Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming

I accept my opponent's fifth round offer, as long as I can offer a short conclusion in addition to going over voting issues. I. Attacking My Opponent's Case My opponent here confuses the cause of global warming. I agree that we are currently experiencing a warming trend, but it's not anthropogenic. The temperature dropped about .7 degrees C between 1945 and 1975, based on the graphs I have provided. Also, here is a graph that shows that more highly developed countries don't necessarily have higher temperatures: Graph 1: Holocene Temperature Proxies, Top of page 5, Source 1. The increase, then decrease, than increase in temperatures do not suggest a CO2 cause, which is always increasing. The two do not correlate. The graph I just presented shows that the slow-down occured in almost all locations. And temperatures may have been rising for the past thirty years, but because there was a slow-down, there isn't a correlation between CO2 and temperatures. I won't cover surface vs. tropospheric temperatures until you get there. As for the greenhouse effect, it isn't that promenant. Why? First, by the greenhouse effect, global warming should be starting from the lower atmosphere and moving to the surface, but this is not happening: ". .. satellite and high-altitude balloon data confirm that the lower atmosphere is not trapping lots of additional heat due to higher CO2 concentrations. .. it [the surface] is warming faster than the lower atmosphere where the CO2 is accumulating is. This is strong evidence that CO2 is not the primary climate factor. "[2] Here is a graph relating to the point, showing the decrease in upper troposphere temperature anomalies, disproving the greenhouse theory here: Graph 2: Global Tropospheric Temp. Anomalies in Source 3. Second, CO2 levels do not correlate with temperature very well: "In the last century, much of the warming occurred prior to 1940, when human emissions of CO2 were relatively small compared to today. During the post-war economic boom (when one would have expected the temperature to rise) the world cooled, from the 1940s till the mid-70s (again, this is evident from accepted data used by the IPCC). "[4] Here is a graph showing the fallacy of the CO2-temperature correlation: Graph 3: Global Lower Troposhere Temperatures and CO2 in Source 5. As shown, CO2 does not correlate with temperature. This next graph compares solar activity and CO2 to temperature. It is easy to see which one correlates with temperature more: Graph 4: The Sun is more likely the dominant driver of the recorded Arctic Temperature variations in Source 6. Third, global warming is not starting at the poles like it should be, by the greenhouse theory. In fact, there has been general, relative cooling: "If the greenhouse thoery were valid, temperatures in the Arctic and the Antarctic would have risen several degrees Celsius since 1940 due to the huge emissions of man-made CO2. .. Recently, a team led by the University of Chicago's Peter Doran published a paper. .. saying, 'Although previous reports suggest recent continental warming, our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000'. The data from 21 Antarctic surface stations show an average continental decline of 0.008 degrees C from 1978 to 1998, and the infrared data from satellites operating since 1979 show a decline of 0.42 degrees C per decade. David W. J. Thompson of CSU and Susan Soloman of NOAA also report a cooling trend in the Antarctic interior. . .. report that satellite imaging shows increases in Southern Ocean sea ice parameters from 1978 to 1996 and an increase in the length of the sea-ice season in the 1990s"[2] "Greenland has also been growing colder over the last half-century. .. "". .. examined the temperatures for the entire Arctic for 1951 to 1990, he [Rajmund Przybylak, Polish climatologist] reported, 'no tangible manifestations of the greenhouse effect [could] be identified"[2] This graph shows the arctic temperatures. The blue line is the melt point. Clearly, it spends little time there: Graph 5: Daily Mean Temperature in Source 7. This graph shows that Antarctic sea ice extent is rising: Graph 6: Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomaly in Source 8. Fourth and finally, CO2 is a lagging indicator: ". .. the CO2 changes have lagged about 800 years behind the temperuatre changes. Global warming has produced more CO2, rather than more CO2 producing global warming. "[2] So, the theory is reversed. CO2 does not cause global warming, but vice versa. I've provided evidence for this, you haven't refuted it. ". .. if you look closely at the higher CO2"levels, you see they FOLLOW the increase in temperature. In other words, higher temperatures appear to cause higher CO2 levels. There is no historical or statistical evidence to indicate the reverse is true, that higher CO2 levels cause higher temperatures. "[10] Now on to my case: I. Cosmic Rays Correct. I have not proved the direct tie between cosmic rays and temperature. But I have proven the correlation of cosmic rays to low clouds and low sun radiation. Low clouds means warmer temperatures: "So there you have it, by the work of independent scientists, it is suggested that Dr. Spencer's hypothesis of just a small change (1-2%) of cloud cover has been observed in their study. This can account for the global warming changes observed. Cloud cover has decreased over the past 39 years globally, and temperatures have risen during that time. This global decrease in cloud cover alone could account for all surface warming observed since the 1970s. "[9] More solar activity means warmer temperatures: "However, there is a direct correlation between the solar activity and the temperature of the earth during that same period. "[10] Here is a graph showing great causation: Graph 7: 4th Graph down in Source 11, black and white. "With that said, there is significant correlation between sunspot number trends and temperature in many time periods, provided that an appropriate temperature indicator is utilized. "[11] Graph 8: Correlation Between Sunspot Number and Temperature, just below the previous graph, source 11. So, since fewer cosmic rays increase both of these things that cause warming, it is an obvious deduction that fewer cosmic rays cause higher temperatures. Finally, "On these time scales, most variation in incoming galactic cosmic ray flux is caused by changes in the solar-driven interplanetary magnetic field. Those changes have a major relationship to sunspot trends but are not exactly identical in timing. For example, the authors of a paper by NASA's JPL remark '. .. has compared the minimum aa [index of geomagnetic activity] values with the Earth's surface temperature record and found a correlation of 0.95 between the two data sets starting in 1885. The solar irradiance [solar activity] proxy developed from the aa minima continues to track the Earth's surface temperature until the present. '"[11] I will get to the historical records later. II. Global Warming on Celestial Bodies Here are some solar system wide effects: "Sun -"Recent Activity Highest in 8000 Years [meaning it's not just the 11-year cycle] and"magnetic field has decreased in size by 25% *300% increase in galactic dust entering solar system Mercury - magnetosphere experiencing significant increases Venus " 2500% Increase in Green Glow Mars " Rapid Appearance of Clouds, Ozone and"Up to 50% Erosion of Ice Features in one year alone Jupiter - Plasma Torus increasing and"Jupiter"s Disappearance of White Ovals since 1997 " recent increase in storms Io -"observing same changes -"200% Increase in Density of Plasma Torus and Ionosphere 1000% Higher Europa - Much Brighter Than Expected Ganymede - 200% brighter Saturn"s - Plasma Torus 1000% Denser and"Aurora First Seen in polar regions in recent years Uranus - featureless in 1996, now exhibiting huge storms since 1999 and markedly brighter in"2004 than in 1999 Neptune - 40% Brighter, Near Infrared Range " 1996 " 2002 Triton - Severe atmospheric changes, warming Pluto - 300% increase in atmospheric pressure. "[12] You can't be telling me all of this is a coincidence. Also, by the way, since CO2 does not correlate with temperatures, your Pluto-to-Earth claim is fallacious. " III. Historical Trends My opponent can find over 100 examples that the MWP and HCO were warmer than today in source 2, and a little bit more accessible in source 13. " Here is yet another graph: Graph 9: 4th graph down, source 14. " You cannot deny the existence of the 1500-year cycle and you cannot deny that the MWP and HCO were warmer than today. " In fact, in an earlier report by the IPCC, they said that the MWP was warmer than today. [2] IV. Oceanic Trends "The PDO goes through warm and cold phases, and its shifts can have large effects on temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere. "[15] "A warm Pacific (positive PDO Index) as we found from 1922 to 1947 and again 1977 to 1997 has been found to be accompanied by more El Ninos, while a cool Pacific more La Ninas. Since El Ninos have been shown to lead to global warming and La Ninas global cooling, this should have an affect on annual mean temperature trends in North America. "[16] Ocean currents do have an effect. " The resolution is negated. " Sources:" [1]: . http://icecap.us... [2]: Singer, S. Fred, and Dennis T. Avery: "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years. " [3]: . http://www.drroyspencer.com... [4]: . http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com... [5]: . http://members.shaw.ca... [6]: . http://www.outersite.org... [7]: . http://a-sceptical-mind.com... [8]: . http://a-sceptical-mind.com... [9]: . http://wattsupwiththat.com... [10]: . http://www.isa.org... [11]: . http://wattsupwiththat.com... [12]: . http://prof77.wordpress.com... [13]: . http://www.ncpa.org... [14]: . http://tucsoncitizen.com... [15]: . http://www.climate-skeptic.com... [16]: . http://wattsupwiththat.com...