Global warming is likely anthropogenic

Rebuttals 1. Agreed 2. Agreed 3. Agreed 4. Agreed 5. Debatable. But I would also like to note only 50% of what we emit is actually gets into the atmosphere. Mother absorbs the other half [1], already decreasing any potential impact humans may have. Other calculations have noted the increase in CO2 could be “[at] most (1.71/1.98 = 86%) of the upward trend in carbon dioxide since CO2 monitoring began at Mauna Loa 50 years ago could indeed be explained as a result of the warming, rather than the other way around.”[2] But, I would agree humans do have a substantial effect on the amount of CO2, yes. 6. It has increased, but there is significant evidence that global warming stopped in the late 90s. One study found, “statistically significant cooling for the past 12 to 13 years, with it not being possible to reject a flat (0 slope) for 16 years.”[3] 7. Short term correlation of a few decades does not substantiate the claim about the causation of CO2 in the atmosphere. For CO2 to be a proven cause, or a dominant cause, it must correlate with temperature well throughout history. Scientists have determined a few facts:[4] · CO2 does not correlate with temperature in the last 500 years · CO2 does not correlate with temperature in the last million years · In the past 10,000 years CO2 does not correlate with temperature · In the last 100 years there is a weak correlation with temperature If CO2 actually was a main driver, it would correlate with temperature in the past – why would it magically become a factor now? Ken Gregory writes, “Temperatures have been variable over time, and do not correlate to CO2 concentration. When CO2 concentrations were 10 times higher than they are now we were in a major ice age.”[5] Essentially, my opponent asks us to accept a 100 year correlation over a 500 million year correlation where CO2 is proven NOT to be a large factor in warming. Further, there are many trends within the 100 years (1950 – 1970, and 1997 – now) where there is no correlation. Actually, approximately 36 years with poor correlation. Studies have been done and find CO2 only has an r = .44 (44%) correlation with temperature. The sun actually scored better, with a 57% correlation, and the PDO with an 83% correlation [6]. I would again like to note correlation does not equal causation. Not like the sun or oceanic cycles where there is a clear causation factor, the effect of carbon dioxide is more unknown. The direct effect of carbon dioxide is much too low to cause a significant amount of the global warming, and the logarithmic effect of CO2 further lowers the chances for the effect to be large. The debate then becomes a debate about feedbacks (how climate reacts to CO2). Studies of paleoclimate are the best for analyzing earths true sensitivity and feedback mechanisms. They generally show CO2 is not a strong factor in climate [7]. 8. It is highly unlikely for this to be true. Other than footnotes, my opponent really does not elaborate. Unless he does, I am not obligated to attack his sources, only what he says. Second List Although cited in his sources, the WHOLE list is taken from his reference 26. He takes it word by word and adds the exact sources from the website and cites them as his own. Although citing the source in the bibliography, he never gives it direct credit, making that plagiarism. 1. Agree. And I agree with the second statement it is just a coincidence. 2. I do not deny humans have had a large effect on the increase in CO2, or even a majority (the 89% estimate was a higher end estimate). So I really don’t have a beef with this. 3. Ok… 4. k 5. AHAH! Jackpot. The study my opponent cited has been highly criticized, has been forced to undergo massive corrections, and still has flawed methodology. Unlike measuring temperature (where stats mean a lot), the study claimed it found statistically significant differences. The difference, climactically, is extremely small although statistically significant. And looking at the results shows there was really little change in outgoing radiation in the period studied [8]. Other studies actually show outgoing radiations may have increased, meaning the greenhouse effect has gotten weaker since the 1970s [9]. How could this be? Answer: “[a]n analysis of NASA satellite data shows that water vapor, the most important greenhouse gas, has declined in the upper atmosphere causing a cooling effect that is 16 times greater than the warming effect from man-made greenhouse gas emissions during the period 1990 to 2001.”[10] The fact CO2 has little effect to begin with and the greenhouse effect is shrinking merely shows natural factors have accounted for most of the warming in the 20th century. 6. My source 10 is one of the most comprehensive studies which obliterates my opponents study. 7. Actually, this is fully explained by the urban heat island effect (UHI) which is stronger at night. When measuring the data from rural sites vs urban sites, only the urban sites tainted by urbanization show faster warming, whilst the rural sites which are untainted show little change in night temperatures [11]. 8. There is no tropospheric warming, that is a lie and I don’t know how it still exists. The troposphere has actually not warmed significantly since 1970, which directly invalidates the whole AGW theory [12]. Another study concluded, “Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modeled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modeled and observed trends have opposite signs.”[13] 9. The tropopause warming is impossible because the troposphere has not warmed significantly. Any warming observed in that layer is, then, likely based on spurious data. Indeed, the literature does not say “that is what’s happening”, it says “no, no trends in either. Slight cooling trends sometimes.”[12] 10. The fact CO2 is one of the weakest greenhouse gasses leads me to believe these correlations are probably pretty weak in reality and exaggerated by alarmists. Further, many solar scientists have noted how we still don’t understand the solar-climate link (though we know it does exist) and it could possibly confuse the two in the data. SOURCES: http://www.debate.org...