Anthropogenic Global Warming Is Real

Thanks to Con for submitting a quick response. Also, I want to let the voters know that I will not be responding to arguments presented in Con's videos due to character space. I will only respond to the arguments that Con decides to elaborate on. == Rule Clarification == No, it is not a violation of the rules to point out why evidence may be incomplete, obsolete, etc. It is okay to criticize arguments and evidence, but not the sources of such information. == Counter Arguments == CA1) Pro claims that there actually is no scientific consensus that accepts the validity of AGW, but this simply isn't true. Pro lists seemingly large numbers of scientists whom doubt the veracity of current Climate Science, but it's the percentages that really matter. A 2009 survey found that 82% of all Earth scientists feel human activity has a significant impact on global warming trends, and 97% of Climatologists agree. The main dissenters are Meteorologists, whom study short-term and local weather patterns, rather than long-term, global climate patterns, such as active Climatologists. http://articles.cnn.com... Pro also correctly claims that science is not a democracy, but fails to realize how a scientific consensus is established, which is through evidence and theory. Unlike the general public, the scientific community does not base its conclusions on opinions and ideology, but instead facts and evidence, which makes such a consensus very, very reliable. CA2) Con presents two arguments here: Past warming trends and the *rate* of such warming. The first chart shows the radical cooling period sustained during the last ice age 16,000 years ago, which is understood to have been triggered by variations in Earth's axis. But more importantly, when focused on the last millennium, the chart shows surface temperatures to have been the highest 1,000 years ago. This is known as the Medieval Warming Period, which is notably a regional phenomenon, for most other data sets support the "Hockey Stick" figure that demonstrates *global* temperatures are currently much higher than they were 1,000 years ago. http://www.newscientist.com... Con's second argument asserts that the current rate of Climate Change is insignificant when viewed historically. However, as I pointed out in my opening arguments, positive feedback loops and weakening carbon sinks are aiding the acceleration of Earth's warming, which is perpetuated by human activity. Con has failed to address these factors. http://www.nature.com... CA3) Here, Con attempts to blame current warming trends on asphalt, which has supposedly corrupted the temperature records. This issue has been studied in detail, and the effects of urban areas are proven to be statistically insignificant. Not to mention, observatories such as NASA adjust the data to account for such variables, and the results remain largely the same. http://www.grist.org... CA4) It should be noted that Con's evidence arbitrarily limits graphs in order to force a distorted conclusion, which makes the data set largely incomplete. The 11-year sunspot cycle has remained relatively constant for the last few centuries, and has even declined over the last few decades. However, Earth's temperatures have not fluctuated in similar ways, but have instead steadily increased, which clearly rules out the possibility that solar cycles are responsible for recent warming trends. http://www.ucar.edu... http://www.ourplanet.org.uk... CA5) Con should elaborate on this argument. In any case, Con fails to acknowledge that the Stratosphere is cooling, while the Troposphere is warming, which is indicative of greenhouse warming, rather than solar warming. The exact fingerprint may be missing from the data set, but this might be due to instrumental errors. http://www.realclimate.org... CA6) Con claims that rising temperatures cause CO2 levels to rise, which is nonsensical. He has switched the chicken and the egg, and he provided no mechanism for how this might take place, except for the assertion that rising temperatures decrease oceanic carbon solubility, which isn't described in his source. On the other hand, myriad scientific institutions have explained in great detail how CO2 traps solar energy in Earth's atmosphere, which creates the Greenhouse Effect. Moreover, historical temperature/carbon data collections demonstrate that CO2 rises BEFORE temperatures, which empirically disproves Con's assertions. http://dangerousintersection.org... CA7) Con criticizes the Hockey Stick graph, which is somewhat justified. It has been acknowledged that the statistical process used by Michael Mann was faulty, but overall, the data set was fairly accurate. Additional studies have further substantiated Mann's paper, simultaneously discrediting the Medieval Warming Period. http://www.newscientist.com... == Addressing Con's Refutations == CR1) In my first argument, I pointed out that CO2 helps to create the Greenhouse Effect, but Con replies with cloud feedbacks, which doesn't refute how greenhouse gases affect Earth's climate. It instead poses that clouds may reduce the rate of warming, but considering that clouds trap AND reflect heat, the overall effect is probably neutral. Because Con's refutation was vague and poorly sourced, my argument stands. CR2) "As long as CO2 is not significant cause, this argument is not plausible." -- This does not address the correlation between the Industrial Revolution and the rise in CO2. Furthermore, CO2 IS the cause of Earth's warming trends, which is another point that Con hasn't properly addressed. CR3) Con claims that negative feedbacks (clouds) stabilize surface temperatures, yet the graph I cited clearly shows substantial temperature fluctuations, which throws that notion out the window -- I'll link it again. Ironically, Con also says that the graph refutes my own arguments, which isn't true. My argument is that *recent* temperature fluctuations cannot be explained by natural phenomena; however, past fluctuations can be. Thus, Con's response boils down to a straw-man. http://www.seed.slb.com... CR4) Con once again claims that cloud feedbacks will stabilize Earth's temperatures, otherwise past temperature records would be wildly fluctuating. Funny enough, past temperatures DO vastly fluctuate, which already cripples Con's argument. Not to mention, clouds do not act solely as *negative* feedbacks, but also as *positive* feedbacks. http://www.sciencedaily.com... There are other feedback mechanisms to take into account, such as the aforementioned arctic ice dilemma, along with weakening carbon sinks -- two arguments that Con dropped. These combined factors will overwhelm the neutral effects of cloud feedbacks, which is observed in previous temperature fluctuations that Con's arguments cannot account for. == Conclusion == Con has largely ignored crucial evidence put forth in my opening arguments, and he's also dropped some of these arguments. Con also provided incomplete data sets while glossing over a scientific consensus that directly conflicts with his flawed position. Overall, Con has not adequately provided the necessary data and theoretical framework required to dismiss the overwhelming science that arbitrates Anthropogenic Global Warming. Thanks again to Con, and good luck with your response.