What is this mostly caused by us, mostly what, and what percentage verses natural?

Question

No one wants a polluted planet, by the same token who wants to hear a misrepresentation. I already know the relationship between C12 and C13. Please represent the numerical bases to the public as a incremental scale. Yes if you wanted, you could correlate temperatures to each. That is 99% natural-vs-1.1% both. That's a 1-.5degree for man made, the other being the two main sources of known energy. The sun and volcanoes, interesting enough the internal core temp of the Earth is the same as the sun. What is the amount of energy the sun emits along with internal temps,as a %. If I'm wrong please feel free to correct me as I know some will do regardless. To the others,this is a question and not a implication to who's wrong or right.

Answer 1

According to the scientists:

http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/20...

"We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45–50% of the 1900–2000 global warming, and 25–35% of the 1980–2000 global warming. These results, while confirming that anthropogenic-added climate forcing might have progressively played a dominant role in climate change during the last century."

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v44...

http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/publi...

"The [solar] variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years."

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/b...

"Our results imply that, over the past century, climate change due to human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the Sun's brightness. … Variations of this magnitude are too small to have contributed appreciably to the accelerated global warming observed since the mid-1970s, according to the study, and there is no sign of a net increase in brightness over the period."

http://www.petedecarlo.com/files/448008a...

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/pro...

"The analysis shows that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays."

http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsD...

"Researchers at the MPS have shown that the Sun can be responsible for, at most, only a small part of the warming over the last 20-30 years. They took the measured and calculated variations in the solar brightness over the last 150 years and compared them to the temperature of the Earth. Although the changes in the two values tend to follow each other for roughly the first 120 years, the Earth’s temperature has risen dramatically in the last 30 years while the solar brightness has not appreciably increased in this time."

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news...

"Over the past century, Earth's average temperature has increased by approximately 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.1 degrees Fahrenheit). Solar heating accounts for about 0.15 C, or 25 percent, of this change, according to computer modeling results published by NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies researcher David Rind in 2004."

FYI, The sun provides 99.9% of the energy that the earth receives. Geothermal/volcanic/tectonic activity provides the rest. Energy that the earth receives is not the same thing as energy that is prevented from being reflected back into space, i.e. "the greenhouse effect".

Answer 2

you are talking gobbledeygook and so is 'pappy'. it looks like maths or some sort of sciency thing but its meaningless. nice try, it might fool a 10 year old.

Answer 3

Over the past 30 years, 80-90% of the warming has been anthropogenic.  Volcanic emissions have had little effect.

If my answer didn't satisfy you, I have no idea what you're asking.  You might want to invest in a communications course.

Answer 4

The percent caused by us is inversely proportional to the percent caused naturally.

Answer 5

http://www.socyberty.com/Activism/First-...  AS FOR POLLUTANTS thats mans use and nature's pollutants  from our planet. I SEE YOUR MISSING THE OTHER SOURCE THATS WEAKENING THE INVISIBLE FORCEFIELD THATS CALLED THE OZONE. OPERATED BY A SPECIE TO HEAT UP OUR PLANET AND CAUSE HAVOC. THE VOLCANO'S GIVE THESE SPECIES CRAFTS ENERGY TO EXPAND ALL DISASTERS.   HAVE A NICE DAY.

Answer 6

Absolute percentages are important to scientists, but need not be for policymakers.  

Your question is really kind of a conflated mess.  Is this deliberate?  If so, bravo, it's quite a rhetorical feat.  If not, maybe try just to ask one question at a time so you can sort it.

Here is the important part:

“The concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by man has risen significantly during the historical record and it is absolutely known (by reproducible, verifiable lab experiments on the physical properties of these gases) that these gases cause warming by absorbing the outgoing radiation from the earth. The skeptics have not produced any evidence that this rise in the greenhouse gas concentrations occurred by some natural process and they have also failed to explain how all the industrial emissions could have been absorbed by some natural process during the recent historical period.  There is no way to explain the observed greenhouse gas concentrations without human interference, and there is no credible way to claim that the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations has not caused a warming of the Earth’s surface. While there are other natural processes at work and while the climate system is highly complex, trying to discount the role of human involvement in recent climate change is speculation and opinion, not science.” - Asher Siebert.

Answer 7

This a question that you aren't going to get any good answers to because we just don't know. The problem with deciding how much influence CO2 has had is that there is no empirical evidence that shows that increased CO2 levels causes ANY warming in the real world. I keep asking this, but if anybody has any evidence, please post it.

And Dana seems to think that model hindcasting is a good way to tell how much an affect CO2 has had (his wiki link), and apart from the "tweaking" done to match observations (common practice), there is a huge problem with that: you can't use a model to test the theory of AGW, because a model is a hypothesis in and of itself! A hypothesis cannot validate a theory--that is just bad science.

Answer 8

Good point - the projected/guesstimated temperature of the sun is only about 900 degrees more than the earth's core.

But no one knows what heat comes up through the thinner lithosphere in the oceans. I find this web page interesting in that the warmer areas of the oceans seem to correlate with active plate tectonics = eg. Pacific Ring of Fire.

http://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/satellite...

Here is a good read on El Nino / La Nina effects from the oceans which are our primary weather sources.:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Walker_C...

Funny - the Alarmists vehemently denied the El Nino effects, but now claim the cooling is due to La Nina!!  Twisted aren't they!  

The simple fact = Scientists Don't Know Enough Yet!

Answer 9

Look at the data  most of the warming occurred before the 1930 so there is not a direct correlation to carbon in the air and temperature rise.

We have been mostly flat since 2000 yet we are still saying it carbon emissions.

Now reading the Nature article it seems we are headed for 10 years of global cooling.  

If it looks like cooling is occurring because of ocean currents.  Well that was not in the IPC models.  The IPC does not dispute the claims.  They just are worrying about political will.  

You would expect them to redo the models and account for the missing data?



So it not all science it is a world view.

ALso if the earth can cool it self in spite of man does that mean the natural feed back system is not broken?

Answer 10

Of course the Sun is the source of heat on Earth.  But the topic of interest here is what's causing the observed warming.  The things that are most important in that warming; greenhouse gases, ocean currents, dust from pollution, and volcanic emissions, work by modifying the heat of the Sun.

It's complicated because the different factors operate over different time scales.  But this will put you in the picture.

Manmade greenhouse gases 75-95% (represents an estimate of the uncertainty).  Changes in the sun 0% (actually negative a few percent) at present, because solar radiation is decreasing slightly.  Volcanoes, less than 5%.  The heat from volcanoes is not in the game.   They emit some greenhouse gases, warming us slightly, and some dust, cooling us slightly for a short time.

The main factor other than Man is ocean currents.  There's a huge amount of heat stored in the ocean, and heat flows both into and out of it, depending on the exact nature of the circulation.  Note that, over hundreds of years, it simply has to average out, since, as you realize, there is no fundamental heat source involved.  But ocean currents can change global temperature for a year (and often do), or, theoretically, even several.  Their effect locally is quite important.

The last is what you might call "ordinary" pollution.  Fine particles, airplane contrails, etc., cooling us down by blocking sunlight.  A few percent.

Answer 11

Last I heard, if the energy cycle hasn't been redefined, was the sun=85%, volcanoes=15%. The confussion behind GW is that selective aborbers have a lag time and no opitmial temperature has been established. But using simplistic ratios the percentages reveal themselfs. That is 99% of the warming is attributed to natural cause's. The other 1% has a ratio of about 80% of 1%. Leaving 20% of the 1% to natural variability. Why did you ask for percentiles I do better with decimals? It can be missleading.