Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth.

Thanks to my opponent! Reading their arguments I can see this will be a great debate! I'd like to remind my opponent that although this is a rebuttal round, per the rules, new arguments can still be made.Also, there was a problem with my sources in the previous round. I will present them again:[1] http://climate.nasa.gov...[2] [3] http://climate.nasa.gov...[4] http://climate.nasa.gov...[5] http://data.giss.nasa.gov...[6] http://earthguide.ucsd.edu...[7] http://climate.nasa.gov...[8] http://scienceline.ucsb.edu...[9] http://www.forbes.com...[10] http://www.nasa.gov...[11] http://www.nasa.gov...[12] Rebuttals==Rebuttal 1: To doubt =/= To refute==My opponent's first argument poses a few flaws. First of all, the new figure that has been presented has *barely changed* looking at the more recent years of the graph. Also, the change at the start of the graph is a difference of what seems to be less than 0.2 degrees Celcius, which doesn't even change the fact that the warming is significant. But that isn't the point. The point is the question of what to trust. "Now this claim that the pause doesn't exist poses a problem because a few years ago the claim was that the pause was caused by about 17 volcanoes back as little as 2014. So which is it? Does the pause exist, and was caused by Volcanoes, or does the pause not exist, and was caused by weighting issues in the data? Any reasonable person should now have some doubt in the basic data claims of global warming for a basic contradiction." - My opponentWhile I can agree that this may pose doubt, I can also ask the audience to *turn* this argument, because more recent updates are and should be seen as more trustworthy, no matter how close they are. Therefore, my opponent's argument here only proves that there was no hiatus and the doubt should be cast on the 2014 update.Finally, I will stress this as much as I can: *This doesn't refute the notion that humans are a significant cause of global warming, because so far it only focuses on temperatures instead of causation.*==Rebuttal 2: Methodology Bias==There is no doubt that methodologies change throughout the course of time, as we advance with new technology. However, shouldn't it be safer to trust more modern methods rather than outdated ones? A lot of my opponent's part 2, 3 and 4 arguments are based solely off the fact that methodologies change, rather than addressing the fact that new methodologies can be used to update old figures, as was done with NASA's figure.Another version of figure 6 in my opponent's round can be seen here [1]: s://www.ncdc.noaa.gov...; alt="Graph showing no slow down in global warming" />What really matters is what my opponent says about his GHCN analysis of the high monthly average delta graph. He claims that the cooling period might explain why figures 4 and 5 start at a certain point. But there wasn't any major increase trend in ice even before the 70's [2]: "Globally glaciers are losing ice at an extensive rate (Figure 1). There are still situations in which glaciers gain or lose ice more than typical for one region or another but the long term trends are all the same, and about 90% of glaciers are shrinking worldwide (Figure 2)." - Skeptical Science [2]Sea levels have also been rising since the 1800's [3]: "A variety of different measurements find steadily rising sea levels over the past century." - Skeptical Science [3] The most important part is where my opponent claims that the trend is almost nothing and can't be used for future predictions. This graph closely resembles the one found here [4]: This figure was created from the actual temperature rise graphs from choosing the most actively reporting stations. Unfortunately, my opponent never gives a reason as to why there was a cooling in 1945 - 1970. The reason to this is actually one of my opponent's arguments: methodologies changed right at that time. This would imply that graphed temperatures rapidly changed, and in this case, dropped. [5]Not only that, but the cooling was actually due to sulphate aerosols being released into the atmosphere [5]. Sulphate aerosols reflect solar energy back into space. This was not only caused by humans releasing such aerosols, but also by volcanic eruptions [5]. The greenhouse effect would start dominating climate again in the 70s, and the rapid warming has continued until today [5]. Therefore, rather than arguing we are not a cause of either, we should be discussing that we are the cause of both, and that the cooling was just a temporary decline.==Rebuttal 3: Is The Cause Solar Output?==The crux of my opponent's argument here is that pan evaporation correlates more with solar activity, and that the sudden increase would be because of a rip in the Northern Pole, weaking the Earth's magnetic field. We both agree that the sun's activity has remained quite constant in recent history. However, if the sudden warming were due to this rip, we can logically conclude that the atmosphere would be warmer within all layers as would happen with a situation where the sun actually increased in activity [6]. However, we have actually seen "a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gasses are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere." - NASA [6]Therefore, my opponent's arguments are null.New contentions ==Contention 4: Positive feedbacks strengthen forcings==Forcings are factors that "force" climate to change. Feedbacks are factors that amplify or diminish the effect of forcings. Because positive feedbacks dominate climate, the effect of forcings are significantly amplified [7]: ==Conclusion==The evidence I have put out proves my opponent's arguments null and even contradicting as some of his data does not consider other factors. Therefore, so far a conclusion can be made that human effects do play a big part in global warming.==Sources==[1] https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov...[2] http://www.skepticalscience.com...[3] http://www.skepticalscience.com...[4] http://wattsupwiththat.com...[5] https://www.skepticalscience.com...[6] http://climate.nasa.gov...[7] http://www.nasa.gov...To Con!