When I asked what % of global warming was man made, I got answers from 0% to >90%. Is the debate really over?

Answer 1

I think you answered your own question. Too bad I can't give you ten points for best answer!

Answer 2

Well the first problem is that you're asking laypeople on Yahoo Answers (YA). You could ask how many legs a spider has and get 10 different answers on YA. That doesn't mean the debate over spider legs isn't over.

Nevertheless, the answer is no, the debate (more accurately, research) over/about how much humans contribute to global warming is not over. That will continue for a long time. However, the best global climate experts (who write the IPCC report) are more than 90% convinced by the data that humans are the primary cause of global warming. They examine hundreds if not thousands of scientific papers to come to this conclusion. The exact percentage is not known, but it's almost certainly a large percentage.

Answer 3

Some people may tell you that humans do not contribute to global warming and in my opinion this is either due to a lack of understanding or even deliberate mistruth. There is no doubt that humans are contributing to GW - we are emitting large quantities of the very gases that keep our planet at a habitable temperature. To claim that humans are not contributing to GW would mean that we are not emitting any CO2 or other GHG's.

The specific debate as to whether humans are contributing to GW has been over for a long time. It was back in 1896 that Svante Arrhenius established that greenhouse gases contribute to global warming and it has been shown to be a physical property of these gases that they cause global warming. This has been validated by the subsequent 111 years of science and it's probably true to say that in recent years has been verified more times than the existence of gravity.

Contrary to the opinions of some people, we do know a lot about global warming - the principles behind it are really quite simple and in many respects we can give very precise answers to some questions. There are of course areas that aren't all that well understood and these grey areas are currently being researched.

There are debates which are not over including just how much humans are contributing to the current warming trend. With the passage of time comes more and more research and, the margins of error are narrowing and we're getting closer to a more definitive answer.

I answered your question about how much humans are contributing to GW http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ag8X2DHeIGvBaIHSxehQH7Tsy6IX?qid=20070615232902AAJDb3F and concluded that the figure was likely in the order of 90%. This isn't a figure plucked from mid-air but one that has been arrived at after intense scientific study over many years.

One of the advantages to the study of climate change is that it's an umbrella encompassing many scientific disciplines - climatology, meteorology, geology, ecology, economics, astrophysics, astronomy, oceanography, glaciology, botany, geography to name but a few. Each of these sciences conducts their own research and uses different techniques. This produces many different data sets and results that can then be compared. Some sciences don't have the luxury of comparison, which means errors and anomalies are harder to spot. With multiple sets of results if there are discrepancies they tend to stand out like a sort thumb.

Of course, the reports aren't identical but where there is a remarkable convergence is when addressing the question as to the role of anthropogenic versus natural warming.

Answer 4

Yes, at least among scientists. People here have widely differing opinions, because they have widely different knowledge of the scientific facts. Scientists, even those who are not climatologists, know a whole lot more.

And there's vastly less controversy in the scientific community than you might guess from the few skeptics talked about on Yahoo answers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

In science a theory is considered proven when the community accepts the evidence as proving it. There is no "Supreme Court" to make the decision and there are always a few skeptics.

By the way, the peer reviewed data shows man's contribution is about 90%. Graph with references:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

Good websites for more info:

http://profend.com/global-warming/
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/
http://www.realclimate.org
"climate science from climate scientists"

Answer 5

I've seen a number of papers that try to give a % attribution to various causes of global warming. One puts human % at >50% for the last 20 years. One drops 0.3 degrees (about 50%) on the Urban heat island effect. Another states taht humans are to blame (less than 0.01 degrees) and that it is instead solar and tectonic sources.

Attribution is important.

If it is mostly natural, then whatever we do to prevent global warming will be useless. In this case, the proper steps would be to prepare for the changes and try to mitigate the damage.

If it is mostly human (via CO2), then we should try to do something about it.

I know the IPCC has made a pass at attribution, especially solar influence. But I am not convinced that the models they used are as good as they would like them to be, especially in light of the fact that they readily admit some of the models are rather poor (I am thinking cloud cover here).

I think we are a good number of years away from fully knowing attribution breakdowns. This shuld be the biggest hinderance to making policy, but it isn't, Thus, I am afraid that we are going to get half-assed policies (like carbon credits and wind power) that are going to run us right into the law of unintended consequences.

Answer 6

The Debate ends, when WE end.

The Skeptics do have a voice, and it just keeps quacking away-Greed powers it, Oil lubricates it, Science refutes it.

Serious study is needed, but SOME Governments stick their dirty fingers in current and past studies, and wipe the truth away-let me get specific: Bush and his cronies ordered that any study with the phrase " Global Warming" in it, would have to be amended or redacted, or lose support from his Administration. Science works on support, so, he made the problem go away.

The percentage is not the problem-whether WE cause it, Volcano`s, Cows, the Ol` Debbil Man, whatever, WE have to fix it or suffer quietly.

I won`t go quietly.

/!\

Answer 7

Yes the debate is over.

why don't you try looking on a legitimate science website where you can actually get some facts instead of somebody's opinion?

Answer 8

It will never end. Bear in mind---the same people setting off alarms about Global Warming were saying the direct opposite 30 years ago...that we were going to cause an ICE AGE with the same things that are NOW supposedly contributing to planet-wide warming!
These "alarms" tend to result in government grants for those who set them off....so please forgive my cinicism.

Answer 9

this is avery serious matter and it is the matter of existence of our planet. we have have to consult all the people who can contribute more or less in this regard and then analyse that and think for the solution. this is unending discussion.