Can we all agree that humans are the most likely cause of the current global warming?

Question

The only other proposed alternatives are "natural cycles", the Sun, and galactic cosmic rays.

We know it's not the Earth's natural cycles, because scientists are well-aware of these, and we're in a cooling cycle right now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycle#The_future

Solar output has decreased over the past 30 years as global warming has accelerated rapidly

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm

and even solar physicists don't think the Sun is the main cause of the current warming

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

The galactic cosmic ray theory has many fundamental problems.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ahuxfpv5RzyHSeqsVZ1fxnEjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20071030112550AA7AXSu

These theories cannot explain scientific observations such as a cooling upper atmosphere and greater warming at night than during the day, either.

Even if you're not convinced by AGW, do you agree it's the most likely explanation?

If not, which theory do you find more plausible and why?

Answer 1

Yes, even the Bush administration thinks so.

Natural cycles including solar radiation cycles provide the evidence that current warming is anthropogenic. It departs from the natural changes that the planet experienced in the past:

http://co2conference.org/agenda.asp
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap2-2/final-report/default.htm
http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/activities/AcceleratingAtmosphericCO2.htm

The current rate of change is one of the most unusual aspects. The "it's been warmer in the past" argument is irrelevant because we're building a reservoir of greenhouse gasses that will drive additional change for hundreds of years to come. This scenario has never happened before.

In spite of the global discussion on this problem for the past 20 years, our damaging releases are accelerating. Here's one of the latest research papers published by the National Academy of Sciences October 25:

Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO2 growth from economic activity, carbon intensity, and efficiency of natural sinks
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0702737104v1
Josep G. Canadella,b, Corinne Le Quéréc,d, Michael R. Raupacha, Christopher B. Fielde, Erik T. Buitenhuisc, Philippe Ciaisf, Thomas J. Conwayg, Nathan P. Gillettc, R. A. Houghtonh, and Gregg Marlandi,j

"The growth rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), the largest human contributor to human-induced climate change, is increasing rapidly. Three processes contribute to this rapid increase. Two of these processes concern emissions. Recent growth of the world economy combined with an increase in its carbon intensity have led to rapid growth in fossil fuel CO2 emissions since 2000: comparing the 1990s with 2000–2006, the emissions growth rate increased from 1.3% to 3.3% y–1.The third process is indicated by increasing evidence (P =0.89) for a long-term (50-year) increase in the airborne fraction (AF) of CO2 emissions, implying a decline in the efficiency of CO2 sinks on land and oceans in absorbing anthropogenic emissions. Since 2000, the contributions of these three factors to the increase in the atmospheric CO2 growth rate have been 65±16% from increasing global economic activity, 17±6% from the increasing carbon intensity of the global economy, and 18±15% from the increase in AF. An increasing AF is consistent with results of climate–carbon cycle models, but the magnitude of the observed signal appears larger than that estimated by models.

All of these changes characterize a carbon cycle that is generating stronger-than-expected and sooner-than-expected climate forcing."

We're using ourselves and our children as the guinea pigs in a global experiment. Oru food production systems and our economies did not evelove under conditios that involved this degree of change. Even our values didn't evolve in this sort of scenario, or we wouldn't be so stuck in denial and self-interest.

Answer 2

"These theories cannot explain scientific observations such as a cooling upper atmosphere and greater warming at night than during the day, either."

Neither do the theories supporting global warming.

There is a whole lot of debate on this issue on these boards. Why won't the UN allow this type of debate between the scientists? It would get a real answer quicker.

I like this from a previous poster:

"BTW, to comment on what someone said earlier-wikipedia and the BBC are hardly the only ones who report AGW findings. I've seen several sites cited including a few college sites. Like the Sanford one listed here. (sarcasm) Oh, yeah. That's right. Some back-water hick listening to his radio knows more about climate science than a college grad in that field."

Congratulations Dana, you have these people on this board thinking you are a climatologist. Most environmental scientists (especially at your age) work with "Marine Pollutants". So I have a pretty good idea that is the area of work you are in. This doesn't qualify you as an expert on climatology.

This is for you Starpent:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/07/global_warming_and_solar_radia_1.html Information taken from readings at colleges and universities

http://www.trac.org.au/cgi-bin/test?page=/myths/top10.htm Information taken from "NAS" and other scientific institutions.

http://www.hillsdale.edu/images/userImages/smaxwell/Page_4221/ImprimisAug07.pdf

I've had enough, don't care enough.

Answer 3

That's a good question Dana.

If it were only that simple that it could be clearly demonstrated that human activity was to blame then we would move on from the debates and solve the problem.

There isn't a compelling alternative theory. The question is does the lack of a compelling alternative theory make AGW more likley than not.

Trouble is that AGW is not easy to prove - not like demonstrating that the earth is round which you can do with simple experiments (like measuring shadow lengths at slightly different lattitudes). AGW sceptics are not like flat earthers.

The supporters of AGW also seem to say that we should reduce our impact on the environment regardless of how much AGW there is. To me that may be true, but it's a whole other debate which should be separate from scientific research into AGW. Maybe that's not how the real world works.

I've seen reports of upper atmosphere cooling, but not of more warming at nights than days. I know the IPCC reports talk about warming at night, but there is warming generally, but they don't directly say that there is more warming at night than during the day. If warming at night were measureably higher than during the day I expect they would mention that as it tends to support warming by a greenhouse effect than by increased radiance for example.

Answer 4

The question is can we all agree...? The answer to that is no!

Not everyone will accept the obvious, and I myself do not agree on all the points that have been made, like a vegan diet will help with global warming.

So, although global warming is an issue, and needs to be adressed, there will always be people that have no idea that you (and I for that matter) are trying to help them!

Some people will protect the status quo with all their might! They do not want to let go of the pollution belching monsters they drive (and not everyone has to). I believe some people need these things, for their own reasons, which are valid.

You want to help? get rid of phantom power loads in your home, then you will have less coal burned at the plants! Besides, you will pay less for your electricity then!

Enjoy the new year!

Answer 5

I enjoy reading your questions and some of the responses. The overwhelming amount of deniers (including some of the self-proclaimed 'skeptics') is depressing at times, though. More reading needs to be done from scientific communities. You'll notice the very same people who say it's a political scare tactic are the ones spreading false info based on what rubbish they're being fed by politically based sources.
BTW, to comment on what someone said earlier-wikipedia and the BBC are hardly the only ones who report AGW findings. I've seen several sites cited including a few college sites. Like the Sanford one listed here. (sarcasm) Oh, yeah. That's right. Some back-water hick listening to his radio knows more about climate science than a college grad in that field.

Answer 6

Affirmative

Answer 7

No, I'll go with Solar System Physicist and Senior Scientist at the Danish National Space Center, Heinrick Svensmark.

Answer 8

No, we cannot all agree. And it makes me wonder who is paying you, since you want to cram this flawed theory down our throats.

I believe it is a natural cycle of the planet we live on. And to try to say Scientists know and understand everything about this planets past cycles is you spouting more hot air. It is also a known fact that the climate has been warming up since the last Ice Age, and there's proof of that because glaciers used to cover the Northern US and they have so far receded from New York, Wisconsin and Minnesota. And they are still slowly melting from Montana.

Answer 9

Amazing, is it not? The number of people who like you are trying to deny what science has found obvious for 30 years (unless bribed to think otherwise by a politician) have not as a rule even read or understood the bias in your posting.

So much for cleverly disguised and deliberately divisively stated propaganda.

Answer 10

Yes, I think so. We humans are destroying our natural environment by carbon emissions, destruction of forests and our greed for natural resources like fossil fuels and metals. Our activities inevitably result in globalwarming and the future consequences.