The human effect on global warming is significant.

I will first refute my opponents' last points, and then demonstrate why the negation should win this round. "However, it is not just any blog. It is written and maintained by ten publishing climatologists [1], and is therefore more credible than the word of a single climatologist. The mere fact that it is a blog does not change its credibility." 1)However the problem is that the climatologist that published a piece of your evidence admitted that he is not the most credible. Quote "that my calculations are 'just another web page' no more and no less authoritative than the links above" 2)The blog in general is written by ten climatologists, while the evidence is written by one. 3)My single scientist is credible enough as he works in the Princeton University Geophysical Fluidics Laboratory. "according to Gavin Schmidt of RealClimate, the paper was measuring short-wave radiation [2]." 1)No where in the evidence you linked me to said that the paper by Friedenreich relied on short wave radiation. 2)What's more important is that if it were measuring short wave radiation, the data itself would be illogical. Both water and CO2 trap in long wave radiation, not short wave radiation. The data must be dealing with long wave radiation as (1) short wave radiation passes through so there is really nothing to collect data about and (2) long wave radiation is the only data to test as that is the only radiation trapped by water vapor and CO2 and (3) even if we somehow assume it is shortwave radiation (even though it passes through) the data itself also has the statistics for this radiation for CO2, where you admit short wave radiation passes through it, thus it is impossible for the data to be regarding short wave radiation. "Age is irrelevant. If a paper is older, it makes it no less credible. We still follow that ancient 400-year-old theory about "gravity" after all. " 1)Evidence regarding GW must be relatively recent because as you admit, only recently has CO2 gone up. Thus only recent evidence is credible if we are look at GW which has changed recently. Not in the year 1978 when your evidence was published. 2)Gravity on the other hand is an ever constant force that hasn't changed in the recent times, therefore because it has not changed, recent evidence is not necessary when it is the same evidence we will get now. "My opponent claims that 3-8% is relatively small. But in terms of climate, this is nothing to scoff at. "a 5 or 6 ï¿½C cooling was associated with the huge ice sheets 20,000 years ago" [3, 1], and that was only a small percentage increase." 1)That is correct a 5-6* cooling was significant. But you have to look at the cause of it. Yes, CO2 contributed to it but water vapor was the main cause. 2)In current times, you admit human CO2 is 3-8% while my evidence is around 95% water vapor, thus even if the environmental changes by this amount, it will be most significantly due to water vapor, not human CO2. "Although 9-26% is nothing like the 66-85% effect of water vapor, it is still easily enough to have a serious impact on the climate." 1)9-26% is all CO2, human CO2 which is relevant to the debate is 3-8% 2)You could take my or your evidence on water vapor but even with your evidence, the relative importance of CO2 by humans in incredibly small. 3-8% vs 66-85% (or 95%) 3)The serious impact is due to water vapor and relatively insignificantly caused by CO2 "Water vapor mostly absorbs infrared in the 18-30 micrometer range, while CO2 absorbs it in the 8-18 micrometer range. Without CO2, water vapor can only absorb so much radiation; even if it is more potent than CO2, water vapor lets out most radiation below 18 micrometers. But CO2 absorbs much of the radiation that water vapor lets escape, and so CO2 when combined with water vapor absorbs much more radiation than water vapor alone. Additionally, more infrared is in the 8-18 micrometer range than is in the 18-30 range, so this further inflates the effect of CO2." 1)First of all you are assuming that water vapor needs CO2 so water vapor could absorb more radiation as water vapor is temperature dependent. Yet due to my evidence and validation, the temperature increases due to the changing elliptical orbit of the sun, which you have not denied nor refuted. Thus water vapor actually does not need CO2 in regards to the fact that it is temperature dependent. 2)Water vapor actually traps more radiation and heat. The biology cabinet an institute of scientific research and education on biology conducted a test. They found "Heat absorbed by water vapor: 278 W = 278 J/s (absorptivity = 0.75) Heat absorbed by carbon dioxide: 0.4 W = 0.4 J/s (absorptivity = 0.001 at its current partial pressure)… Therefore, water vapor is the main driver of the warming effect of the atmosphere. On this case, water vapor absorbed infrared radiation emitted by the surface 14 times more efficiently than CO2." Thus, my evidence concluded water vapor is 14 times more radiation absorbing than CO2. (http://biocab.org...) 3)It is also not the rate of absorption that matters. Even though my evidence concludes that water vapor absorbs more heat, it is also the amount of it in the atmosphere because there is much more water vapor than CO2. Coupled with the fact that water vapor absorbs more heat, CO2 by humans is clearly insignificant to GW. The feedback effect is inherent for water vapor AND CO2 thus the relative significance of each stays the same. Therefore CO2 will still be relatively insignificant. "Human emissions threw off the balance." 1)even though we threw off the balance the effect of the increase is nonetheless miniscule. "I'd really prefer a primary source, but by the time my opponent is able to post one, the debate will be over. As it is, I can't say much, because the article does not cite any sources or give any explanation as to why it is reliable." 1)I'm not Japanese so it is going to be hard to find the Japanese research paper. 2)I got the translated one so you can actually understand it. 3)The JSER is basically the government energy advisory group of Japan, and that is not credible? "Even if we accept that the JSER is a scientific organization, that's still only one scientific organization. MIT is not a scientific society, but a university." 1) Again, this is not an opinion poll. If we go by your logic, it substantially reduces negation ground. Debate is not about what others think nor is it about trying to prove what is considered by society and scientists. Debate is about trying to convey a side no matter the bias of society and scientists. Debate is about seeing why something is so. You are welcome to convey the findings of these scientific societies and argue them, yet it is fallacious to gain the advantage just because of the fact that they have this opinion. {-Voters-} At the end of this debate, we have to refer to the burden. My opponent has proposed that he need only to prove that human CO2 is significant and not necessarily the most important. Yet he has failed in upholding the burden of the round. Importance is relative. At the point that water vapor is 95% and human CO2 is 3-8%, it is clear that CO2 from humans is certainly insignificant. Also, I have shown you that water vapor is 14 times more radiation absorbing than CO2, thus 14 times more potent in intensifying the effects of GW. The negation should win for 5 reasons 1) Opponent does not fulfill his own burden 2) Opponent unfairly reduces negative ground as he assumes an advantage due to the inherencies in society, which cannot be changed by the negation 3) Opponent's evidence does not prove CO2 from humans is significant in relation to my evidence 4) Negation upholds opponent's burden 5) Negation provides evidence with the same if not more credibility than the opponent's