manmade activity is probably a significant cause of global warming

1. The sunI would like to note climate changes in cycles, and much of the time they are very predictable. The current warming, an interglacial, a 1500 sun movement is known to create many umps in temperature (like in the medieval warm period.) Now a book was written on the subject, and is arguably the most comprehensive data on the subject, 580 references, and shows a 1500 year climate cycle that has been shown to heat the earth rapidly; all due to the sun. Solar variability is the most important factor in modern warming. [1, 2] Cosmic rays increase cooling by creating cloud cover, and a stronger sun means less cosmic rays as its magnetic field blocks it from us. The sun is unusually active, and therefore lowering the amount of rays we receive; less clouds more warming. "When the Sun is active, its magnetic field is better at shielding us against the cosmic rays coming from outer space, before they reach our planet. By regulating the Earth’s cloud cover, the Sun can turn the temperature up and down. ... As the Sun’s magnetism doubled in strength during the 20th century, this natural mechanism may be responsible for a large part of global warming seen then." [3]Further satellite data has seen the earths sun getting hotter, and more of its rays have been seen to hit earth more frequently, therefore much of the warming we see is a warm sun. [4]2. Volcanoes I do not think volcanoes cause warming. Also as my opponent never cited her quote it is technically plagiarism. After eruptions temperatures temporarily decrease. But over 1000s of years the CO2 they emit (much more then humans have can ever dream of emitting) can lead to long trends of warming. [5]In the long term many eruptions WILL heat the planet, but most eruptions are small enough to have little effect. But this is irrelevant to my case, as I think the sun and the PDO warm period is the reason we are seeing warming. 3. Quotes My opponent cites many quotes, all of which are refuted above. But I will provide a few. "We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century."Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk...**In other words sun caused warming in 20th century, the current cooling/flatline was expected based on a small 15 year cycle. "If CO2 is the main driver of climate change this last century, it stands to reason that the trend of surface temperatures would follow the trend of CO2, and thus the R2 correlation between the two trends would be high. ... The results were striking to say the least. An R2 correlation of only 0.44 was determined, placing it between fair and poor in the fit between the two data sets. [co2 correlation weak then] ... In this case, the correlation of TSI to the surface temperature record is better than with CO2, producing an R2 correlation of 0.57 which is between fair and good. [the PDO is a better correlation]"http://wattsupwiththat.com...4. Agencies say man madeAppeal to authority fallacy, therefore all evidence here is refuted based on that.5. Her bullet points I agree warming is happening, but the polar regions never fully melted. It is observed, however, Antarctica is gaining ice. [6] Temperature has not been increasing for 1000s of years, only since 1850, as seen in this graph: (IPCC 1995)As we can see tempertures where falling for much of those years, and the trend is a flatline/downward trend. e have actually seen cooling/flatline since 1997-8, as seen here: Essentially all of my opponents bullet points are refuted by these two graphs. I see no hockey stick. ==Case==BoP - My opponent is pro, BOP on her. My case, therefore, can be weak. GRAPH TIME!! co2 and tempertures -- not correlated Medivial warm period warmer then today -- Natural cycle C02 is mostly natural -- unlikey we can warm. The ppt is 1.6/100,000. It will have no effect on temprtures, logically. Poor correlation solar erradiance = correlation PDO/AMO = correlation No correlation 1940-70. No correlation 1905-1935. Co2 correlation failure list:1998-2007 (graph above)1940-701905-35=Co2 has no correlation.vote con[1] http://www.lewrockwell.com...[2] http://www.isil.org...[3] http://wattsupwiththat.com...[4] http://partners.nytimes.com...[5] http://www.cotf.edu...[6] http://www.washingtontimes.com...