Is the AGW debate over scientifically?

Question

If so, what is the "scientific" percentage of harmfullness between man and nature. Some seem to think man is 100% of the problem. Others see man as puny is in its effect compared to nature. I don't see it as 100% man or 0% man, so what is the scientific consensus, since the "debate is over."

Answer 1

What debate?  There is research and there is consensus.  I am not aware of any debate.  We know the IPCC's consensus finding, including references to thousands fo supporting papers.  Exactly what is the opposing theory, and where are the supporting papers?

The only alternate theory I've seen for what might be causing the warming is the sun.  Here's the current status on that one (supporting paper below):

http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/...

"blaming the sun for recent global warming is no science-backed position anymore – it is deliberate disinformation. "

So yes, if the so-called "debate" has no viable alternatives currently in the running, no theory, no scientist promoting it, or no peers willing to certify that it is science, not some crackpot science fiction, the debate is over by default.

Your funny rule of requiring someone to assign a percentage is pointless and proves nothing.  Would it matter if greenhouse gasses were (for example) only 70% instead of 90% responsible?  No we'd still have to do something about it.  It's known to be a significant factor.  That is enough to go on, whether people care to acknowledge it or not.  A numerical number is unlikey to ever be assigned, so it makes no logical sense to hold our breath until one is produced.

If you want to deny, just do so and get on with you life.  You don't need to justify your choice to ignore valid answers to your question.  People can deny simply for the sake of denying.

---

http://journals.royalsociety.org/content...

"There are many interesting palaeoclimate studies that suggest that solar variability had an influence on pre-industrial climate. There are also some detection–attribution studies using global climate models that suggest there was a detectable influence of solar variability in the first half of the twentieth century and that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism that is, as yet, unknown. However, these findings are not relevant to any debates about modern climate change. Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."

Answer 2

Anybody who thinks 100% either way obviously doesn't know anything about the subject. The problems we are seeing now and will be seeing in the future will be almost completely caused  by mankind.

The scientific consensus is that we are causing global warming, this is why the debate is over. This doesn't say that man is 100% responsibly for the changing environment, it just means that man is causing the changes we are seeing now, or at least accellerating them.

Read any serious scientific journal and you will see that there is a pretty strong consensus that this is true.

Answer 3

In my mind, a better term than Global Warming is "Climate Change".  The climate in various regions of the world is changing and yes, this is absolutely, without a doubt, related to anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.  Anyone who would deny this is obviously not well versed in the science of the matter, which is quite straight-forward.

Answer 4

Here is a consequence of mans effect on his environment.  Overpoulation, waste,poor planning,and AGW is already threating the security of America!  Do you drink the water from this water system in this link...

http://wwwlivescience.com/environment/08...

If you do,you might consider moving away soon.

Answer 5

Mike, from the careful studying I've done, mostly at scientific Web sites which are qualified to speak authoritatively on the matter, the debate regarding whether mankind has had an influence over the recent climate change is all but over.  It is clear to me that the scientific consensus is: while climate change has been happening naturally for almost as long as Earth has *had* climate, human activities are now among the causes of recent climate change.  I've given many good links in earlier answers, for anyone who cares to learn what science says.

However I haven't found a consensus on just how *much* has been anthropogenic, or on just how bad the results could be, so I don't know that the figures you seek are quantifiable.  I believe that is still being studied.  

The debate among the general public, sadly, lives on due in large part to carelessness, ignorance, and gullibility.

Your question is well-worded in an important sense: that it takes into consideration that BOTH man and nature have caused global climate change, a point apparently lost on many people.  My guess, based on a lifetime of science study (which admittedly is still just my opinion), is that whatever the percentage of man's influence -- be it 1 or 10 or 50 -- that number will keep rising as the balance shifts and this snowball begins to get bigger and take on a sort of life of its own.

Answer 6

If man spreading over the earth and prospering is the problem, and the debate is over, then why are people still having babies? Why are we spending so much resource on saving lives, stopping disease, etc?

If the debate is over, then it is obvious the conclusion was that it is natural and there is nothing we can do but deal with it. I don't see any significant changes in any society on earth that will cause the effect needed to reverse it. The fact is most people do not really believe it. Most people I know do not even really believe there is Natural warming.

Answer 7

yes pretty much. there is still alittle argument about the effects of global warming but it is well understood that man is most likely the main cause of the current climate change.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/fu...

Answer 8

The debate in terms of meaningful scientific dissent that global warming largely caused by man is over.  Quibbling over a lowish percentage which may be due to nature does not prolong the debate on the central issue.

Answer 9

Of course not. There are many non AGW reasons put forth for warming

Here is one:

http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/9700001.pdf

Here is a list of scientists that have other studies that may point to different causes of warming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_...

Try this link for a great discussion about GW.

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/t...

The number of scientist that believe something is not a reason for saying the debate is over.

Darwin was in the minority for some time.

Scientific theories evolve over time as data and technology point in different directions. Finding correlation between events (co2 and temp change) does not mean co2 causes temp increase. If you follow that logic there are many graphs that show several correlations between the sun and Temp, Cosmic rays and temp, cloud formation and temp, earths orbit and temp.  There are also graphs that show c02 FOLLOWING temp increase historically.

The idea the debate is over is absurd. those that believe that have no idea what the scientific method is!

Answer 10

The scientific debate as to what is causing the current global warming is essentially over, yes.  Scientists have concluded that approximately 80-90% of the warming over the past 30 years has been due to human greenhouse gas emissions.

Other uncertainties remain, of course.  For example, when will feedbacks kick in, how much will they accelerate the warming, how quickly will temperatures rise in the future, what consequnces will result, etc. etc.  We have some answers to these questions, but uncertainty remains.

But as to the cause of the recent warming - there is simply no other plausible scientific explanation.