Man-Made global warming exists* and poses a serious threat to humanity.

Points Ceded by Con-GHGs are at an all time high-Humans do emit large quantities of GHGs (which he claims is too small in proportion to general emissions)-The ocean is losing its ability to absorb GHGsDefencesI. CO2 and GHGs"Pro argues that humans also give off many other emissions. I acknowledged this in my last round and discussed it's potential as well. Those gases have huge GWPs but are simply too small in the scheme of things.""Pro's numbers are correct, but they only represent what percent of the total MAN-MADE GWP those gases make up. But when compared to the total GWP from both men and nature, it only account for 0.278%."These arguments may seem compelling at a first glance, but that is only if one doesn't take into account climate sensitivity. Climate sensitivity is how sensitive the global climate is to energy change in the lower atmosphere. Cons argument rests on the concept that climate sensitivity is low. This is not true. Climate sensitivity is highEssentially, climate sensitivity is how much our climate warms if we double the CO2 in the atmosphere. (A) Climate SensitivityClimate sensitivity is high. If man continue to put out CO2 emissions the way we do now, the global warming trend will accelerate. The nature of global warming is such that the more heat that is trapped on earth, the worse the effects of global warming become. This is primarily because as the ocean becomes warmer and warmer, it lessens it's ability to absorb natural gas. Doubling the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise global temperatures by a minimum of 2 degrees Celsius. A conservative estimate places this number closer to 4.5 degrees Celsius. (1)With the extent of man-made CO2 and its impact clearly made explicit we move on to directly address Cons case regarding the % of emissions of man-made CO2 in comparison t natural emissions.(B) The significance of man-made CO2 emissionsMy opponent argues "Pro's numbers are correct, but they only represent what percent of the total MAN-MADE GWP those gases make up. But when compared to the total GWP from both men and nature, it only account for 0.278%. This is far too small to be a threat to the World."Again, this may seem compelling, but when we investigate what the effect of man-made CO2 actually is, we see his point is not so compelling. Let's talk equilibrium. Equilibrium is the state where opposing forces are balanced. Nature naturally seeks this equilibrium. The massive numbers Con shows that come through natural emissions do not stay in the atmosphere (historically). Before man began to emit large amounts of CO2, nearly all natural CO2 emissions were absorbed by the ocean or the trees. The emissions were at equilibrium with the absorption. Man made GHGs have thrown this equilibrium totally out of whack. The emissions that are naturally produced do not stay in the atmosphere, and therefore do not contribute to the greenhouse effect. Man-made emissions do indeed remain in the atmosphere. (2) Consider the following graph Man made GHGs accumulate in the atmosphere and quickly accelerate the effects of the Greenhouse Effect, and thus contribute significantly to global warming. "About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years)." (2)"While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2." (2)"Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ? carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions." (2)This irrefutable points out that although Con is correct in saying that the natural carbon cycle emits more CO2, the Man-made emissions have a much more potent effect on the atmosphere.Subpoint A points out the sever nature of the effects, as a rise of 2 degrees Celsius could have very severe consequences (1)SummaryMan emits a lot of GHGs. Nature emits way more, but the GHGs do not stay in the atmosphere. Mans GHGs are a major cause of global warming, as man-made GHGs remain in the atmosphere, unlike natural GHGs. The earth warms significantly. This warming further reduces the oceans ability to absorb GHGs, further increasing the damage done by Man.II. Indirect emissions(A) The effectiveness of replantingCon is correct in saying that more trees are planted than cut down, but this does not mean that GHGs are more effectively curbed. The fact is, older trees actually absorb more GHGs than younger trees."Trees' growth accelerates with age, according to a new study in the journal Nature, which suggests that the world's oldest trees could play an important role in combating climate change. The revelation goes against the long-held assumption that trees lose their vigor with age. An analysis of more than 600,000 trees belonging to 403 species found that trees grow more as they get older, which enables them to trap more carbon than their younger counterparts." (3) (B) The ocean, and heatingThe ocean absorbs around 40% of all carbon emissions, natural or man-made. (4)Warming the ocean significantly reduces its ability to absorb GHGs. As I have proved, Man-Made GHGs warm the earth significantly more so than natural GHGs. Natural GHGs that remain in the atmosphere due to the warming of the ocean via man-made GHGs are just indirect emissions from man. "The world’s oceans will absorb lower amounts of carbon dioxide as they warm" (4)Therefore, you can see that humanity raises the global average by only a few degrees Celsius, and the effects of that damage "snowballs" out of control, and results in disastrous levels of damage. SummaryI, the pro, have proved irrefutably that man-made GHGs are responsible for the warming cycles that expert environmental scientists claim to be "impossible to be natural." I have proved as well that man-made GHGs stay in the atmosphere longer, and therefore contribute much more to the greenhouse effect. This warming snow-balls and causes even more natural CO2 to be trapped in the atmosphere. These massive amounts of GHGs in the atmosphere heat the earth through the greenhouse effect. These GHGs are in the atmosphere because of man.Therefore, VOTE PRO!Sources1. https://www.skepticalscience.com... 2. http://www.skepticalscience.com...3. http://www.natureworldnews.com...4. http://www.rtcc.org...