According to the ICCP, how much of global warming is man made, describe it statistically if possible?

Question

I assume its caused mostly by carbon dioxide as well as solar radiation.

Mention other scientist research companies if possible.

Answer 1

Methane from belching cows  is a much more potent green house gas than CO2.  Also ozone and water vapour are green house gases. As the ground near the earths poles, heats up methane gas is released. Also CO2 dissolved into the oceans, cause them to  become more acidic. (Carbonic acid)

Answer 2

our planet has regulated its tempratures for at least four billion years,Its got a brilliant system,just for the record our planet has been warmer than it is now on numerous acasions.the main source of greenhouse gasses comes from volcanoes,not man.it works something like this.Volcanoes release cabon dioxide it enters the atmosphere,just enough stays for the amount of heat needed for the regulated temprature of the planet.sun rays get trapped and warm the planet.Any excess carbon dioxide enters the oceans of the world and is absorbed by plankten,which then becomes dense and falls to the ocean bed,(wait for the clever bit)continental shelfs move against each other,one slightly over laps the other exposing magma.The carbon soaked plankten then combust creating carbon dioxide which finds its exit through volcanoes,so on and so forth,so without the oceans earth would boil.there are other aspects aswell ice,moon.they play vital roles aswell,but dont want to bore you anymore.here's a pause for thought the green card is all about making money,(scare tactics)from goverments,by definition man is contributing to global warming carbon emisions and all that,but its an absolute fraction,all our domestic fuel use contributes about 10%emisions its industry should cut emisions not the public.but that means loosing money.(AFTER ALL THE SEAS HAVE BEEN FISHED AFTER ALL THE RIVERS HAVE BEEN POISONED THEN MAN WILL REALISE THAT MONEY CANNOT BE EATEN.

Answer 3

Greenhouse-gas emissions have risen rapidly in the past two centuries, and levels today are higher than at any time in at least the past 650,000 years. In 1995, each of the six billion people on earth was responsible, on average, for one ton of carbon emissions. Oceans and forests can absorb about half that amount. Although specific estimates vary, scientists and policy officials increasingly agree that allowing emissions to continue at the current rate would induce dramatic changes in the global climate system. To avoid the most catastrophic effects of those changes, we will have to hold emissions steady in the next decade, then reduce them by at least 60-80 per cent by the middle of the century. (A delay of just 10 years in stopping the increase would require double the reductions.) Yet, even if all carbon emissions stopped today, the earth would continue to warm for at least another century. ...

A person's carbon footprint is simply a measure of his contribution to global warming. (CO2 is the best known of the gases that trap heat in the atmosphere, but others - including water vapor, methane, and nitrous oxide - also play a role.) Virtually every human activity - from watching television ot buying a quart of milk - has some carbon cost associated with it. We all consume electricity generated by burning fossil fuels; most people rely on petroleum for transportation and heat. Emissions from those activities are not hard to quantify. Watching a plasma television for three hours every day contributes two hundred and fifty kilograms of carbon to the atmosphere each year; an LCD is responsible for less than half that number. Yet the calculations required to assess the full environmental impact of how we live can be dazzlingly complex. ... A few months ago, scientists at the Stockholm Environment Institute reported that the carbon footprint of Christmas - including food, travel, lighting, and gifts - was 650 kg per person. That is as much, they estimated, as the weight of "one thousand Christmas puddings" for every resident of England. ...

Many factors influence the carbon footprint of a product: water use, cultivation and harvesting methods, quantity and type of fertilizer, even the type of fuel used to make the package. Sea-freight emissions are less than a 60th of those associated with airplanes, and you don't have to build highways to berth a ship. Last year, a study of the carbon cost of the global wine trade found that is actually more "green" for New Yorkers to drink wine from Bordeaux, which is shipped by sea, than wine from California, sent by truck. That is largely because shipping wine is mostly shipping glass. The study found that "the efficiencies of shipping drive a 'green line' all the way to Columbus, Ohio, the point where a wine from Bordeaux and Napa has the same carbon intensity."

The environmental burden imposed by importing apples from New Zealand to Northern Europe or New York can be lower than if the apples were raised fifty miles away. "In New Zealand, they have more sunshine than in the UlK, which helps productivity," (Adrian) Williams (agriculture researcher at the Natural Resources Department of Cranfield University, in England) explained. That means the yield of New Zealand apples far exceeds the yield of those grown in northern climates, so the energy required for farmers to grow the crop is correspondingly lower. It also helps that the electricity in New Zealand is mostly generated by renewable sources, none of which emit large amounts of CO2. Researchers at Loncoln University in Christchurch, found that lamb raised in New Zealand and shipped 11,000 miles by boat to England produced 688 kg of carbon-dioxide emissions per ton, about a fourth of the amount produced by British lamb. In part, that is because pastures in New Zealand need far less fertilizer than most grazing land in Britain (or in many parts of the U.S.). Similarly, importing beans from Uganda or Kenya - where the farms are small, tractor use is limited, and the fertilizer is almost always manure - tends to be more efficient than growing beans in Europe, with its reliance on energy-dependent irrigation systems. ...

... We are going to have to reduce our carbon footprint rapidly, and we can do that only by limiting the amount of fossil fuels released into the atmosphere. ... Each time we drive a car, use electricity generated by a coal-fired plant, or heat our homes with gas or oil, carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases escape into the air. We can use longer-lasting light bulbs, lower the termostat (and the air-conditioning), drive less, and buy more fuel-efficient cars. That will help, and so will switching to cleaner sources of energy. Flying has also emerged as a major carbon don't - with some reason, since airplanes at high altitudes release at least 10 times as many greenhouse gases per mile as trains do. Yet neither transportation - which accounts for 15 per cent of greenhouse gases - nor industrial activity (another 15 per cent) presents the most efficient way to shrink the carbon footprint of the globe. ...

(John O.) Niles, the chief science and policy officer for the environmental group Carbon Conservation, argues that spending $5 billion a year to prevent deforestation in countries like Indonesia would be one of the best investments the world could ever make. "The value of that land is seen as consisting only of the value of its lumber," he said. A logging company comes along and offers to strip the forest to make some trivial wooden product, or a palm-oil plantation. The governments in these places have no cash. They are sitting on this resource that is doing nothing for their economy. So when a guy says, 'I will give you a few hundred dollars if you let me cut down these trees,' it's not easy to turn your nose up at that. Those are dollars people can spend on shcools and hospitals."

... According to the latest figures, deforestation pushes nearly six billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. That amounts to 30 million acreas - an area half the size of the UK - chopped down every year. Put another way, according to one recent calculation, during the next 24 hours the effect of losing forests in Brazil and Indonesia will be the same if 8 million people boarded airplanes at Heathrow Airport and flew en masse to New York.

... From both a political and economic perspective, it would be asier and cheaper to reduce the rate of deforestation than to cut back significantly on air travel. It would also have a far greater impact on climate change and on social welfare in the developing world. Possessing rights to carbon would grant new power to farmers who, for the first time, would be paid to preserve their forests rather than destroy them. Unfortunately, such plans are seen by many people as morally unattractive. "The whole issue is tied up with the misconceived notion of 'carbon colonialism," Niles told me. "Some activists do not want the Third World to have to alter their behavior, because the problem was largely caused by us in the West." (New Yorker, Feb. 25/08,  

http://pokerpulse.com/news/viewtopic.php... pgs. 44-52)

Answer 4

75-95% is the best estimate.  And they agree there's a tiny chance (1-5%) man is not a factor.  Not something you (or any world leader) would want to bet on.

This study was designed precisely to answer that question.

Meehl, G.A., W.M. Washington, C.A. Ammann, J.M. Arblaster, T.M.L. Wigleym and C. Tebaldi (2004). "Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate". Journal of Climate 17: 3721-3727

summarized at:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Ima...

Answer 5

The IPCC report that decided it was 95% man was causing Global Warming was made up of 52 people. Let's listen to these guys instead: http://www.oism.org/pproject/ http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F...

Answer 6

do you mean the IPCC, they talk out their arses

Answer 7

Carbon dioxide accounts for about 5% of the greenhouse effect, human activity accounts for about 3% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So the human contribution to the greenhouse effect is 3% of 5%, which equals 0.15%. The greenhouse effect is only one of many factors that contribute to our climate.

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Mon...

The above shows that the climate cooled in 1999 and 2000, stayed stable from 2000 to 2006 and cooled again in 2007, even though carbon dioxide levels increased. This indicates that the role of  carbon dioxide in our climate has been grossly overestimated.

Answer 8

Most, if not all of the enhanced global warming that we have been experiencing over the past few decades is due to man kind.

This fact is established because 1) humans have burn enough fossil fuels to raise the atmospheric CO2 level to above 500 ppm. The only reason why the concentration is not as high as this is because the ocean acts as a buffer, or a sink, that swallows up some of the atmospheric greenhouse gasses. As the oceans become warmer, they will absorb less gas and will begin to release more of their stored greenhouse gasses.

And 2) Burning fossil fuels changes the ratio of naturally occurring carbon isotopes in the atmosphere. Fossil fuels were formed millions of years ago. They therefore contain virtually no carbon-14, because this is an unstable carbon isotope. Carbon-14 is usually formed when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, and has a half-life of around 6000 years. So a dropping concentration of carbon-14 can be explained by the burning of fossil fuels. Studies of tree rings have shown that the proportion of carbon-14 in the atmosphere dropped by about 2% between 1850 and 1954. After this time, atmospheric nuclear bomb tests wrecked this method by releasing large amounts of carbon-14.

Fossil fuels also contain less carbon-13 than carbon-12, when compared with the atmosphere. This is because fossil fuels are derived from plant matter. Plants preferentially take up the more common carbon-12. The ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere and ocean surface waters is steadily falling, showing that more carbon-12 is entering the atmosphere.[1]

So to conclude, atmospheric CO2 concentrations are currently increasing because of mankind, and the data proves this. That CO2 and other greenhouse gases warming the surface and atmosphere is simple physics. Solar irradiance has been decreasing over this same time period since the 1970's when the globe quickly warmed.

Please remember that we are not just talking about a 1°C rise here. Due to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the average global temperature is expected to rise by another 1.1 to 6.4°C by 2100.[2] The most likely increase will be between 1.7 and 4.4°C. If humanity decreases the amount of CO2 emissions that are released into the atmosphere, then the temperature change will be smaller, if the amount of emissions increase, then the temperature rise will also increase. Most climatologists remain optimistic because if humanity acts soon, then the most harmful of possible effects may be avoided.