The Earth is currently going through a global warming phase.

Since this is the last round, no new evidence should be presented. However, due to my opponent bringing up brand new arguments in R3, rather than R1 when he started, I have to be able to fully address them. For those arguments that have been going on since the beginning, I will only lightly touch and will only source links that I have already sourced in previous rounds (for arguments just brought to the debate last round, I will have to present new sources). I will also include a summary at the end. 1) Heat Island effect Since we are talking about average global temperatures, the average temperature error is what matters. Just like a high temp or a low temp of a single day or night is not important, neither is a single day of the Heat Island effect. We are talking about annual trends. 2)Error margin. My opponent claims that the error is over 2 degrees, however, this is a per station error and it is only an estimate. It is also the case that the error range is + or -, so if one errors +2 degrees and another errors -2 degrees, they balance out. This is what we see when comparing to satellite readings (already presented in R2 and R3). 3)C to F conversion. My opponent must surely see his own error in this. He says "2ï¿½C = 35.6ï¿½F… So the average error is greater than 35.6ï¿½F. " This is horribly inaccurate, because degrees C and degrees F have different zero points. A 2 C variance is only 3.6 F difference. The equation is F = 1.8*C + 32. The "+ 32" is to compensate for the different zero point. 4)"but sadly part of the chart is over 2ï¿½C off. " This is not the case because of the averages. As shown back in 2) if one station is off by +2 and one is off by -2, they combine to be off by 0. Unless every single station is off in the positive amount, they would likely average out to a degree. 5)The lower graph here. This is the second time my opponent has brought this graph up. I mentioned in R2, "This one has absolutely no info for me to even try to find a source. Normally, I'd like to simply say that this shows warming, so it is agreeing with my side of the debate, but proper sourcing is far more important. " My opponent did not refute this, nor provide any additional backup for this graph in his R2 response. And even in R3, he STILL has not provided a source or any indication of what this graph is. However, we know for a fact that it is not satellite temp readings because this chart goes back to about 1905, and we did not have satellites that would measure temp until the 70's. However, since no indication has been given for what this graph is, and my opponent has had plenty of opportunity to do so, it must be ignored. 6)La Nina My opponent, in past rounds, has placed the blame of warming entirely on the shoulders of El Nino (he did so in R1 and in R2). However, with no source to back him up, he claims that the temporary cooling is more than just La Nina. This is a case of special pleading and double standards. My opponent then goes on to show a chart, however, it is really just an illustration, as it has no units, no data points, and nothing to fact check. 7)Atmospheric Temps line up with Surface temps. My opponent claims that his "above chart comparison proves this [wrong]. " If he is referring to this comparison… It has already been addressed. There is no source, no link, no nothing for it. He has been asked since R2 to provide sources and explanations for graphs, but has failed to do so. 8)Irrelevant graphs My opponent claims that his "maps show a cooling tren[d]," however, as I have pointed out (and he has not defended) many of his graphs are selective in nature, and some are completely random. He has presented a graph of the heating of Thermocouples. He has presented graphs of only the north pole during some parts of the year. He has presented graphs of only selected parts of the atmosphere. He has presented graphs with selective 6 year ranges to show a cooling effect. And he has presented graphs with no sources, links, or indication that they are anything more than home-made excel charts. 9)Greenland This is a Red Herring. The increasing thickness of Greenland (still, no source provided) is not a representation of the global temperatures. 10)Thermohaline Circulation (THC) This is a new argument from my opponent, not brought up in his R1 or R2, but in his R3, so I am forced to fully address it here in my final round. The THC is driven by having really cold arctic waters, and really warm tropic waters [1]. The greater the difference, the greater the driving force of the THC, this is to create balance, as the cycle mixes the warm and the cold to create balance (thank you entropy). It should also be noted that the heat transport of the THC [1], is a positive feedback loop (meaning, the warming that it may cause, will only lead to more warming). As glaciers cover less area, the albedo effect is lowered (since that is dependent upon surface area, not thickness), and so more energy is held by the earth from the sun. 11)Volcanos This is also new this round and so will have to be dealt with. My opponent's graph claims that we only have one or two eruptions a year. This is gravely false, as the world sees about 50 – 60 eruptions every year [2]. It should also be noted that it is not important to how many volcanoes erupt, but the volume of dust that is cast into the sky [3]. The single eruption of Mt. Pinatubo released more ash and dust than hundreds of average eruptions. 12)Solar activity This is yet another new argument (that makes 3 new arguments in R3 from my opponent), though I was honestly hoping for my opponent to bring this up from the beginning. The trends that my opponent is looking at are attempting to make predictions 50+ years into the future. There is, of course, no justification to believe that sun spots are going to be dropping in numbers, as his sources predict. As we see here [4], We are currently at the bottom of a sun spot cycle (which repeats every 12 or so years). This means two things. First, since the warming that we've seen has been lasting longer than 12 years, the warming itself is not caused by the sun spot cycle. And second, we will be expecting more warming as the sun heats up over the next 10 years. Even if we look at the complete history of sun spots [5], we see nothing that indicates that the sizes of the peaks are going to be diminishing as my opponent's chart implies. The same goes for solar irradiance [same sources]. Let us recap all the points my opponent dropped. His pictures were outliers and not accurate representations Most of his graphs Tree ring data Most layers of atmosphere temps show warming (three of the four) Some of his graphs are sized so you cannot see temp growth Some of his graphs in general are dropped Satellite readings match with gound readings (my opponent has simply said that they don't without providing a source, nor comprehensive graph of all the atmosphere) In conclusion, my opponent has presented a bunch of graphs and pictures, but has done very little to nothing to source, backup or defend them. Thank you [1] . http://www.pik-potsdam.de... [2] . http://www.eolss.net... [3] . http://savaa.nilu.no... [4] . http://science.nasa.gov... [5] . http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov...