Global Warming Exists

Round 3Contention 1: Increased CO2 levels are from human actionThere are two issues regarding my opponents argument, which I will address. 1) How can anthro account for such a rapid spike in carbon dioxide levels? The primary argument that global warming skeptics present for the increase in carbon dioxide levels is that it is a natural occurrence. The issue with this argument is that throughout the 4.5 billion years in which the earth has existed the carbon dioxide levels have never spiked so rapidly [1]. It is unlikely that such a drastic change in the earth's atmosphere would only occur one in 4.5 billion years. Graph F displays the rapid increase of carbon dioxide levels. Graph F: 2) Industrial Revolution correlation Using Graph B from the first round as reference, it is shown that the spike of carbon dioxide levels correlates flawlessly with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the mid 1800's. I would like to ask my opponent, is it simply a coincidence that this is the case? In my opinion, find this incredibly unlikely. Dr. Roy Spencer has not addressed either of these issues with his hypothesis, and therefore I conclude that we should not consider Dr. Spencer's research as legitimate. Contention 2: CO2 in the atmosphere causes increased temperatures. Acknowledging that carbon dioxide traps heat, and yet it has no correlation with increased global temperatures is both illogical and not scientific. Noting that global temperatures have always increased when carbon dioxide levels increase, how does my opponent explain the increase of global temperatures this time? Also, arguing that global temperatures have been hotter in the past makes no sense. This is due to the fact that the earth was once essentially a ball of fire. For the case of the graph, however, the global temperatures that are 7.5 degrees Celsius higher than the present were during a time of natural warming. Modern days, we are technically in an ice age. This makes it even more impressive that are temperatures are increasing, and while it is possible that it is simply a natural interglacial period, however I will disprove this using Graph G. Graph G: This graph shows the global temperatures for the past 400,000 years. In every single interglacial period, the temperatures drop nearly instantly after the spike. However in the modern "interglacial period" the high temperatures have remained high and have not dropped following a spike. This implies that this is not a natural interglacial period and therefore must be considered that it is occurring due to human influence. As for Dr. Don Eastbrook, I don't understand how he can claim that the earth is cooling while every graph suggests the contrary. For Dr. Jan Esper, does this not support global warming? If the earth is supposed to naturally cool, then how can it be explained that the earth is warming? It suggests that the earth is warming due to human actions as opposed to natural reasons. For the graph presented, it is a generic graph which global warming skeptics often present. The problem with this graph is that the information is skewed to support the claim that the earth is cooling. Graph H represents how skeptics skew the data while Graph I presents how global warming believers view the data. Graph H: Graph I: In Graph H, it is clear that the temperature pattern is increasing, however skeptics take a very small portion of the graph to "prove" that temperatures are decreasing. Graph I shows a more accurate representation of how global temperatures should be graphed. The arctic ice increase is a far more controversial subject, however. There are two theories for why the sea ice is increasing, despite global warming. One theory involves an increase in wind due to the hole in the ozone layer. The theory states that with increased wind, the wind pushes more ice out into the ocean. Due to the ice being farther out in the ocean then the surrounding water cools and therefore freezes. This theory relies on global warming due to the fact that the increased winds are a result of ozone depletion, which is a result of increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere [2]. The second theory also relies on global warming, more specifically, increased sea levels. With an increased amount of warm water, the ice in the poles melts faster. This adds cool, fresh water into the ocean, which while does not lower temperatures to a freezing point, does create conditions suitable for freezing. Therefore, if temperatures decrease enough, the ocean will freeze over rapidly and farther out than in most situations [3]. In both of these situations, the increase in arctic ice relies on global warming, therefore disproving my opponents hypothesis that global warming cannot exist. As for Al Gore, he obviously doesn't know what he is talking about, based on my and other scientists arguments. Sources[1] http://nineplanets.org...[2] http://environment.nationalgeographic.com...[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...