English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Having established that the anthropogenic signal swamped out the natural signal in about 1960, lets move on to the next question that I have.

The signal post 1960 is considered to be anthropogenic, am I to take it that this means strictly CO2 produced by human activities? Or, is anthropogenic to be used in a broader sense that includes farming, ranching, urban growth, deforestation, etc?

2007-06-22 11:34:20 · 7 answers · asked by Marc G 4 in Environment Global Warming

Bob:

Here is the problem that I have with the IPCC. It can be found in table 2.11.

The only thing they have a high level of understanding of is LLGHG's. Everything else is medium or less. Attributing at this point seems to be putting the cart before the horse.

2007-06-22 12:38:22 · update #1

Dana:

What about other human factors such as land use? Are they not important?

2007-06-22 12:39:12 · update #2

Trevor:

Thanks, I thought so. Just wanted to make sure so that I am on the right page.

2007-06-22 19:29:47 · update #3

7 answers

Anthropogenic simply means 'caused by human activity' and thus anthropogenic global warming is an umbrella term for all the components of global warming that are attributable to human activities.

It includes, but is not limited to, the emissions of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, CFC's, HFC's HCFC's), deforestaion, change of land use, waste disposal, mineral extraction, agricultural practices etc. So yes, it's used in the broader sense.

2007-06-22 14:59:21 · answer #1 · answered by Trevor 7 · 3 0

The anthropogenic contribution should account for all greenhouse gas emissions due to human activities. I would imagine it would take into account all the activities in this flowchart:

http://cait.wri.org/figures.php?page=World-FlowChart&view=100

Since they would be using the total final greenhouse gas numbers.

*edit* what aspect of land use are you wondering about? Bob's IPCC graph covers that.

2007-06-22 18:43:27 · answer #2 · answered by Dana1981 7 · 1 1

I guess anthropogenic would include methane, changes in albedo, etc. So sure. Obviously humans aren't the only things affecting climate. But it would definitely be fair to say that the current trend is caused or mainly driven by us.

2007-06-22 18:40:40 · answer #3 · answered by SomeGuy 6 · 3 1

It doesn't include human's breathing. So it doesn't include all human influence. Because breathing is the only natural thing a human can do.

Look, if you believe AGW is a problem, then the problem is over-population. But if they admit they think the world is overpopulated (and the only REAL solution is to reduce population) then who is going to support their efforts?

2007-06-22 18:55:31 · answer #4 · answered by Scott L 4 · 1 1

The broader sense. Dana's chart looks pretty good. There's a simpler version in the IPCC report, with error bars.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch02.pdf

page 136.

Want to clue Lord Kelvin in?

2007-06-22 18:46:31 · answer #5 · answered by Bob 7 · 2 1

The Global Warming Scam is an Al Qaeda plot to get us all to return to the stone age so we are easier to convert or kill.

2007-06-22 18:52:59 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 4

It's all moot.... it's the Sun's fault anyway.

2007-06-22 18:43:12 · answer #7 · answered by lordkelvin 7 · 2 2

fedest.com, questions and answers