Resolved: Man-made Global Warming, on Planet Earth, Exists.

http://www.youtube.com...I hate it when links are broken...http://www.skepticalscience.com...If this doesn't work, click on the original link and take off the extra space at the end of the link in the URL bar. I actually quoted the wrong part of this website by mistake. I was meant to quote "It is unclear whether global warming is increasing hurricane frequency but there is increasing evidence that warming increases hurricane intensity."Also, apologies for writing Carbon Dioxide as Co2 (Cobalt2, as my adversary points out). It's just the way I grew up writing it.Moving on...____________________________________________________________________________________==Counter 1: Co2 and its effects=="Now remind yourself that Pro said in Round 2 that CO2 is responsable for LARGE amount of Global Warming." - OpponentI'm not sure where I said this. I ask my adversary to quote from me.In fact, my opponent's entire rebuttal for this argument is misleading. It is subjective to use only Co2 as a base for a rebuttal against the resolution. If we were to count all the other causes of the greenhouse effect, then it is very possible to conclude that this can heat Earth by more than just 0.15 degrees Fahrenheit. My opponent even concedes that there is a warming caused by anthropogenic emissions, but then states that it is very low. That isn't what his BoP wants. To fulfill it, he must disprove the entirety of anthropogenic global warming."Since 1 gigaton of CO2 is the equivilance of .004% of the Greenhouse effect that means that 49.29 gigatons means an aditional .21% increase to Global Warming. This would account for a grand total of a 0.15 F increase in global temperature." - OpponentNot only have Co2 levels increased, but there are steep increases in other greenhouse gases as well [1]: Be reminded that there is already a correlation between Earth's temperature and Co2 levels, and that the rates of circular cooling and warming, and increase/decrease of Co2 levels have stopped and started to rise severely [2]: We cannot use my opponent's graph which suggests the contrary to the temperatures above, as it only uses data from Georgia [3], a state in the United States of America [4]. There is literally a direct contradiction between my adversary's chart (from 1990, Georgia) and mine (1880, worldwide).Atmospheric concentrations of Co2 and anthropogenic emissions of Co2 have a correlation as well [5]: My opponent then goes on to review a graph on the logarithmic effects of increased carbon dioxide levels. Even if this is true, by my opponent's logic there is still a warming effect. It just gets smaller, but not negative. We can't say that the warming effect is slower to disprove the entirety of anthropogenic global warming, because that is fallacious and invalid, and ends up failing to fulfill the real BoP here.==Counter 2: The earth is actually cooling==People and websites have actually shown the hot-spot absence to be fake. According to Skeptical Science, the absence of the hot-spot could be due to the errors in the processing of data [6]:"Satellite measurements match model results apart from in the tropics. There is uncertainty with the tropic data due to how various teams correct for satellite drift. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program conclude the discrepancy is most likely due to data errors." - Skeptical Science [6]"Allen and Sherwood sought to side step the problems associated with the radiosonde data entirely, and examined the “dynamical relationship known as the thermal-wind equation, which relates horizontal temperature gradients to wind shear”. Thermal wind speed data, in contrast to the temperature data, lacked many of the systematic adjustment issues and other errors, and were used as a proxy for temperature. Allen and Sherwood found that the troposphere appeared to be warming in reasonable agreement to theoretical and modeling expectations." - Skeptical Science [6] The IPCC projections are actually considered to be quite accurate, in comparison to both of Easterbrook's projections [7] (animation of both comparisons, then together): "All of the IPCC projections have proven to be quite accurate, suggesting high reliability. The contrarian projections all underestimate the global warming substantially, and in fact they erroneously predict global cooling and are quite unreliable." - Skeptical Science [7]==Counter 3: Arctic Ice and Sea Levels==Note that the rise and fall of the data represents sea level CHANGE RATES, not the sea level itself. The majority of the data is above zero, meaning that on average the sea level, even if minimally, is rising.In fact, the sea level rise is actually accelerating quite quickly [8]: "A variety of different measurements find steadily rising sea levels over the past century." - Skeptical Science [8]"The trend shows only a mere +/- 0.30 mm per year. "The Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory estimates the rate of sea level rise at 1.42 plus or minus 0.14 mm/year for the period 1954 to 2003. This is less than the estimate of 1.91 plus or minus 0.14 mm/year for the period 1902 to 1953, indicating a slowing of the rate." [6] We can see that 2.8 inches per 50 years isn't that much of an appocolyptic threat." - OpponentThis is irrelevant. We are debating whether anthropogenic global warming exists, not if it is dangerous or not. The existence of something does not mandate an argument of how safe it is.My opponent actually concedes that there is a rise, but again tries to save his stance on the argument by saying that it is minimal, which again isn't the point. By my opponent's logic, if man-made global warming exists, sea levels should not rise at all, to which he has conceded the contrary. Thus my opponent concedes this entire point.Also, although Arctic sea ice extent does follow a pattern, it is still gradually decreasing [9]: Although I will concede the Antarctic ice is expanding, the arctic is losing ice more than twice as fast than the Antarctic is gaining ice [10][11]."Since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles (53,900 square kilometers) of ice a year; the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 sq km)." - NASA [10]==Counter 4: Hurricanes and Tornadoes==I had already proven that tornadoes are not linked to global warming whatsoever, so this argument has been debunked. The hurricane argument has been re-responded to.To reinforce the fact that hurricanes are getting more intense however, here is a graph showing the increase of more intense hurricanes over time [12]: "Higher surface temperatures of the world's oceans could be responsible for the big rise in the strength of hurricanes, say US scientists." - Physicsworld.com [12]==Counter 5: Ocean Acidification==Although it is correct that ocean acidification is not yet at a critical level, it is acidifying very rapidly. It is predicted that by 2100 the ocean will have a pH as low as 7.8 [13]: "Currently, there are no known natural explanations for the observed decline in GLOBAL AVERAGE ocean pH, and, there is one, clear human-caused explanation (note the global bit is important - there is natural local variation in pH but we are concerned with global shifts)." - Switchboard [13]Since the ocean is acidifying, the organisms in the ocean will slowly die out, for anaerobic organisms to replace them and emit gases such as methane, as shown in the last round.==Conclusion==I have effectively refuted all my opponent's claims and have shown how my opponent has essentially conceded. Thus the resolution is affirmed.[1] http://www.natsoc.org.au...[2] http://www.ukccsc.co.uk...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://www.lawrencevilleweather.com...[5] http://www.lawrencevilleweather.com...[6] http://www.skepticalscience.com...[7] http://www.skepticalscience.com...[8] http://www.skepticalscience.com...[9] http://www.carbonbrief.org...[10] http://www.nasa.gov...[11/video] [12] http://physicsworld.com...[13] http://switchboard.nrdc.org...