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

Thanks to my opponent, it's been fun.I will respond to the points my opponent has made in this round, and clarify my case.But first of all, I am sure that I hadn't ignored a piece of my opponent's case. Don't trust this claim as just because a response is brief doesn't mean it's not valid.==Rebuttal 1: 1970 has more ice than 1870==My opponent is correct that the data is cumulative. However, he drops my response to this when I stated that there was an apparent but brief drop in temperature caused by sulphate aerosols. I don't agree with how my opponent states I must drop the evidence simply because his basis is that there was an increase in ice for 20 years (even though the line starts dropping rapidly). If we were to apply a trend line the line would most definitely be slanted downwards towards the right. His argument doesn't explain the rest of the graph showing sharp declines in ice. I find that my opponent nitpicks at every little flaw that doesn't seem right even though the rest supports my argument, and he ends up dropping the rest of the graph altogether.I think what my opponent focuses the most on, however, is how figures are exaggerated as more and more climate stations are set up, and he attempts to apply that to temperature record figures. However, the notion that temperature record figures are untrustworthy is false, as has been shown throughout the debate [1]: "For example, a study by Anderson et al. (2012) created a new global surface temperature record reconstruction using 173 records with some type of physical or biological link toglobal surface temperatures (corals, ice cores, speleothems, lake and ocean sediments, and historical documents). The study compared their reconstruction to the instrumental temperature record and found a strong correlation between the two[.]" - Skeptical Science [1]==Rebuttal 2: No correlation==This point as a large relation with the first point, and doesn't affect much in the debate. Basically my opponent states that we can't trust graphs that start in the 70's because it was a low point in global warming. There are two points to make:(A) Again, my opponent doesn't focus on the rest of the graphs with clearly agree with my case in the debate.(B) The only figures I gave which started in the 70's are the ones I had replaced with other data.Again, this point is null because it has little to no weight in this debate.==Rebuttal 3: Pan Evaporation==My opponent drops my response to this argument, where I gave the two statements that (a) we cannot use the method because no sources or figures measuring temperature correlate with pan evaporation, and (b) global warming is found to be affected by human causes the most, as shown in the last round.After doing some research, I found that pan evaporation did have to do with climate, but not with global warming. This extends the point of my rebuttal [2]:"Pan evaporation is a measurement that combines or integrates the effects of several climate elements: temperature, humidity, rain fall, drought dispersion, solar radiation, and wind. Evaporation is greatest on hot, windy, dry, sunny days; and is greatly reduced when clouds block the sun and when air is cool, calm, and humid. Pan evaporation measurements enable farmers and ranchers to understand how much water their crops will need." - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopediia [2]Wikipedia states that pan evaporation helps farmers and ranchers to correctly water their crops. But never does it say anything about energy in the atmosphere.==Counter 1: Sea Levels==My opponent seems to make a valid point about the glaical and ice contradiction, but it isn't valid. Glaciers hold less than 2% of the water on Earth [3]:"The amount of water locked up in ice and snow is only about 1.7 percent of all water on Earth[.]" - Textile Waste Diversion Inc. [3]Glaciers were just a part of my argument to show that ice was melting. The fact that glaciers hold so little of the world's water barely makes any difference in the rise in sea levels, especially since most glaciers exist inland, but not near the oceans, as most glaciers are of the Himalayas, which are inland [4][5]: "The Himalayan–Karakoram (HK) region has among the largest glacier coverage outside the polar regions[.]" - Estimating the volume of glaciers in the Himalayan–Karakoram region using different methods [5]This alone means that glaciers can be used as evidence for global warming, but NOT to disprove its existence. My opponent's rebuttal is null.==Counter 2: Mixed Methodologies==This, again, is an example of the nitpicking my opponent has done throughout the debate. Correlation =/= imitation. But if my opponent still can't accept my graph, here are the reasons why my opponent's rebuttal isn't coherent:1. My opponent emphasized a lot on the heat waves of the 30's, so the fact that he's using that to try and prove there isn't a correlation is beyond me.2. Where the temperature drops out (more so not) of the correlation is so insignificant that it may as well be part of the correlation. Somehow my opponent thinks that a difference in correlation about a millimeter or less for a graph THAT size still counts as proof that the correlation is false.==Counter 3: Other planets=="When we burn Coal we actually end up taking O2 out of the air, and put in CO2." - OpponentMy opponent now suddenly agrees that CO2 has a heating effect, which is different from the last few contentions. But if this is untrue, see my previous counter.My opponent also agrees that we are still adding CO2 to the atmosphere, even though oxygen is being taken out of the air. It's basically a concession of this point because my opponent agrees the atmosphere on Venus is thick with greenhous gases. P1) More CO2 in the atmosphere = Earth heats upP2) We are putting more CO2 into the atmosphereC) We are heating up Earth.As for the electromagnetic field, my opponent ignores that Mercury does not have a major electromagnetic field either [6]."Mercury’s magnetic field is 150 times weaker than that of our planet, however." - Phys.org [6] And with a distance much smaller from the sun than other planets, you'd expect that Mercury would be hotter. However, BECAUSE Venus has such an atmosphere it is simply that much hotter.==Dropped arguments==My opponent drops many arguments in the debate, which is lucky because they seem to be important points.He drops the points:- That natural causes have a much smaller heating effect than with human effects- That positive feedbacks amplify heating effects- That the increase in glaciers is probably due to the brief drops in temperature that were only temporary and caused by humans as well- That methodology changes don't change the actual temperature- That we can't use pan evaporation because it is not relevant to the debate- That temperatures are perfectly fine evidence in terms of this debate- That the corrections made in NASA's graph do not make much difference- That newer sources are usually more trustworthy, especially when made by a government websiteThose are the ones that I can think of at the top of my head, and there could be more. Don't let my opponent respond to them because it is unfair if he responds when I can't.==Conclusion== There are huge holes in my opponent's argument, as well as big contradictions. Their arguments are more like theories (or even just hypotheses) because they nitpick at things if something isn't perfect. And my opponent can throw any theory he wants at me but scientific research somehow, as tylergraham said, always seems to fly in his face.The resolution is soundly affirmed.==Sources==[1] http://www.skepticalscience.com...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://textilewastediversion.com...[4] http://oi52.tinypic.com...[5] http://www.the-cryosphere.net...[6] http://phys.org...Final round to con!