The human effect on global warming is significant.

Note: [x, y] indicates source y from round x. For instance, [1, 4] is aaas.org. "the affirmation must prove that humans are the main cause of GW." 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)Actually 3* temperature increase is due to all green house gas emissions in total. From CO2 only it is a 0.095 degree increase, not even one degree." 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. "2)(...)Because my opponent has the burden to prove that CO2 from humans is the largest contributor to global warming, and because CO2 is still only 3-4% compared to water vapor being 95%, my opponent still does not fulfill the burden." 1. I do not have that burden of proof. See above. 2. 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). My opponent's data I presume is from that site which I hope I succeeded in discrediting. 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. ======== "The article is considering the amount of CO2 stored in the ocean which is more than the CO2 from humans." The article [2, 2] is considering CO2 in general. Only for part of the last paragraph does it discuss ocean CO2 in particular. Since we could argue about the article all day and I can't quote the whole thing, I recommend that the judges read it. ======== "No, there was a 30% increase in CO2, that does not mean CO2 is 30% of global warming." 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]. "2)If we consider the 30% increase in CO2, CO2 will still be 4.703 % of total Green House Gas emissions. Thus still miniscule." 4.703% conflicts with my opponent's estimate "CO2 is still only 3-4%", since 4.703% is outside of that range. Additionally, my opponent's level of precision is incredible -- and I mean "incredible" by the word's original denotation. ======== "Yes, I agree human emissions are the cause of part of the CO2 increase, yet even if humans were 100% of the increase, because CO2 contribution to global warming is so small, it is still insignificant." -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 conceded to the fact that CO2 emissions are around 4%." -I misunderstood what was being measured. 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. -(2) and (3) have been rebutted at least once already. ======== 1) I am using studies as evidence. If many scientists think something, it is more likely to be true. 2) There is disagreement in society about GW. There is consensus among scientists. ======== "They actually found a substantial amount of data." Please link this data. "since 2001, the air temperature did not rise at all while CO2 emissions were on the rise." -Seven years is too short-term to draw any real conclusions. -Temperature rose and fell many times [5]. ======== "4)" 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. We do, on the other hand, know that my data is from a peer-reviewed source. ======== "1)If you just say that you win because more scientists believe in my side is not debate. That is an opinion poll." This is a fair point. I do not suggest that I should win outright; I suggest that my side should be weighted more heavily, since it has the support of the scientific community. ======== "1) My opponent does not give counter evidence to my evidence that water vapor is the main cause of GW not humans." -CO2 is 9 to 26%, not 5%. -CO2 is a climate forcer, while water vapor is a result of feedback. "2) My first contention, that water vapor is 95% of GW, flows through as there is no counter evidence against it." I provided a counter-claim (water vapor with clouds is 66 to 85%); data is from a peer-reviewed paper [2]. "3) Therefore my opponent does not fulfill the burden." Significance does not imply majority. When a cause is insignificant, it does not mean that it contributes to less than half of the effect. It means that without it, the effect would not be noticeably different. "6) He has conceded that CO2 is around 4% of GW." No I have not. CO2 is 9 to 26% of GW. When I said that CO2 is around 4% of GW, I had gotten mixed up by the different factors inherent in GW. I admit that that was a false statement. ======== [1] http://www.edf.org... [2] http://www.realclimate.org... [3] http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu... [4] http://www.realclimate.org... [5] http://data.giss.nasa.gov...