The Instigator
MTGandP
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
ben444422
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

The human effect on global warming is significant.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/24/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,497 times Debate No: 8399
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

MTGandP

Pro

(Paraphrased from http://www.debate.org...)

I'm not sure how well I worded the debate resolution, so I will explain further. This is a scientific debate about whether humans are driving global warming and whether it is a problem. Not all evidence has to be inherently scientific, but all evidence should give reasons to believe that the human effect on global warming is significant (PRO) or insignificant (CON).

Definitions
Human effect: Effect caused by unnatural human actions; this includes sources such as factories and power plants but excludes sources such as natural respiration.

Global warming: an increase in the earth's average atmospheric and oceanic temperature that causes corresponding changes in climate and that may result from the greenhouse effect. (dictionary.com)

CO2: Carbon dioxide.

AGW: Anthropogenic global warming; global warming caused by human activities.

========================
Contention 1: Basic Scientific Argument
========================

(I have purposely left out some information; I cannot fill all the holes in 8000 characters, and will therefore only fill the holes that my opponent pokes at.)

The sun radiates electromagnetic waves onto the earth. They pass through the atmosphere, but are absorbed by the ground. When molecules on the ground absorb the electromagnetic radiation, they then re-emit it as infrared radiation. Infrared has a longer wavelength, so some atmospheric gases, called greenhouse gases �€" namely water vapor, CO2, and methane (CH4) �€" absorb it and turn it into thermal energy (a.k.a. heat). This traps heat, causing the earth's temperature to increase. Because of the greenhouse effect, the more greenhouse gases there are, the hotter it gets. This effect isn't much like a greenhouse, but I will nonetheless use the term.

For hundreds of thousands of years, CO2 levels remained in the 180 to 300 ppm (parts per million) range [1]. But as of 2007, CO2 levels were at 390 ppm [2]. The environment was relatively stable for hundreds of thousands of years, so why the sudden change? Human emissions can only be responsible. Humans have been emitting CO2 in vast quantities since the mid-70's: our cars emit it, our factories emit it, even our homes emit it.

========================
Contention 2: Scientific Consensus
========================

It is important to remember that science is not a democracy. But if nearly all scientists agree on something, it is probably correct. And nearly all scientists support AGW.

I: Scientific Societies
Many scientific societies have advocated for AGW. At this time, it is important to remember that scientific societies are not advocacy groups. But these societies found AGW so important that they felt they had to endorse it.

The national scientific societies of 21 countries have endorsed AGW:
Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Caribbean, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, South, Africa, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States [3].

The following societies have also endorsed AGW:
Network of African Science Academies, National Research Council, European Science Foundation, World Meteorological Organization, Federation of American Scientists, American Meteorological Society, American Association for the Advancement of Science [4].

This is far from a complete list, but is meant to give an idea of how many scientists support AGW. This list represents hundreds of thousands of scientists.

II: Peer-Reviewed Papers
Perhaps more important than the endorsement of scientific societies is peer-reviewed papers.

In 2004, Science magazine conducted a search for scientific papers on the topic of global warming [5]. They searched through all papers with the keywords "climate change", for a total of 928 scientific articles. Here is a quote from [5]:

{quote}
The 928 papers were divided into six categories... Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of AGW. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.
{/quote}

***

I thank my soon-to-be opponent and look forward to a fun debate.

***

References

[1] http://www.newscientist.com......
[2] http://www.newscientist.com......
[3] http://logicalscience.com......
[4] http://www.aaas.org......
[5] http://www.sciencemag.org......
ben444422

Con

In this debate, I ask you to reject any past assumptions regarding global warming because this resolution may be affirmative favored in that the majority of society assumes that humans are already the cause of global warming.

---------------------

I will first analyze the resolution, then reaffirm the negation side of this debate, and then refute the opponents' arguments.

Now let's look at the resolution word for word "The human effect on global warming is significant."

I agree with the opponent on the definition of the human effect.
The key word in this debate falls on the word significant. Princeton word net defines it as "important in effect or meaning".

|-Burden-|

The affirmation must prove that humans are the main cause of global warming to win this debate, while the negation (me) need only to prove that humans are not the main cause (less than 50% of the cause) to win this debate.

|-Contention 1-| {The main cause of global warming is not humans but water vapor.}

Now you may be confused at this point, thinking how exactly does water vapor contribute more to global warming? Well first off I need to relate to scientific analysis. The earth's rotation moves on an oscillating orbit meaning it does not move in the same elliptical shape each and every year. Therefore each year, the elliptical orbital path of the earth shifts little by little. Scientists argue that every thousands of years, the earth goes on an orbital path where the sun shines the most on the Earth. Yet the increased intensity of heat is still not the main cause of global warming. What happens is that the sun increases its intensity of light, thus increasing the evaporation rate of water particles. The increased evaporation rate causes the global warming by trapping heat on the Earth. S.M. Freidenreich created a chart detailing the main gases causing global warming. He found that water vapors (H20) were 95% of the problem. Furthermore, CO2 was 3.502% of the cause for global warming. The same study is backed by the EIA (Energy Information Agency). My opponent has conceded that human emissions relate to increases in the CO2 level, and by showing you that CO2 gas is only 3.502 % of the cause of global warming, the human effect on global warming is insignificant.

|-Contention 2-| {I will add later in the debate}

Now let's look at the opponent's contentions

His first contention argues that CO2 levels have been increasing and that human emissions have been increasing; therefore humans must be the cause of global warming. I have 2 responses to this

1)I will cross apply my first contention, showing that CO2 gas is only 3.502% of the cause of global warming, to prove that even if humans are 100% of the cause of CO2, their effect on global warming is still less than 50% (refer to burden) therefore their first contention falls.

2)This is correlation NOT causation. I agree CO2 levels have been increasing. Human emissions also have been increasing, yet it does NOT mean one is causing the other.

His second contention (part I) argues that because many scientists and scientific agencies agree that humans are the main cause of global warming then it must be true (by following the majority rules ideals of a democracy) I have 3 responses to this

1)Judging the issue on a democratic scale, or any biased scale at all, is unfair. By weighing the issue on a mindset that many people may not believe in is unfair to those who view the opposite. I could hypothetically say that I can look at the issue on a stance that I believe in an all powerful god, instead of a democracy, and say that God made global warming happen and not humans. Therefore in this debate, we cannot look to who agrees with what or how many people believe in it and instead look to warrants, facts and validation.

2)Scientists are not always right. The creation of string theory countered many past physics laws. Many believed the earth was flat, many believed in the 4 humors, many believed in Aristotle's' laws, which were later proven false. Thus consensus among a group of people does not mean a fact is true. The majority of the US is Christian, who believe in God; does that mean that God is actually real? Therefore we must again look to warrants, facts and validation.

3)Because most of society believes humans are the cause global warming, the scientists who reject this idea "have been ridiculed and called stupid, mostly in the political arena. No one in the media or in politics is listening to any of the scientists who say it isn't so." (quote from a scientific article) Because scientists are actually discouraged from looking into the other side of the resolutional spectrum, the amount of people who actually state that humans are the cause of global warming, thus appeasing the majority of society, is bound to be more than the scientists who are discouraged to look at the other side of the debate (where humans are not the main cause).

His second contention (part II) argues that Science magazine found that the majority of scientific articles say that humans are the cause of global warming. I have 2 responses to this

1)Scientists are not always right. The creation of string theory countered many past physics laws. Many believed the earth was flat, many believed in the 4 humors, many believed in Aristotle's' laws, which were later proven false. Thus consensus among a group of people does not mean a fact is true. The majority of the US is Christian, who believe in God; does that mean that God is real? Therefore we must again look to warrants, facts and validation. (repost)

2)Many of these articles and papers, found by the Science magazine, assert that humans are the main cause of the sudden increase in CO2 levels, and therefore causing global warming. I could similarly link turn this because global warming is only 3% caused by CO2. Therefore I agree with the many articles found that humans are increasing CO2 levels yet, because CO2 does not significantly cause global warming, humans are not the main cause of the epidemic.

Now in summing up, the opponent does not give any warrants, facts or important evidence. What the opponent has brought you is assumption, in regards to his first contention, and bias in thinking that because many people believe global warming is caused by humans then it must be true. No where does he give how much of an effect humans have on global warming, nor show why humans are the main cause. What the negation (me) has brought you is cold hard facts showing that global warming is not mainly caused by humans (thus appeasing the burden) and warrants for all my points. Therefore because I have followed the burden, and refuted all the opponents' points, you should vote for the negation in this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
MTGandP

Pro

"The affirmation must prove that humans are the main cause of global warming to win this debate, while the negation (me) need only to prove that humans are not the main cause (less than 50% of the cause) to win this debate."
I disagree with this conclusion. Importance in effect or meaning does not imply that it is 50% or more of the cause. Something can be under 50% of the cause and still be a driving force. If a cause is important, it means that the outcome would have been noticeably different had that cause not existed.

"The main cause of global warming is not humans but water vapor."
My opponent claims that water vapor accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect. I do not think this is so (and my opponent cites no source). If 3.502% is a correct figure, there should be some relevant results when I Google search "3.502%", but I did so and got no relevant results. But that's not the main point I want to make. My point is this: though water vapor is prominent, CO2 is where the real problem arises from. Though water vapor is more prominent, the increase in CO2 triggers a positive feedback effect [2]. Temperature increase leads to increased levels of water vapor. And the greenhouse effect increases temperature. So when CO2 levels are rapidly and unnaturally increased, temperature increases. Water vapor levels increase, and temperature increases further. The relatively large recent increases in CO2 have led to a positive feedback effect, magnifying the severity of the warming.

"S.M. Freidenreich created a chart detailing the main gases causing global warming."
I looked on Friedenreich's website and could not find this chart. Could my opponent provide a link to it?

*****

"2)This is correlation NOT causation. I agree CO2 levels have been increasing. Human emissions also have been increasing, yet it does NOT mean one is causing the other."
For several hundred thousand years before the 20th century, CO2 was in the 180 to 300 ppm range. But in 2007, CO2 levels reached 390 ppm. What could be responsible for this incredibly unlikely increase? The only variable in recent decades is human emissions.

"1)Judging the issue on a democratic scale, or any biased scale at all, is unfair."
In what way is a democratic scale biased?

"2)Scientists are not always right."
This is correct. But they are right more often than anyone else. If so many scientists agree on something, it is probably correct. Sure, scientists have been wrong before, but when choosing who to trust, the safe bet is to side with the scientists. Should I instead trust the deceitful pseudoscientific producers of The Great Global Warming Swindle?

Additionally, it is not just that the scientists are more likely than not to be correct. It is that these scientific societies have advocated for global warming. They have reputations to uphold. If they turn out to be wrong, it will put a dent in their reputations. They would only advocate a view if they were very sure of its validity.

"3)Because most of society believes humans are the cause global warming, the scientists who reject this idea "have been ridiculed and called stupid, mostly in the political arena. No one in the media or in politics is listening to any of the scientists who say it isn't so." (quote from a scientific article)"
This is not from a scientific article. I searched for the quote on Google Scholar, and did not find the quote [3]. In fact, the quote is from a blog [4]. And it's not even a scientist's blog; it's a PASTOR'S blog. This is simply not a very credible source. By claiming that it was from a scientific article, my opponent has blatantly deceived his audience. I ask the judges to please give me the conduct vote, due to my opponent's deceitful intent.

In response to the actual statement, it is not very accurate. Plenty of people listen to global warming skeptics. The Great Global Warming Swindle was widely popular and was aired on national television. Many websites such as junkscience.com openly disagree with global warming. Plenty of other people (such as my opponent) debate publicly on the issue of global warming, without worrying about their reputations. Others have televised debates on global warming (for example, [5]).

"scientists are actually discouraged from looking into the other side of the resolutional spectrum"
A scientist who provides evidence for a controversial viewpoint will receive a great deal of attention, and will likely receive more grant money to investigate the new and controversial findings. Additionally, every oil company (actually, every company whose business relies on releasing greenhouse gases) would jump at the chance to support any scientist with findings that deny AGW.

"I agree with the many articles found that humans are increasing CO2 levels yet, because CO2 does not significantly cause global warming, humans are not the main cause of the epidemic."
The articles do not say that humans are increasing CO2 levels. They "explicitly or implicitly accept[] the consensus view" that the human effect on global warming is significant.

"Now in summing up, the opponent does not give any warrants, facts or important evidence."
-I gave a relevant explanation of the greenhouse effect.
-I explained why my opponent's contention about water vapor is irrelevant.
-I gave facts and sources.
-My opponent claims that I provided no facts or important evidence, but my opponent has cited literally zero sources. For all I know, he completely made up all of his facts, and I know for a fact that he lied about one thing.

"bias in thinking that because many people believe global warming is caused by humans then it must be true."
-Belief of the general population is very frequently wrong. Belief of the scientific population is much more accurate.
-It is not that it must be true; it is only more likely to be true, since scientists know what they are doing more than I or my opponent do.

"What the negation (me) has brought you is cold hard facts"
The only fact that my opponent has provided is that 95% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor. I challenge my opponent to find the scientific paper proving this.

I look forward to my opponent's response.

*****

[1] http://www.skepticalscience.com...
[2] http://www.realclimate.org...
[3] http://scholar.google.com...'t%20so.&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=ws
[4] http://royalfarris.wordpress.com...
[5] http://www.ewire.com...
ben444422

Con

He begins by saying that a significant cause does not need to be 50% or more to be important or significant. He validates this by saying "If a cause is important, it means that the outcome would have been noticeably different had that cause not existed" Yet I can similarly refute this by saying that human emissions are not important because if it were non existent, we would have only seen a 3-4% decrease in global warming. Hardly significant at all.

This brings me on to the next point where the opponent asks to see the evidence.
The evidence is here: http://www.geocraft.com... (the graph is near the bottom, also this is not the actually scientific article, this is a site hosting the graph) And also, I made a minor misquoting of the evidence, CO2 is 3.618% of the cause not 3.502% I apologize for the inconvenience yet the percentage is still incredibly small.

Now my opponent then states that CO2 essentially acts as an amplifier for the global warming effects making the effects even worse. He warrants this with an article from realclimate.org. His validation is wrong for 2 reasons

1)No where in the article does it say that it is because of humans that global warming intensified. Rather it states that the CO2 "might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms" Therefore the article my opponent uses directly counters his own side. The reason for this is that my opponent has the burden to prove that humans are the greatest cause of global warming. The article not only states that the changing patterns of sun shine may be a cause of GW, yet the CO2 rise is mostly due to the CO2 stored in the oceans, not humans.

2)His article assumes that there will be a significant amplification of the effects of global warming due to CO2 from the abundance of trapped CO2 in the ocean. However if he uses the same reasoning in the article to apply it to the CO2 from humans as opposed to the CO2 in the ocean, it will still not be true. The reason is that because CO2 from humans is so low, 3.618%, the amplification of the effects is similarly going to be incredibly small.

No where in the opponents' first two articles does it state that humans are the main cause of increases in CO2.

My opponent then states that human emissions must be the cause of global warming because there is no other variable other then human emissions. I have 2 responses to this.

1)Human emissions are not the only variable. In the Alps, scientists have conducted research and they found that the level of water vapor increased by 4% corresponding to an increase in one degree of temperature. Therefore water vapor is another variable and there has been shown a link between vapor and warming.

2)Human emissions do contribute to global warming, yet the effect is so miniscule that it does not demonstrate a significant cause for global warming.

My opponent then questions why using a democratic scale is biased. The reason is that simply saying that many scientists agree that global warming is caused by humans does not mean that it is true. What's more important is that my opponent is painting the wrong picture for you. He is making it seem like 99.9999% of all scientists think humans are the cause, yet that is simply not true. I could similarly show you that many institutions and agencies also believe that global warming is caused by other factors not humans. MIT, JSER (backed by Japan's leading scientists), Professor Lance Endersbee, Prinicipal Research Scientist, Spencer of the University of Alabama… and the list goes on. What you see is that there are scientists on both sides arguing whether humans are or are not the cause. Therefore if there are scientists and agencies that are arguing that humans may not be the cause of global warming, we can't just assume that these scientists are wrong and these scientists are right and we must instead look to the facts behind why it is so instead of seeing the stances of different scientists.

Also in response to the quote from the blog, sorry I did a cursory reading of the article and thought that the excerpt from an MIT article was actually part of the real article, so I thought it was scientific. Yet I will drop this quote in this debate.

And now my opponent brings up the point of the consensus view of global warming caused by humans in these scientific articles. Yet again, there are also articles stating the opposite. The JSER (the energy agency of Japan), for example, did an extensive study and found that humans are NOT the cause of global warming.

Because my opponent has not brought any counter evidence to my evidence of water vapor being 95% of the cause of global warming, this point can flow through.

He also brings up the point that consensus among scientists is more accurate than consensus among the general population however:

1)All of the laws of physics was a consensus among physicists, yet string theory later proved some false.

2)There are also scientists that believe that humans are not the cause of global warming.

Now you should vote for the negation for 3 reasons

1)My opponent still has not brought up counterevidence stating CO2 is the main cause of global warming, Thus his first contention falls.
2)My opponent still has not validated why the scientists saying global warming is caused by humans are supposedly more credible than the Energy department of Japan or MIT. Therefore if he cannot show why we must agree with only those scientists, and not some others, then his second contention falls.
3)I have brought up the relevant evidence proving my points while my opponent lacks counter evidence.

Also sorry if you thought I was lying about the quote, but I misread the article and assumed it was scientific, but I will drop that point in this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
MTGandP

Pro

"human emissions are not important because if it were non existent, we would have only seen a 3-4% decrease in global warming. Hardly significant at all."
3-4% is plenty significant. It equates to about a 3� C temperature increase, which is significant enough to cause some prominent global shifts.

"1)No where in the article does it say that it is because of humans that global warming intensified."
No, but it does say that because of the feedback effect, an apparently small increase in CO2 can have a significant effect. And since humans are responsible for roughly a 30% increase in CO2 levels, it follows that humans are responsible for global warming.

"Rather it states that the CO2 'might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms' "
The article uses that as an explanation for why CO2 rises after an ice age, not as an alternative to AGW. The whole paragraph states "So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn't tell us much about global warming. [But it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms.]"

"CO2 from humans is so low, 3.618%"
It's more like 30%, as evidenced by the unprecedented 90 ppm increase.

"My opponent then states that human emissions must be the cause of global warming because there is no other variable other then human emissions."
What I said was that human emissions must be the cause of the recent CO2 increase.

"1)...water vapor"
Irrelevant, since I meant CO2.

"Human emissions do contribute to global warming, yet the effect is so miniscule that it does not demonstrate a significant cause for global warming."
Human contributions are around 30%. They are not miniscule unless we rely on [4] for our data, which we shouldn't for reasons I elaborate upon below. It is true that gross human CO2 emissions are around 4%, but net emissions are closer to 30%. This is because over the past hundreds of millions of years, nature has become very good at re-absorbing any CO2 that it emits. Sure, the balance isn't perfect, but it's pretty close. This is evidenced by the continuity between 180 and 300 ppm over the last hundred thousand years.

"He is making it seem like 99.9999% of all scientists think humans are the cause, yet that is simply not true."
My opponent is right in that that figure is incorrect. It's more like 80% for scientists at large, and 97% for publishing climatologists, according to a study done that included over 10,000 scientists [5].

Besides this study and the other study I referenced, I have named 31 scientific societies advocating AGW while my opponent has named only one (the JSER), and that one has under 2000 members (compared to AAAS with 120,000 members). It's even disputable whether that one is even a scientific society, since they present no original research [6]. It is true, though, that the studies I have cited are more important than the scientific societies.

"The JSER (the energy agency of Japan), for example, did an extensive study and found that humans are NOT the cause of global warming."
My opponent has not cited a source for this study. My source for this isn't particularly good, but I believe that the study by JSER was not scientific and in fact did not put forth any new data whatsoever [6].

"Because my opponent has not brought any counter evidence to my evidence of water vapor being 95% of the cause of global warming, this point can flow through."
The contribution of CO2 is actually more like 30%, not 5%. Given the conflicting reports, I would like to point out that my source is a scientific paper [2], while my opponent's source is a web page written by Monte Hieb. Who is Monte Hieb? Merely some guy who works for a coal plant [3]. Not a very credible source.

"1)All of the laws of physics was a consensus among physicists, yet string theory later proved some false."
a. Scientists may have been wrong, but they were still more likely to be right than anyone else. At the time, the data pointed to certain laws of physics, and physicists supported those laws.
b. I do not think that string theory has proven the laws of physics false. The same logic in my opponent's point can be applied, though, to the theory or relativity or to some other revolutionary theory.

"2)There are also scientists that believe that humans are not the cause of global warming."
While this is true, they are greatly outnumbered by those on the other side, as evidence by my two studies and list of scientific societies.

"1)My opponent still has not brought up counterevidence stating CO2 is the main cause of global warming, Thus his first contention falls."
Although true as of round 2, I have now provided counter-evidence [2].

"2)My opponent still has not validated why the scientists saying global warming is caused by humans are supposedly more credible than the Energy department of Japan or MIT."
a. The Energy Department of Japan is much smaller than the majority of the societies on my list.
b. MIT is not a scientific society, but a university. While still more credible than some, MIT is not as credible as a scientific society.
c. I have not only provided a list of scientific societies, but I have provided two credible studies and their sources. While my opponent has provided a study, he has not quoted it or provided a link to it.

"Also sorry if you thought I was lying about the quote, but I misread the article and assumed it was scientific, but I will drop that point in this debate."
It's all right; I misread articles all the time. I withdraw my statement requesting to be given the conduct vote.

[1] http://www.realclimate.org...
[2] http://www.atmo.arizona.edu...
[3] http://globalwarmingwatch.blogspot.com...
[4] http://www.geocraft.com...
[5] http://tigger.uic.edu...
[6] http://greenfyre.wordpress.com...
ben444422

Con

When reading this speech, remember the burden. That the affirmation must prove that humans are the main cause of GW.

Global Warming= GW

[=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-]
"3-4% is plenty significant. It equates to about a 3� C temperature increase, which is significant enough to cause some prominent global shifts."

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.
2)But what is important is that it is not a question of how much of an effect but how much of a relative effect. 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.

[=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-]

"No, but it does say that because of the feedback effect, an apparently small increase in CO2 can have a significant effect."

1)The article is considering the amount of CO2 stored in the ocean which is more than the CO2 from humans. Thus the amount of the gas stored in the oceans is enough to amplify the effects to a significant point not the CO2 from humans.

[=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-]

"[The percent cause of CO2] more like 30%, as evidenced by the unprecedented 90 ppm increase."

1)No, there was a 30% increase in CO2, that does not mean CO2 is 30% of global warming.
a.My opponent essentially did ((390-300)/300)*100, which comes to 30%

2)If we consider the 30% increase in CO2, CO2 will still be 4.703 % of total Green House Gas emissions. Thus still miniscule.

[=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-]

"What I said was that human emissions must be the cause of the recent CO2 increase."

1)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. And the opponent's burden is to prove GW is mostly caused by humans, not to prove humans are the cause of the CO2 increase.

[=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-]

"It is true that gross human CO2 emissions are around 4%, but net emissions are closer to 30%."

1)You have conceded to the fact that CO2 emissions are around 4%.
2)Net emission (the inclusion of CO2 emissions from other sources) is irrelevant as my opponent has the burden to prove that humans are the main cause of GW not other sources.
3)My evidence factors in all CO2 sources and in total (including CO2 from non human sources) the percentage is around 4%

[=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-]

"It is true, though, that the studies I have cited are more important than the scientific societies. "
1)Saying that because most of society and scientists believe GW is caused by humans then you should win this debate is simply ground limiting. Debate is supposed to convey the view of both sides not the opinion that is already considered in society. Saying that because many people say its true is not debate; that is just taking opinions and putting them together. Debate is about seeing validation as to why something is true. It is not an opinion poll.
2)If society and scientists already believe this, then how are we debating this resolution. A resolution is debatable when there are coinciding views.

[=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-]

"I believe that the study by JSER was not scientific and in fact did not put forth any new data whatsoever"

1)Though I have stated that opinions do not matter, to refute this specific point: They actually found a substantial amount of data. One piece is that since 2001, the air temperature did not rise at all while CO2 emissions were on the rise. Thus they found no correlation of CO2 to actually global warming.

[=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-]

"The contribution of CO2 is actually more like 30%, not 5%. Given the conflicting reports, I would like to point out that my source is a scientific paper [2], while my opponent's source is a web page written by Monte Hieb. Who is Monte Hieb? Merely some guy who works for a coal plant [3]. Not a very credible source."

1) No, there was a 30% increase in CO2, that does not mean CO2 is 30% of global warming.
a.My opponent essentially did ((390-300)/300)*100, which comes to 30%

2)If we consider the 30% increase in CO2, CO2 will still be 4.703 % of total Green House Gas emissions. Thus still miniscule.
3)The scientific paper is true in what it said, that CO2 increased by 30% NOT CO2 is 30% of global warming.
4)Monte Hieb is the person who made a website and HOSTED the graph. The graph is made by Stuart Freidenreich, a scientists at the Princeton University Geophysical fluid laboratory.

[=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-]

"While this is true, they are greatly outnumbered by those on the other side, as evidence by my two studies and list of scientific societies."

1)If you just say that you win because more scientists believe in my side is not debate. That is an opinion poll. A debate is about exploring why something is so on the two sides of a debate not an opinion poll. This limits ground as the affirmative can then say that more scientists believe me, thus I should win. That means the negation could never win as the amount of people saying something is indefinitely true.

[=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-]

"Although true as of round 2, I have now provided counter-evidence [2]."

1)The counter evidence is that CO2 is 30% of global warming. I have refuted this point two times above.
2)The evidence addresses an increase in 30% of CO2 not a 30% cause of CO2 for GW, thus this is not counter evidence.

[=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-]

{-Closing-}

The negation should win this debate at this point for 6 reasons

1) My opponent does not give counter evidence to my evidence that water vapor is the main cause of GW not humans.
2) My first contention, that water vapor is 95% of GW, flows through as there is no counter evidence against it.
3) Therefore my opponent does not fulfill the burden.
4) My opponent's first contention is based on his assumption and is countered by my direct evidence.
5) His second contention limits grounds, is not debate (rather an opinion poll), and thus is fallacious in this debate.
6) He has conceded that CO2 is around 4% of GW.
Debate Round No. 3
MTGandP

Pro

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...
ben444422

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 4
MTGandP

Pro

Since many parts of our debate are really about the same topic, I will combine them and will therefore only be responding to a few of my opponent's statements.

===========
Source Credibility
===========

RealClimate
Yes, RealClimate is a blog. 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.

Friedenreich
I could not find a free copy of "Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models", so I cannot read it. But according to Gavin Schmidt of RealClimate, the paper was measuring short-wave radiation [2]. Greenhouse gases have the most effect on long-wave radiation (in the 12 to 18 micrometer range), and short-wave radiation mostly just passes through the greenhouse gases. So the effects of water vapor and CO2 according to that paper are mostly irrelevant, since they deal with shorter wavelengths. [3]

From 1978
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. (Yes, I know that Newtonian gravity is not completely accurate, but it works for all practical purposes and we still use it.)

==============
CO2 vs. Water Vapor
==============
My opponent claims that 3-8% is relatively small. But in terms of climate, this is nothing to scoff at. "a 5 or 6 �C cooling was associated with the huge ice sheets 20,000 years ago" [3, 1], and that was only a small percentage increase.

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.

I have recently come across further explanation for why CO2's potency is greater than at first glance. 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. [3] [4]

Feedback Effect
The feedback effect is difficult to calculate, since it is so indirect. Though I would very much like to have a good estimate of the potency of the feedback effect, if we are looking for exact numbers we should just stick with the estimates that we already have in place.

=========
Miscellaneous
=========
"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."
What I meant is that emitted and absorbed CO2 by nature is roughly in balance (it stayed between 180 and 280 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years). Human emissions threw off the balance.

"The Register translated the relevant parts."
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.

"2) It does not have the significant the support of the scientific community. JSER, MIT etc."
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.

=========
Conclusion
=========
Humans have seriously influenced atmospheric levels of CO2 and have contributed significantly to global warming. Water vapor, while important, does not reduce the significance of human contributions. The human effect on global warming is undeniably significant.

========
References
========
[1] http://www.realclimate.org...
[2] http://www.realclimate.org...
[3] http://www.youtube...
[4] "Infra-Red Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, with Special Reference to Atmospheric Radiation." Callendar, G.S. Quarterly J. Royal Meteorological Society 67: 263-75.
[5] http://www.globalwarmingart.com...
ben444422

Con

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 �C 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
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by bulldog1419 5 years ago
bulldog1419
MTGandPben444422Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
MTGandPben444422Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by MTGandP 5 years ago
MTGandP
MTGandPben444422Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70