The human effect on global warming is significant.

I will begin by addressing the issue with the statistics and numbers and then move on to the rest of the case. "I don't know where this number came from; probably from my opponent's discreditable source. According to [3, 1], human CO2 accounts for about 3% to 8% of the greenhouse effect. The temperature increase directly from human CO2 is about 1 to 2 degrees, but the article claims that this is "not a sensible way to calculate climate sensitiv[i]ty" because it ignores the feedback effect. Though much more difficult to calculate, the feedback effect is a very prominent effect of human CO2 emissions." 1) My source is actually more credible. What is ironic is that my opponent's evidence (about CO2 being 3-8% of GW, and temperature increase of 1-2 degrees) is from a blogger, who he himself has proclaimed that he may not be as credible, and my evidence is from a Princeton scientist working in the Geophysical Fluid laboratory. As I have stated, this data I am using is NOT from the creator of the site but rather the creator of the site obtained the data from this scientist. 2)3-8% is still relatively small compared to 95%. 3) It is your burden to impact the effect of CO2 due to the feedback effect. Merely saying it is important without giving me a number or to what extent it impacts leads to its irrefutability. " Water vapor is not 95%, but is actually more like 36-66% (66-85% with clouds). It is still the most important, but CO2 is also prominent, with 9% to 26% effect [2]. Since right now it's just my word against my opponent's, I will point out my source. This data is from a scientific paper by Ramanathan and Coakley. Ramanathan is a publishing scientist [3] (and I can't find a bio on Coakley). " 1)That evidence from Ramanathan and Coakley is from 1978, clearly outdated. 2)A quote from the actual article my opponent uses, "it's clear that water vapour is the single most important absorber" also, "water vapour is indeed the most important greenhouse gas" The article my opponent itself states that water vapor is significantly the most important cause of GW. 3)We cannot look to CO2 in general but CO2 from humans. My opponent's own evidence states "human-injected carbon dioxide… would be between 3 AND 8%" "Not only is CO2 more prominent than my opponent claims, but its prominence is exaggerated by the feedback effect. When CO2 causes just a little bit of warming, this increases water vapor levels, increasing temperature further. While not the original cause, water vapor acts as an amplifier for the effect of CO2." 1)Your burden is to tell me how much of an effect so I can actually weigh the impact. 2)The evidence my opponent uses to verify this also states that water vapor also acts as an amplifier. Thus, because both these gases will be amplified, on a relative scale, the effect from CO2 is still going to be miniscule in comparison to water vapor. 3)Water vapor does not act as an amplifier for CO2 it acts (as my opponent's evidence states), as an amplifier to amplify the temperature and heat in the environment already. 4)Now even if we assume that water vapor acts as an amplifier for CO2. It is clear that water vapor is grossly significant as the immense amount of water vapor makes it amplify CO2 immensely, thus appeasing the burden. "The article [2, 2] is considering CO2 in general. Only for part of the last paragraph does it discuss ocean CO2 in particular." 1)Water vapor also undergoes amplification, thus because both effects are amplified, the relative effects of each are still the same, therefore water vapor is significantly more important than water vapor. "That's what I meant. CO2 is 9 to 26% of global warming, before feedback. And CO2 increased by 30%, almost entirely due to human activities [4]." 1)That evidence is not as credible as mine, I explained above. 2)Even if we assume it to be true, we are looking at CO2 from humans alone not CO2 in general. Your own evidence states: "human-injected carbon dioxide… would be between 3 AND 8%" Clearly still miniscule. CO2 can increase by 30% but because CO2 gas is still a relatively insignificant gas to GW, humans have an insignificant effect. "4.703% conflicts with my opponent's estimate "CO2 is still only 3-4%", since 4.703% is outside of that range." 1)No I actually did calculations after you told me CO2 increased by 30%. I did the CO2 percent from my evidence, 3.618% and multiplied by 1.3 to get 130% of it. "One could multiply 30% (CO2 increase) by 9 to 26% (effect of CO2 on GW), which gives 3 to 8%. Therefore, humans are contributing 3 to 8% to greenhouse gases (before feedback, remember), which is hardly insignificant. It is enough to have a serious effect on the climate. -Two words: Feedback effect." 1)you have to realize water vapor as well as CO2 both undergo the feedback effect, thus both the effects are amplified, thus the relative importance for water vapor and CO2 stay the same. 2)It is your burden to tell me the extent of the feedback. (even though water vapor and CO2 will both be amplified, thus the relative importance will still be the same.) "It is still worth noting that most CO2 emitted by nature is re-absorbed, but humans are emitting CO2 too fast for nature's sinks to absorb it. So even if nature emits more CO2 than humans, it is humans who are responsible for the increase in CO2." 1)The CO2 by man is still the same CO2 by nature, thus the absorption of CO2 by man is the same as nature's CO2. 2)I agree humans have increased CO2, but you must prove that human's effect on GW is significant not CO2. "Please link this data." The Register translated the relevant parts. http://www.theregister.co.uk... "I don't see anything on the graph saying who it was made by. Though this graph may be from a peer reviewed source, we cannot know. " 1)The source is at the bottom of the page. "I suggest that my side should be weighted more heavily, since it has the support of the scientific community." 1) This point inherently removes ground for the negation. 2) It does not have the significant the support of the scientific community. JSER, MIT etc. "CO2 is a climate forcer, while water vapor is a result of feedback." 1) Feedback, Climate Forcer, it does not matter because water vapor is so significant, even if the effects are translated in the form of feedback or climate forcer, its cause for GW is still much more significant. "I provided a counter-claim (water vapor with clouds is 66 to 85%); data is from a peer-reviewed paper [2]." 1)From 1978 2) Even if we assume it is true, it is still grossly significant compared to CO2, 3-8% (as your own evidence states.) "My burden, as I stated in round 2, is only to prove that the human effect on GW is significant: important in effect or meaning. Something does not have to be the majority effect in order to be important." 1)Yet importance is relative, meaning something is important only when it is relatively more vital than something else. In regards to GW, CO2 from humans is, as you state is 3-8%, and water vapor, as you state 66-85% (Even though my evidence states 95%). Yet even if we look to your evidence, it is clear that CO2 is insignificant, thus appeasing your burden. {-Closing-} You should, at this point vote for the Negation for 4 Reasons 1) My opponent's evidence still shows that CO2 from humans is insignificant. 2) Therefore my opponent has not fulfilled his own burden. 3) My opponent limits negation ground. 4) My sources are actually more credible, not a report from 1978 nor a blogger on a scientific site.