuttalI am going to keep this rebuttal as short as possible as I am running out of time. My opponent claims that since there is no direct set of theorems, therefore we should not believe in global warming. I acknowledge this, however if we are to base a hypothesis based on our current understanding of both the carbon cycle and the greenhouse effect, it is logical to presume that global warming both exists and that it is a result of human actions. The greenhouse effect states that with the increase of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, the warmer the earth will get. Therefore it can be presumed that since there has been a great increase in carbon dioxide, as a result of human influences, the earth will get warmer. If this is an unsatisfactory theorem to you, my prestigious opponent, than I don't know what else is. My opponent then goes on to state that carbon dioxide naturally falls back down to the ground and therefore should not be able to cause increased temperatures. This is an incorrect statement. It is true that carbon dioxide is denser than oxygen. Within the atmosphere the relative densities of hydrogen :nitrogen: oxygen: air::carbon dioxide are approximately 1 : 7 : 8 : 7.2 : 22 [1]. The reason why it stays up in the atmosphere is a matter of concentrations. In the atmosphere there is enough oxygen moving around to prevent any the carbon dioxide from clumping together and getting too dense so that it falls back to the ground [2]. Adamantly my opponent claims that the global temperatures are not climbing nearly fast enough to suggest that any abnormality is occurring. First off, the graphs that you are citing simply do not have enough time on them. If we look at any graph that dates back to at least 1880, we can see that the temperatures are increasing quite rapidly. For example, look at Graph F. Graph F: We simply cannot deny that that is an increase. The speed of the increase, however, is the question at hand. In a study performed by Climatologist Michael Mann he displayed that the earth was cooling over the past 10,000 years until this century began. The spike shown in Graph G is certainly disturbing, and it cannot be denied that it is unlikely that this is at all a natural occurrence. Graph G: A new study, similar to the one by Mann revealed that the rate at which the world is heating up is faster than it has been in the past 11,300 years [3]. The abstract for the paper published about the study will probably be a better way to explain the study than any attempt of mine, so here it is: "Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time. Here we provide a broader perspective by reconstructing regional and global temperature anomalies for the past 11,300 years from 73 globally distributed records. Early Holocene (10,000 to 5000 years ago) warmth is followed by ~0.7°C cooling through the middle to late Holocene (<5000 years ago), culminating in the coolest temperatures of the Holocene during the Little Ice Age, about 200 years ago. This cooling is largely associated with ~2°C change in the North Atlantic. Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios" [4]. I believe that this sufficiently rebuts my opponents argument that the world is not warming as fast as it should. Putting the global temperatures in a tiny scope such as back just 20 years ago is simply not a way to determine the speed of the increased temperatures. I would like to conclude that global warming must be a real phenomenon as there is countless evidence to support that temperatures have increased in recent years. However, it must not be a natural occurrence due to the rapidity of the temperature change as nothing of the sort has ever in earth's history (that we know of). Since we have conclusive evidence (as shown in graph B) that carbon dioxide levels, the primary pollutant, have increased directly when the Industrial Revolution started. Therefore it can be assumed that global warming is real and that it is a result of human activities. I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. Sources [1] http://colinb-sciencebuzz.blogspot.com...[2] http://www.reddit.com...[3] http://www.slate.com...[4] http://www.sciencemag.org...