Global Warming 'very likely' human made

[skadistic]

So exactly what percent of this global warming is man "very likely" but not definitely responsible for?

 

[Urederra]

The governments could put much tighter restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions, something you and I can't do right now.

And that would be autoritarian and against the beliefs and the freedom of the ones who think that the computational models the scientifics at the IPCC are using are faulty. (meh... they admit that)

Another explanation could be that the effect on temperature of increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere - the factor called "climate sensitivity" - is higher than scientists had believed when they built their computer models.

So exactly what percent of this global warming is man "very likely" but not definitely responsible for?

Best question so far... I have raised that question lots of times. And I am still waiting for an answer.

 

[skadistic]

Best question so far... I have raised that question lots of times. And I am still waiting for an answer.

I raise it in every doom and gloom global warming thread on every forum I post on and have yet to get a straight answer. I don't think I ever wil.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Best question so far... I have raised that question lots of times. And I am still waiting for an answer.

"...it is at least 90% certain that human emissions of greenhouse gases rather than natural variations are warming the planet's surface. "

They're saying not natural variations but humans.

 

[skadistic]

So exactly what percent of this global warming is man "very likely" but not definitely responsible for?

If, maybe, almost certain, possibly, could be,


Those are not exact.

 

[Urederra]

If, maybe, almost certain, possibly, could be,


Those are not exact.

And not what you asked.

 

[History_Buff]

So exactly what percent of this global warming is man "very likely" but not definitely responsible for?

100% or 0%. You can't say that if you count out this this and this, the earth would only get x degrees warmer, instead of the x+n we're expecting to see.

What the result says is that the Earth is getting warmer. We are 90% sure it is our fault. (and don't quote me on it, since I haven't read the paper, but that seems to mean that we are 90% sure it is 100% our fault.)

 

[BasketCase]

100% or 0%. You can't say that if you count out this this and this, the earth would only get x degrees warmer, instead of the x+n we're expecting to see.

Sure you can. If humans didn't exist, the temperature of the planet would be X. Instead, it's X + N. Humans are responsible for N.

What is N? The question is entirely legitimate.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

The oil lobby certainly believes this report is significant.

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html

 

[brennan]

Mon Dieu!, they are running computer models with inaccurate parameters and the models themselves are not validated... ...
But the CCCP IPCC and its mariachis insists on giving credibility to predictions for the end on this century:...Not to say for the next 1000 years:
...Yeah... a prediction that runs over 1000 years made by the CCCP IPCC (I always have problems with the spelling of this acronym) Based on what computational models?

I don't think you understand the basic issue with predicting or modelling a chaotic system. Totally accurate prediction is impossible, however a model of a chaotic system can predict the overall behaviour trends extremely well.

 

[bigfatron]

So exactly what percent of this global warming is man "very likely" but not definitely responsible for?

Exactly what proportion of inflation in the US economy would be caused by inflating the money supply by a few percent over night and giving every citizen a million dollars to spend?

Can't tell me, huh? So clearly expanding the money supply is a fine and dandy thing to do, and gimme my million NOW.

Why don't we print ecxess money, encourage smoking, allow asthma inducing pollution, etc etc? Because, while we cannot point to the EXACT impact of a precise amount of each of these things, we can demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that they are significantly harmful and it is therefore stupid to permit/encourage them.

Stop asking for a standard of proof that you do not require in any other field - it's pointless. Alternatively explain why we require a standard of proof for this field that is beyond that you require in any other - in other words, what is so special about climate change that you find so personally threatening?

All the best
BFR

 

[GinandTonic]

Sure you can. If humans didn't exist, the temperature of the planet would be X. Instead, it's X + N. Humans are responsible for N.

What is N? The question is entirely legitimate.

If I shoot a guy dead, how many years have I reduced his life by exactly? If the police cannot give me an exact figure, then how do they know I have reduced his life at all? He could have had a hart attack a second after I shot him.

If this is a valid defence, how come all the fellas in their silly wigs havnt hit on it yet?

 

[History_Buff]

Sure you can. If humans didn't exist, the temperature of the planet would be X. Instead, it's X + N. Humans are responsible for N.

What is N? The question is entirely legitimate.

Sure it's a valid question. But it's like Heisenberg uncertainty, because there is no real way to determine N. Simply by existing, we have altered the way the system works. Finding N is solving for an irrelevant figure, all you need to know is whether it is zero or non-zero.

 

[El_Machinae]

Given that there seems to be a 'buffer' of CO2 pollution that we can get away with, we're left with the problem of how to distribute this buffer. Since economies are tied to CO2 output, it's tough to convince someone to reduce their CO2 output.

 

[History_Buff]

Given that there seems to be a 'buffer' of CO2 pollution that we can get away with, we're left with the problem of how to distribute this buffer. Since economies are tied to CO2 output, it's tough to convince someone to reduce their CO2 output.

Personally I like the per capita solution, for it's pure simplicity.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

"Global Warming "very likely" human made"

Tank Guy#3 to Scientists: Tell me something I don't know.

Though I'm really wondering whether or not global warming is taking place. Outside the temperature (with the windchill) is -20 degrees (F).

 

[El_Machinae]

Remember that "Global Warming" is a misnomer, much like "Big Bang". The better term is "Climate Change"

Personally I like the per capita solution, for it's pure simplicity.

I don't. Mainly because humans are not an 'asset' in this equation. Usually when we start trading a good, it's based on some type of asset that we already own.

This is why I think that 'biomass under influence' is the best place to start. Brazil has the potential to buffer more CO2 than Japan, because Brazil has more biomass available. In a 'fair' world, Brazil would only produce as much CO2 as it can reasonably buffer on its own. Same with Japan. Of course, I think that Brazil can underproduce CO2 and sell the 'right' to Japan to use Brazil's excess.

Still convincing (say) Japan to reduce its output of CO2 because Canada is suffering side-effects from the CO2 excess is really tough to do. If Canada reduces its CO2 output to below its 'fair' share, everyone else is tempted to merely take advantage of the 'buffer room'.

The only real solution is trade treaties and use of embargoes/tariffs to coerce joining a coalition (as far as I can tell).

 

[History_Buff]

Hmm, I must say, I like your biomass system better.

But yeah, convincing countries with a low CO2 buffer to along will be tough.

 

[Bill3000]

Though I'm really wondering whether or not global warming is taking place. Outside the temperature (with the windchill) is -20 degrees (F).

You cannot predict whether or not global warming occurs through such a matter like this - weather is a chaotic system. What matters is the average temperature and effects.

 

[Masquerouge]

Could some of the naysayers please explain to me why, on subjects where I have no expertise, I should not trust the experts?
In the case of global warming, if I should not trust the global warming scientists and the scientific community when they say that global warming is our fault, then who should I believe?
Who has more authority on global warming than the scientific community?