Anyone Not believe we are causing Global Warming?

[El_Machinae]

JerichoHill, can you use quote boxes please? I find some of your posts very hard to read, because they're not ISO9001, and thus have to fight a temptation to not read them.

 

[Neomega]

wants to overturn the concencus position.

still did not answer the question.

How much?

How much is humanity affecting global warming?

TO WHAT DEGREE OR PERCENTAGE DOES HUMANKIND HAVE ON GLOBAL WARMING?

what is the consensus?

yes there is a consensus humans have an impact... but once agsain... HOW MUCH?

Anyone have an answer?

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

--Let's see, US GPD per capita is 10K higher than Europe. Thus the US can purchase more. The US produces alot more electricity than Europe (3.9trillion kwh to 2.9trillion kwh). I'm going to go out on a limb and saying living standards, that this is primarily a function of the ability to purchase..

Are you saying emissions should go up exponentially with per capita income growth rather than linearly? The fact remains that Europe produces significantly less greenhouse gase per unit of GDP.

--How are our workplaces inefficiently located? The United States is the SIZE of the European Union, geographically. It would seem plausible that a transportation system design would be differently configured because of size and population distribution (The US had alot more room, still does)..

It is true that extra space provides an incentive for sprawl, but that does not make it efficient. The majority of people's lives is still spent on an intraurban level, and therefore all that open space in Nevada should mean little to the urban layout of say Philie, greater D.C. etc. Cities are not isolated units, but in terms of a the daily commute and daily interaction, they should be treated some what like that.

Define terms better please. Of course I am not saying that there isn't inefficiency, but I'm trying to point to the causes in a non-emotional, non-blame hurling, non-denigrating way. The US would appear to be able to afford more on average, and thus demands more. The problems the US faces are different than the problems other countries face. Thus to assume superiority on either side of the argument seems silly, trite, and ultimately ridiculously fruitless.

Well, the problem I see is that the relationship does not appear to be linear. Unless of course there is some threshold reached in that 10,000 dollar per year difference between Europe and the US that causes an exponential rise in emissions.

America (and Canada for that matter) faces difficulties more substantial than Europe or Japan based on its historical legacy of development. That is a sunk cost and thus it does little good to blame and lecture based on that. What is important is how it is dealt with from now on. I am actually optimistic about the trends in the efficient layout of cities (the most important economic producers and also sources of pollution) in North America. I think things are changing for the better based on both market forces and more enlightened policy. The Bush administration is an aberration to a larger trend.

However, that does not change the fact that as a snapshot, America seems to be less efficient in terms of GHG/GDP than places like Sweden, France, the Netherlands, and the UK. America's vast area (much bigger than western Europe in fact) is little excuse because activity occurs mostly on an intraurban level. Having lots of space between cities should not prevent people from building efficient cities or urban systems. That is government policy failure primarily, and possibly market failure as well.

My point about the poll was rather shallow and didn't add much. I was merely pointing out that differences between American and non-American responses means something, even if it is difficult to quantify/use it for any meaningful purpose.

 

[Sidhe]

still did not answer the question.

How much?

How much is humanity affecting global warming?

TO WHAT DEGREE OR PERCENTAGE DOES HUMANKIND HAVE ON GLOBAL WARMING?

what is the consensus?

yes there is a consensus humans have an impact... but once agsain... HOW MUCH?

Anyone have an answer?

Well I can't give you an exact figure but I'd suggest you read these two threads if you want to know anything about the deal.

Usually I wouldn't quote wiki as it's not always consistent, but if your worried that the statistics are exaggerated or innacurrate then there are plenty of links that will confirm their assertions here.This is a good general overview, which means you don't have to do too much surfing.

All I can say is what the concensus believes and that is that most of the global warming is accreditted to human activities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change

Attribution of recent climate change is the problem of discovering what mechanisms are responsible for observed changes in climate. The endeavour centers on the observed changes over the last century and in particular over the last 50 years, when observations are best and human influence greatest.

Over the past 150 years human activities have released increasing quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Theory and climate models imply that this should lead to increases in mean global temperature — colloquially known as global warming. Other human effects are relevant—for example, sulphate aerosols are believed to lead to cooling—and natural factors also act.

Temperatures have risen over the last century (somewhere between 0.4 and 0.8 °C) and the proportion of this warming that is due to human influence is still open to question. The current scientific consensus, as expressed in 2001 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and recently confirmed by a joint statement of the G8 academies of science, is that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities [1].

A summary of IPCC climate research may be found in the IPCC assessment reports; the NAS report and an overview of the report may be found here; the degree of consensus is discussed at scientific opinion on climate change.
Contents
[hide]

* 1 Attribution of 20th century climate change
o 1.1 Subsequent to the TAR
* 2 Detection and attribution
* 3 Scientific literature and opinion
* 4 See also
* 5 References
* 6 External links

[edit] Attribution of 20th century climate change
One global climate model's reconstruction of temperature change during the 20th century as the result of five studied forcing factors and the amount of temperature change attributed to each.
One global climate model's reconstruction of temperature change during the 20th century as the result of five studied forcing factors and the amount of temperature change attributed to each.

The most fiercely-contested question in current climate change research is over attribution of climate change to either natural/internal or human factors over the period of the instrumental record — from about 1860, and especially over the last 50 years. In the 1995 second assessment report (SAR) the IPCC made the widely quoted statement that "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate”. The phrase "balance of evidence" was used deliberately to suggest the (English) common-law standard of proof required in civil as opposed to criminal courts: not as high as "beyond reasonable doubt". In 2001 the third assessment report (TAR) upgraded this by saying "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities" [2].

Over the past five decades there has been a global warming of approximately 0.4°C at the Earth's surface (see historical temperature record). This warming might have been caused by internal variability of the climate system, by external forcing, by an increase in concentration of "greenhouse" gases, or by any combination of these factors. Current studies indicate that the increase in greenhouse gases, most notably CO2, has been most influential, on the grounds that:

* estimates of internal variability from climate models, and reconstructions of past temperatures, indicate that the warming is unlikely to be entirely natural.
* climate models forced by natural factors AND increased greenhouse gases and aerosols reproduce the observed global temperature changes; those forced by natural factors alone do not.
* "fingerprint" methods indicate that the pattern of change is closer to that expected from greenhouse gas-forced change than from natural change. [3]

In 2001 the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released a report supporting the IPCC's conclusions regarding the causes of recent climate change. It stated: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes are also a reflection of natural variability.”[4][5][6]

Another candidate mechanism for climate change is solar forcing. Most global climate model studies indicate that the direct effects of solar variation would be too small to significantly affect climate. Much of the solar research centers around possible mechanisms to amplify the effect, possibly through increasing solar activity reducing cosmic ray flux and, speculatively, modifying cloud cover [7]; however there is no agreement on whether this is correct within the scientific community. Since GCM can reproduce observed temperature trends (including early 20th century changes, where solar forcing is non-negligible) there is no obvious need for a high sensitivity to solar forcing. Indeed, a significantly higher sensitivity to solar forcing would make early 20th century temperature change inexplicable.[citation needed]

[edit] Subsequent to the TAR

Following the publication of the TAR in 2001 "detection and attribution" of climate change has remained an active area of research. Some important results include:

* A review of detection and attribution studies by the International Ad Hoc Detection and Attribution Group [8] found that The evidence indicates that natural drivers such as solar variability and volcanic activity are at most partially responsible for the large-scale temperature changes observed over the past century, and that a large fraction of the warming over the last 50 yr can be attributed to greenhouse gas increases. Thus, the recent research supports and strengthens the IPCC Third Assessment Report conclusion that “most of the global warming over the past 50 years is likely due to the increase in greenhouse gases.”
* Multiple independent reconstructions of the temperature record of the past 1000 years confirm that the late 20th century is probably the warmest period in that time
* Two papers in Science in August 2005 [9] [10] resolve the problem, evident at the time of the TAR, of tropospheric temperature trends. The UAH version of the record contained errors, and there is evidence of spurious cooling trends in the radiosonde record, particularly in the tropics. See satellite temperature measurements for details.
* Barnett et al. "Penetration of Human-Induced Warming into the World's Oceans" (Science, Vol 309, Issue 5732, 284-287, 8 July 2005), say that the observed warming of the oceans cannot be explained by natural internal climate variability or solar and volcanic forcing, but is well simulated by two anthropogenically forced climate models. We conclude that it is of human origin, a conclusion robust to observational sampling and model differences [11].

Question? Doesn't America produce a whole lot of goods for the rest of the world? Could we measure by (Good production for own country divided by population?)

If we do, then 2005 estimated world GDP is 43.07 trillion, and US GDP is 12.49 trillion, leading to a percentage share of 29%.

So no, it is not embarassing that we account for 25% of global C02 when our economy is responsible for 29% of the production in the world.

I'm not blaming anyone but the government at the moment which I made clear, I did say you and by you I mean(the government) if you'll note. I'm not asking that the US cut it's GDP, what I am asking is that it makes it's current factories industries and transport cleaner ,that it adopts cleaner means to produce energy that it adopts more recycling, as was pointed out, if the EU can have the same GNP for 120 billion less tonnes then the US can drop it's emissions too, greater efficiency and relatively simple measures such as capping factories are simply not that expensive and reducing emissions are not too much to ask and in the long run they will save money. As I tried to point out comparable populations and countries have managed to do it, that you haven't even tried is what's embarassing, that their is no national conscencus, that your levels are higher by considerable margins than other comparable groups of countries is the point. The point about per capita and total production was made in response to your argument that China and India are particularly bad too, which frankly isn't a good excuse.

 

[Neomega]

I'd say "most" (more than 50%) is a bold statement to make...

..and still very vague.

 

[JerichoHill]

Let me rephrase.

Let's assume there are two goods that we can produce : Jobs, and Pollution.

Our society values jobs, but does not value pollution. Hence the utility function is

U(J,P) = f(j,p)

(more later, meeting)

 

[Sidhe]

I'd say "most" (more than 50&#37 is a bold statement to make...

..and still very vague.

Read the material in the links, all of it, and that will answer your question as to why it cannot give 100% commited responses, it's just not that clear cut, a good analogy would be weather prediction. All they can say is that with the best data available, most is attributable. Most doesn't mean >50% your thinking of a majority.

Let me rephrase.

Let's assume there are two goods that we can produce : Jobs, and Pollution.

Our society values jobs, but does not value pollution. Hence the utility function is

U(J,P) = f(j,p)

(more later, meeting)

Buy now pay later.

Governments, particularly ones backed by huge industrial companies do not like pissing off their share holders. In the long run the cost of doing nothing will no doubt outstrip the cost of reducing emissions, and that's not even including the large bill for pollution related illnesses. Of course though governmnets aren't in for 50 years.

 

[skadistic]

Read the material in the links, all of it, and that will answer your question as to why it cannot give 100% commited responses, it's just not that clear cut, a good analogy would be weather prediction. All they can say is that with the best data available, most is attributable.

.

Like how they predicted this was going to be the worst most damiging and dangerous hurrican year in America. How many killer storms hit America? Sometimes even all the best data just wont cut it because its wrongly interpreted because it lacks one small variable.

 

[Sidhe]

Like how they predicted this was going to be the worst most damiging and dangerous hurrican year in America. How many killer storms hit America? Sometimes even all the best data just wont cut it because its wrongly interpreted because it lacks one small variable.

That prediction is the most stupid thing I've ever heard, If I say that in 2005 hurricanes are bad therefore that hurricanes will be the worst ever in 2006 then I'm a scientific quack. What science looks at is not anecdotal evidence but trends. I would say that based on trends this century may well see an increase in strength of hurricanes, that is about it. As I mentioned before though the sun is predicted to go through a less active phase in the next 50 years, so that at least is good news.

 

[skadistic]

That prediction is the most stupid thing I've ever heard, If I say that in 2005 hurricanes are bad therefore that hurricanes will be the worst ever in 2006 then I'm a scientific quack. What science looks at is not anecdotal evidence but trends. I would say that based on trends this century may well see an increase in strength of hurricanes, that is about it. As I mentioned before though the sun is predicted to go through a less active phase in the next 50 years, so that at least is good news.

So all those meterological experts who predicted a very sever 06 hurricaine season were stupid and quakes? How did they come up with that prediction? What makes you a weather expert to have concluded that? They got it wrong. Do you know why they got it wrong? Or will you stick with calling them stupid?

 

[Sidhe]

So all those meterological experts who predicted a very sever 06 hurricaine season were stupid and quakes? How did they come up with that prediction? What makes you a weather expert to have concluded that? They got it wrong. Do you know why they got it wrong? Or will you stick with calling them stupid?

If they made that claim before they had any data then they are quacks, if they made that claim in July then I would be more likely to take it seriously. I assumed they had taken 2005 as being bad as indicative of 2006 being bad, that's kinda going out on a limb.

 

[JerichoHill]

Governments, particularly ones backed by huge industrial companies do not like pissing off their share holders. In the long run the cost of doing nothing will no doubt outstrip the cost of reducing emissions, and that's not even including the large bill for pollution related illnesses. Of course though governmnets aren't in for 50 years.

That applies to all governments. I do not think that we can attribute a better forward outlook to the European govs relative to America, China, etc. Mainly because they're governments.

Of course, where you have state-run enterprises...

 

[skadistic]

If they made that claim before they had any data then they are quacks, if they made that claim in July then I would be more likely to take it seriously. I assumed they had taken 2005 as being bad as indicative of 2006 being bad, that's kinda going out on a limb.

All summer long in 06 I heard how the east coast was going to be smashed by huge storm after huge storm. They relied on old fashion common sence and computer modles. I'd hazard to think the weather forcasters are smart enough then to base predicting the next years hurricaneseason on what the last one was like. NOAA ain't exactly amatures. The east coast braced for devistation. Nothing happened. They got it wrong plain and simple. All the doom and glome global warming whining enviromentalists screamed bloody murder because of what the experts predicted. They said it "proved" everything. Where are they now?


Lets get to why they were wrong. Out of all the studies and all the computer modles they were beat by a well known weather altering phenominon called "El Nino". What the experts didn't expect was an El Nino that formed so quickly. This is what pushed the hurricanes east and kept them out over deep cold waters. Its also whats giving most of the country un-seasonaly warm weather. At the same time its why the Pacific NW and northern Rocky's are having tremendous snow falls. One simple well know varible made them wrong.

 

[El_Machinae]

If hurricanes get really bad (again) in the next 5-6 years, then we can know that El Nino is involved. Hell, it's a (I think) seven year rotation. If hurricanes are getting worse, due to climate change, I'd expect that they'd get worse on a 7 year cycle.

Of course, gameover if Climate Change screws with the 7 year cycle.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Let me rephrase.

Let's assume there are two goods that we can produce : Jobs, and Pollution.

Our society values jobs, but does not value pollution. Hence the utility function is

U(J,P) = f(j,p)

(more later, meeting)

I think I see where you are going with this. However, I think it is possible to change the nature of the function so that less pollution is created for a given output of jobs.

After all, basic economics says that the amount of wealth that could potentially be created from a unit of resource is infinite (at least I think it does).

 

[Sidhe]

All summer long in 06 I heard how the east coast was going to be smashed by huge storm after huge storm. They relied on old fashion common sence and computer modles. I'd hazard to think the weather forcasters are smart enough then to base predicting the next years hurricaneseason on what the last one was like. NOAA ain't exactly amatures. The east coast braced for devistation. Nothing happened. They got it wrong plain and simple. All the doom and glome global warming whining enviromentalists screamed bloody murder because of what the experts predicted. They said it "proved" everything. Where are they now?


Lets get to why they were wrong. Out of all the studies and all the computer modles they were beat by a well known weather altering phenominon called "El Nino". What the experts didn't expect was an El Nino that formed so quickly. This is what pushed the hurricanes east and kept them out over deep cold waters. Its also whats giving most of the country un-seasonaly warm weather. At the same time its why the Pacific NW and northern Rocky's are having tremendous snow falls. One simple well know varible made them wrong.

OK fair enough I misinterpreted what you meant, I'm sorry. It's me who is stupid.

That applies to all governments. I do not think that we can attribute a better forward outlook to the European govs relative to America, China, etc. Mainly because they're governments.

Of course, where you have state-run enterprises...

I did say governments not government, don't worry I wasn't pointing the finger. To do so would be a a very generalised statement, I think I can agree with you on this one.

 

[skadistic]

OK fair enough I misinterpreted what you meant, I'm sorry. It's me who is stupid.



.

You're far from stupid.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

About hurricanes. For many years now, prognosticators have predicted that "this year will be the Year of the Hurricane." Most years they have been wrong, however if they make the same prediction every year, eventually they will be right(as they were in 2005). Saying global warming is real because of the 2005 season or that global warming is bunk because of the 2006 season are both fallacies of logic (tm).

About hurricane trends. From what I know, (besides the 2005 season) we have been in a very quiet period in terms of hurricanes. Hurricanes were really bad somewhere around 1880 and 1940(I'll get exact dates later). The difference is, is that, we didn't have satelite images, dense populations, or widespread media back then.

 

[BasketCase]

You didn't put "undecided" in the poll options.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

A great source of information about hurricanes is at the National Hurricane Center. There are records all the way from 1851.


If you check out the deadlist, costliest, and most intense hurricanes (1851-2004) links, you will notice that the top ten deadliest and most intense hurricanes are almost all before 1940 while the top ten costliest are all 1989 or later. I think this is why it is thought that there has recently been a great increase in the strength\number of hurricanes.