Anthropogenic Global Warming

Thanks, 101! I will now rebut Con's case.OVERVIEW: I can't see any of the pictures Con presents. It seems Con presents many pictures, but they have all failed, instead bringing Google Docs (User Content) links. Thus, I will rebut Con's case ignoring all pictures presented within Con's arguments, and they henceforth account for nothing. Con cannot correct the pictures next round, as I will have no opportunity to refute them. CON's CASEC1. The Effects of the SunP1. The Sun Drives Climate ChangeI agree that the sun is the main driver of climate change. This does not hinder anthropogenic global warming in any way, because, while CO2 may not directly correlate with temperature, the radiative forcing of carbon dioxide and the Sun allows for a correlation. Carbon dioxide is the most major forcing in the Cenozoic, since it traps the Sun's heat within the Earth, allowing for the most recent spurt of global warming. [1] The below graph displays the correlation. [2] The effects of carbon dioxide increase due to positive feedback amplification. Feedbacks such as volcanic activity and clouds can significantly expand the impact of carbon dioxide on temperature. [3] The below graph depicts the correlation between carbon dioxide and temperatures over the last 700,000 years. A comparison of the warming between the troposphere and the stratosphere can demonstrate this. Majority of atmospheric carbon dioxide is found in the upper troposphere, entailing that carbon dioxide would cause higher temperatures in the troposphere than in the stratosphere. [4, 5] The following graph depicts the temperature effect of CO2 in the troposphere and stratosphere. [6] Furthermore, Con's assertion that the temperature anomaly correlates more closely with sunspot cycle length is false. The only study that found such data was by a 1991 Norwegian study, which has flawed data due to arithmetic errors. A new paper has come out and has corrected the errors, which demonstrate that sun-spot cycle length does not correlate well with temperature rise, while carbon dioxide does. [7] The errors are depicted below. [8] The following graph shows the updated correlation. [7] Thus, there is a greater correlation between CO2 and temperature than between the sun-spot cycle and temperature. P2. Ongoing Pausea. Con doesn't prove that "global warming is now experiencing a pause." That is a bare assertion. Most evidence suggests that no such "pause" is being experienced by global warming. UAH and HADCRUT4 data both show that the Earth has been continuing to warm throughout the last 15 years. [9, 10] Further, the long-term trend of increasing temperatures is due to CO2. Short-term variability happens all the time; it does not mean that the long-term increase is going to stabilize forever. Oscillation phenomena, or "La Nena" phenomena, will result in the trend changing, but will revert to a positive trend eventually. [11] The heat content of Earth is actually increasing. "This new research combines measurements of oceanheat, land andatmosphere warming and ice melting to find that our climate system continued to accumulate heatthrough to 2008...Since 1970, the Earth's heat content has been rising at a rate of 6 x 10^21 Joules per year." [12] The below graph represents this. [13] b. Con doesn't establish how this actually links to the resolution. There being a pause in global warming doesn't connect in any way to global warming being man-made, except as a "kritik" of the topic, challenging the assumption that global warming even exists, which is in direct violation of Rule 6.P3. Extraterrestrial Climate Changea. This contention isn't topical. Humans causing global warming on Earth doesn't imply other effects cannot cause global warming in other planets. This is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. b. Con's examples are flawed. The majority of planets experiencing global warming are due to unique factors. "The planets and moons that are claimed to be warming total roughly eight out of dozens of large bodies in the solar system. Some, like Uranus, may be cooling. All the outer planets have vastly longer orbital periods than Earth, so any climate change on them may be seasonal. Saturn and its moons take 30 Earth years to orbit the Sun, so three decades of observations equates to only 1 Saturnian year. Uranus has an 84-year orbit and 98° axial tilt, so its seasons are extreme. Neptune has not yet completed a single orbit since its discovery in 1846." [14] Con's most major line of defense is Mars, but "the notion that Mars is warming came from an unfortunate conflation of weather and climate. Based on two pictures taken 22 years apart, assumptions were made that have not proved to be reliable. There is currently no evidence to support claims that Mars is warming at all." [14] C2. The Solar CycleThe 1500-year-old solar cycle argument is generalized to include the whole Earth. No evidence is given in favor of this. Holistic studies indicate that the 1500-year cycle does not apply to the whole Earth. Due to the generalization not being justified, and other studies have demonstrated that the cycle does not appply to much of the Earth, the argument can be discarded. [15] C3. Cosmic RaysFor cosmic rays to explain climate, 1) the solar magnetic field must have a long-term negative trend, 2) the cosmic ray flux must have a long-term negative trend, 3) cosmic rays must create low level clouds, 4) low level clouds must have a long term negative trend. [16] Firstly, the magnetic field does not have a long term negative trend. It has been fairly inactive over 30 years, and the correlation between temperature and cosmic rays is fairly weak. [17] Secondly, "Cosmic ray flux on Earth has been monitored since the mid-20th century, and has shown no significant trend over that period." [16] Thirdly, for cosmic rays to create low level clouds, the aerosol formation induced by the CR should be able to form cloud-condensation nuclei; this has been disputed. [16] Finally, Norris et al. 2007 argue, "Global mean time series of surface- and satellite-observed low-level and total cloud cover exhibit very large discrepancies, however, implying that artifacts exist in one or both data sets....The surface-observed low-level cloud cover time series averaged over the global ocean appears suspicious because it reports a very large 5%-sky-cover increase between 1952 and 1997. Unless low-level cloud albedo substantially decreased during this time period, the reduced solar absorption caused by the reported enhancement of cloud cover would have resulted in cooling of the climate system that is inconsistent with the observed temperature record." [18] This means low-level clouds do not have a long term negative trend. Thus, cosmic rays cannot influence climate change significantly.SOURCES1 - http://tinyurl.com...2 - http://tinyurl.com...3 - http://tinyurl.com...4 - http://tinyurl.com...5 - http://tinyurl.com...6 - http://tinyurl.com...7 - http://tinyurl.com...8 - http://tinyurl.com...9 - http://nsstc.uah.edu...10 - http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk...11 - http://tinyurl.com...12 - http://tinyurl.com...13 - http://tinyurl.com...14 - http://tinyurl.com...15 - http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov...16 - http://tinyurl.com...17 - http://tinyurl.com...18 - http://tinyurl.com...Thus, I affirm. Over to Con...