Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming

Hello again, I appreciate my opponent's commitment also. The debate has been interesting, if long. Unfortunately my last response was somewhat incoherent towards the end - this is because it was written at a time when I should have been asleep...I. Find the Gases that Causes the Planet to Warm I am glad that my opponent does not refute this. However, what my opponent must mean by agreeing with it is that the greenhouse effect actually exists, as I explained. If the greenhouse effect exists, then enhancement of that effect must warm the planet! My opponent states later that "carbon dioxide does not correlate with temperature very well," but it must if he agree with these statements.II. Ensure that those Gases Enter and Remain in the Atmosphere in Greater (or Lesser) Quantities than Beforei. Methane I agree that, relative to the natural amount of methane entering the atmosphere, the human contribution is fairly small (20%). What my opponent does not realize is that this small change can have MASSIVE effects - the CO2 and Methane (and water vapour) that are in and are cycling through our atmosphere now have been keeping the planet warm for ages, and thank goodness for that as otherwise the average temperature on earth would have been at -18 degrees celsius, that's zero degrees fahrenheit for you Americans, otherwise known as enough for the surface of the planet to be solid ice!Now we know the effects of the amount we already have (from -18 to 14, or 0 to 57 in fahrenheit) just imagine what a slight, minor increase will do... Keeping in mind that the difference between now and the last ice age is just 5 degrees celsius, that's 10 fahrenheit.Methane warms the world "20 times faster than CO2" (1) and although it is only at 1/200th of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (and the increase is proportional to this) that still makes methane emissions responsible for 28% of current warming.My opponent's graph is correct, saying that in 2004 methane emissions were going down. Does that preclude the idea that methane caused warming in the years before 2004, or will again? The argument is fallacious in and of itself. Also, AFTER 2004 methane emissions began to increase again, shown here. This may be because methane was trapped in arctic ice, melted by global warming. A fact, by the way, that my opponent cannot dispute - to say that global warming is not happening wrecks his own arguments, to say that there is no natural gas/methane in arctic sea ice is to contradict accepted science.II.ii. CFCsOnce more my opponent asserts that because something will not happen in the future means that it is not happening in the present or did not happen in the past. CFCs, which are entirely human synthesized, are no longer in use. This is, as I mentioned earlier, a success. Since CFCs never had the chance to warm the planet too much (though they certainly damaged the ozone layer) I added them as an afterthought on how humans are capable of changing our planet.II.iii. Nitrous OxideMy opponent's reply here is similar to his on methane, and I give a similar response - small changes in the environment can have massive effects, and my evidence is the same as well - the temperature the planet would be at without the greenhouse effect. Nitrous oxide is particularly interesting in this case because it traps heat 300x as fast as carbon dioxide. This is a phenomenal amount, but since much less nitrous oxide ends up in the atmosphere every year than carbon dioxide, it remains a lesser contributor to warming. My opponent asserts that cows reduce nitrous oxide in the atmosphere - but by how much? The reference my opponent provided was inconclusive at best. iv. Carbon Dioxide My opponent's assertion here that the troposphere is not warming is, unfortunately, incorrect, as this graph should exemplify. According to Science Daily, "The troposphere, the lower part of the atmosphere closest to the Earth, is warming and this warming is broadly consistent with both theoretical expectations and climate models, according to a new scientific study that reviews the history of understanding of temperature changes and their causes in this key atmospheric layer."My opponent claims that his graph "disproves the greenhouse theory" but does not recognize that the natural greenhouse effect has been warming the planet for thousands of years - he is welcome to suggest that CO2 could come from another source than humans, but to say that the greenhouse effect does not exist contradicts this (5) this (6) and this (7) and many, many other sources. In fact, the greenhouse effect itself was known to be true long before global warming, in 1824 when Joseph Fourier first expained it. You have to wonder, where else would all the CO2 go? It doesn't just disappear!My opponent is self contradictory here, as in the same argument he concurs that carbon dioxide and other gases warm the atmosphere but denies that the greenhouse effect they create exists, and furthermore denies that adding any MORE carbon dioxide would warm the atmosphere to a greater extent!If one is to study my opponent's graph here more closely, one realizes that the ppm of carbon dioxide is increasing on this graph, and quite alarmingly. In a mere 30 years it increased by 30 ppm in our entire atmosphere! This is very alarming, especially considering what I mentioned earlier, the fact that the natural amount of ppm of carbon in our atmosphere has warmed the earth 60 degrees fahrenheit and 30 celsius! I repeat again as well that the difference between now and the last ice age was 6 degrees. Thus the temperature and the ppm shown here ARE correlated, and in a very alarming way. The next graph presented is in fact a clever trick - it focus only on minor temperature changes and not on the larger picture it merely sets the information so that the lines fit. It is true, as I have mentioned that the sun causes short term variations in temperature. However, here is a graph that shows OVERALL temperatures, and thus the long term correlation between CO2 and temperature. The next piece here (A "cooling" arctic) is simply incorrect. I can show you better than explain, but here are a few quotes anyhow."Since 1951 the arctic has warmed twice as much as the global average" (9)"The temperature in the arctic has gone up 1.5 degrees celsius, whereas the world has gone up 0.7 degrees.""Arctic's rapid temperature rise breaks records." (10)"Last year NASA released reports showing arctic temperatures going beyond 2010 records." (11) For my opponent's final point, he says that global warming causes rises in CO2 levels. How? The greenhouse effect has been established, and accepted by my opponent. If CO2 levels are a a lagging indicator, then how are 1960 - 1990 on these graphs explained? II.iv. Water VapourWhat my opponent does not realize here is that temperature rises cause water vapour to increase! Therefore a 1 degree celsius rise in temperature from CO2 causes a 3 degree rise from water vapour - thermal expansion means more water evaporates.No more space - one last graph. This explains the speed of current warming best.1. http://www.skepticalscience.com...2. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov...3. http://greenliving.nationalgeographic.com...4. 4. http://www.climatechangechallenge.org....5. http://www.sciencedaily.com...6. http://en.wikipedia.org...7. http://www.climatechange.gc.ca...8. http://wattsupwiththat.com...9. http://www.economist.com...10.http://www.wwfblogs.org...11. http://neven1.typepad.com...12. http://www.skepticalscience.com...