Mankind Is Not the Main Cause of Global Warming

Thanks to subutai for providing an interesting and educational case for me to analyze and rebut!RebuttalsDue to the loose structure of my opponents case, rebutting it proves difficult, as his contentions are not itemized. Nevertheless, I am going to itemize the case, and then attack each aspect of it.My opponents case, as I understand it, appears to be this:1. Solar activity increases deflection of cosmic rays2. Cosmic rays increase cloud cover3. Less cosmic rays means less cloud cover4. Less cloud cover results in temperature increase5. Solar activity is the main cause of modern global warming.The first, second and third premise is not at all confirmed by scientific evidence, nor is it agreed upon in the scientific community, unlike molecular vibrations.The fifth premise matters greatly, and I will rebut it with one main counter contention, which relies on one simple fact: my opponent provides precisely zero evidence that solar activity has been increased in recent years. Yes he may have shown that historically the solar cycles has had some influence on warming/cooling periods, but he totally fails to prove why this warming period is due to solar cycles.A) Solar Activity/Cycles cannot be responsible for modern global warming.-I. Though warming is occurring at record breaking rates, solar activity is at its lowest for the past 100 years.One major flaw we see in my opponents argument is that it is all based solely on the assumption that solar activity is currently increased, thus deflect cosmic rays, and resulting in warming. Yet this is not the case. Solar activity is actually at a 100 year low [1]. Here we can see each and every "flare" cycle becoming weaker and weaker. Solar activity is declining. Rapidly. [2] We are even currently expecting a minimum similar to the maunder and Dalton minimums my opponent cited (periods of significant global cooling). How can solar activity possibly be the cause of modern global warming, if solar activity (the cause claimed by my opponent) is decreasing so quickly?!Furthermore, the very study my opponent claims to "end the debate right there," the scafetta and west study, states explicitly "since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could reasonably be expected from the sun alone." [3, page 4].The expected solar minima of 2006 [2] is now 8 years past, and yet the temperature continues to rise incredibly rapidly, with accelerating pace! My opponent cannot claim that the cooling has not yet occurred due to "latency cause by the oceans heat capacity." If we expected cooling to occur within the next 5 years, the heating rate would be slowing, not increasing. The very graph that my opponent uses to seal in his argument referencing the medieval warming period is an outdated graph, debunked in the hockey stick controversy. Here is that same graph in red: Compare the IPCC 1990 (red) to the now corrected IPCC 2001 (blue) and Moberg et. al (black). The warming indicated by the graph my opponent was exaggerated as it was collected with flawed techniques pre-Kyoto protocol. Furthermore, the hatched green line shows modern warming trends, which easily blow these older warming periods out of the water in both rapidity and magnitude. Here is a even more detailed graph, compiled from from a preponderance of sources. (North et. al [4])We can still easily observe the medieval warming period, but with our data collection methods corrected, we can see that this warming period pales in comparison to the modern warming rates, with 2004 massively overshadowing the medieval warming period. Keep in mind, warming has only increased in rapidity since 2004.Benestadt and Schmidt show us that the sun could only have contributed to 7% (+/- 1%) of warming since 1950 [5]."A full reading of Tung 2008 finds a distinct 11 year solar signal in the global temperature record. However, this 11 year cycle is superimposed over the long term global warming trend. In fact, the authors go on to estimate climate sensitivity from their findings, calculate a value between 2.3 to 4.1°C. This confirms the IPCC estimate ofclimate sensitivity." [8]"In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. In the past century, the Sun can explain some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount." [9]"Hypothetically, an increasing solar magnetic field could deflect galactic cosmic rays, which hypothetically seed low-level clouds, thus decreasing the Earth's reflectivity and causing global warming. However, it turns out that none of these hypothetical are occurring in reality, and if cosmic rays were able to influence global temperatures, they would be having a cooling effect." [10]In response to my opponents point regarding the warming of other planets, "There are three fundamental flaws in the 'other planets are warming' argument. Not all planets in the solar system are warming. The sun has shown no long term trend since 1950 and in fact has shown a slight cooling trend in recent decades. There are explanations for why other planets are warming." [11]My opponent can come up with as many possibilities and theoreticals as he pleases, but the fact remains that actual scientific data flies in the face of every claim that he makes. When empiric data is observed, we see that solar activity is lowering while heating is increasing. We see that cosmic rays have no significant demonstrable effect on the environment. When we compare this to the Con case, we see that the evidence obviously weighs in the Cons favor. Molecular vibration and VSEPR theory are established scientific phenomena. The nature of GHGs is well understood. The scientific community has collected a massive preponderance of evidence.SummaryThe claim that the sun is causing global warming is patently false, as is shown by an overwhelming number of reliable and scientific sources. Solar activity is decreasing, and the planet is warming. The correllary between my opponents case, and the actual state of nature is in direct clash. My opponents case holds no water.-II. Attack on opponents sourcesAs I feel I have successfully rebutted all notions that solar activity could be the cause of modern global warming, I will now take a moment to analyze my opponents sources, and debase them. Let's start with source 3. Here is a direct quote from my opponents third round 2 source "The IPCC stance with respect to the issue is a conservative one. While the panel's 1990 report states that changes in the output of energy from the sun do have an effect on climate, as determined by the 11-year solar cycle, its most recent report states that the role of solar output remains uncertain. The panel simultaneously stresses the significance of increasing CO2 concentrations on climate, thus indicating that a great deal more needs to be learned about solar activity before it is considered as a major factor in forcing climate change."Source 5: This comes from a forbes.com op/ed blog (a financial blog). The relevance of this source is obviously questionable. EVEN THEN as a skeptic he EXPLICITLY states that the impact of solar cycles is likely minimal. Quote, "We know the relevant effects exist in a lab, and are fairly certain they exist in nature, but we are uncertain how sensitive the actual climate is to these effects."Source 6: This comes from a popsci article. Popsci is not a peer reviewed journal, and the author does not directly cite any authority, but upon reading the article, we again see that the emphasis is that there is a "possible" link between solar cycles, cosmic rays, and cloud cover.Source 7, and 13: Watts Up With That is merely a blog notorious for spreading disinformation, and purposefully skewing data to debase the credibility of AGW scientists. "Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer. His website is parodied and debunked at the website wottsupwiththat.com Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries." [6] Watts isn't even a certified meteorologist.Source 8: The Fred and Avery study, famous for being fueled by spending from, surprise, the Heartland Institute. "The existence of climate changes in the past is not news to the climate change scientific community; there is a whole chapter about it in the upcoming IPCC Scientific Assessment. Nor do past, natural variations in climate negate the global warming forecast. Most past climate changes, like the glacial interglacial cycle, can be explained based on changes in solar heating and greenhouse gases, but the warming in the last few decades cannot be explained without the impact of human-released greenhouse gases. Avery was very careful to crop his temperature plots at 1985, rather than show the data to 2005." [7]Source 9, 11, 12: All blogs published by non-experts, without citation to legitimate reliable sources.SummaryThe whole of my opponents sources are questionable at best. The "facts" of his case hold no water, no reliability, and no authority. His case is simply unacceptable due to the illegitimacy of his sources. Sources in comments