Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory is Correct

1. Greenhouse effect The greenhouse exists and contributes to some of the warming, that fact is not debated. However, the significance of this effect is. The fact is, the direct effect from man-made gases cannot, alone, cause climate change. In order to come with the estimates of human induced climate change positive feedback mechanisms must exist. If the response is neutral, or negative, it is very unlikely that added greenhouse gases from man have a significant effect. If there are no feedbacks--an insensitive climate, “this means that the extra carbon dioxide we pump into the atmosphere is not enough to cause the observed warming over the last 100 years”[1]. So, as argued in my sensitivity argument, the debate is not whether or not there is some impact of CO2, it is not whether or not the greenhouse effect exists, it is a question of feedbacks. If my opponent cannot demonstrate a sensitive climate system, the primary mechanism for AGW theory--the direct effect being amplified to a significant level--AGW is impossible. Research indicates either a system with few positive feedbacks or negative ones. A study in the journal Climate Research found that climate sensitivity was only 1.8 degrees C, and could possibly be lower [2]. New research done in 2012 found a median sensitivity of 1.1 degrees C [3], which replicates a study published in Energy and Environment in 2009 [4]. The researchers in E&E claimed that their evidence demonstrated a no feedback climate system with carbon dioxide. Research in 2009 and 2011 in Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science demonstrated negative feedbacks, with mean climate sensitivity of 0.7 degrees C [5]. Assuming negative climate feedbacks, the greenhouse effect is only responsible for one third of the warming since 1979, which is a crippling blow to the theory of AGW [6]. 2. Causes of emissions I have little doubt that the recent CO2 emissions are in fact caused by man. Although there is some doubt to this theory [7], I find the doubt not convincing. However, believing that CO2 is mainly emitted by man is not endangering the arguments I have made above. 3. Effects of added emissions Other than the temperature predictions my opponent claims (and 1.5 as the lower estimate, if true, would actually refute AGW, this is why alarmists generally choose 2-3 degrees C), this section is irrelevant. The temperature predictions are already refuted under my extensive climate sensitivity argument and rebuttal. But I will refute her other arguments just for fun. The argument we are running out of water is false. The oceans create water through evaporation every day, and rain gives us enough fresh water every day for a decade. The reason we are ‘running out of water’ is because it is not raining in our reservoirs. Our cities are placed where it rained 100 years ago, which has temporarily made a ‘crisis’. But this is treated by merely shipping the water. The costs of water may increase, but is it not going to run out or be catastrophic. And as the weather changes, as will the rain, meaning certain areas will gain water others will lose it. Further, all coastal settlements, if they actually did run out of water, could merely filter ocean water. The vast majority of sea level rise will not affect food production. Satellite data shows although some regions have seen sea level rise, globally, the trend is insignificant and in many areas nonexistent [8]. The fact GMO’s are keeping food production normal is actually an argument against alarm. It demonstrated that new technology will cause us to adapt and mitigate any plausible damages from climate change. As the world changes, humans adapt, and make up for the change. Her argument really shows us how brilliant humans are, really. However, research dispels the myth of falling food production. In fact, CO2 and crop yields correlate almost perfectly: more CO2, more crop yields--this is even including the period before GMO’s. And research shows crop yields should be expected to increase as emissions and temperature increases. Rice, depending on the genotype, increases yields from 2-180% at 570 ppm. In areas where agriculture has overused the land, research shows CO2 enrichment can increase plant growth and counter the lack of nitrogen and phosphorus in the soil. And in the case of drought, more CO2 increases plant efficiency and reduces the need for water [9]. These facts show that increases CO2 and temperature will benefit the planet, not harm it. 1. http://www.drroyspencer.com... 2. http://www.int-res.com... 3. http://wattsupwiththat.com... 4. http://www.pas.rochester.edu... 5. http://www-eaps.mit.edu... 6. http://heartland.org... 7. http://www.drroyspencer.com... 8. http://www.co2science.org... 9. http://www.co2science.org...