Warming 'likely' man-made, unstoppable

PARIS - The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, is "very likely" caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries, according to a report obtained Friday by The Associated Press.

The phrase "very likely" translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame.

How can anyone claim that much certainty in something we have so little data on?

It's very conservative. Scientists by their nature are skeptics."

yet within this report thy claim 99% likely it is that man caused our warming

The scientists wrote the report based on years of peer-reviewed research and government officials edited it with an eye toward the required unanimous approval by world governments.

While critics call the panel overly alarmist, it is by nature relatively cautious because it relies on hundreds of scientists, including skeptics.

The Bush administration acknowledges that global warming is man-made and a problem that must be dealt with, Bush science adviser John Marburger has said. However, Bush continues to reject mandatory limits on so-called "greenhouse" gases.

Has anyone seen the report yet? It was supposedly released later in the day from when the story was posted. I'm in HI so that should have come and gone by now I'd think.

Bush said something in his state of the union about the US cutting it's depednency on oil. By 2010 we needed to cut back some 20% of our oil use. I bet he flew off in his lush jet after that. 3 years, huge sense of urgency there!

Originally posted by whoknew
How can anyone claim that much certainty in something we have so little data on?

WHy in the world do you think we have 'so little data'?
We have climate records, in the form of daily temperature and precipiation recordings, going back hundreds, yes, hundreds, of years. We have climate data from proxies, like tree rings, chemical isotopes, and organisms, goin back thousands of years. What data are you saying we still need?

yet within this report thy claim 99% likely it is that man caused our warming

Yes, they are skeptical, and yet even with that inherent skepticism about strange claims, they are saying that this is serious and manmade.

AS said we have plenty of historical data in ice caps, tree's, soil you name it.

Global warming wasnt something man MADE.
The earth had cooling/heating periods since before our time.

But the earth never had 'something' on the ground pumping so much toxic/chemical CRAP into the atmosphere to ALTER the warming/cooling periods.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by whoknew
How can anyone claim that much certainty in something we have so little data on?

WHy in the world do you think we have 'so little data'?
We have climate records, in the form of daily temperature and precipiation recordings, going back hundreds, yes, hundreds, of years. We have climate data from proxies, like tree rings, chemical isotopes, and organisms, goin back thousands of years. What data are you saying we still need?

yet within this report thy claim 99% likely it is that man caused our warming

Yes, they are skeptical, and yet even with that inherent skepticism about strange claims, they are saying that this is serious and manmade.

WHy in the world do you think we have 'so little data'?

There is indeed a lot of data but by no means a surplus. Thousands of years of data seems like it still needs a couple zeros behind it. Thousands of years are but a bleep as far as the world is concerned. As for the data. Read the report linked below. Checkout the gaps of their theories. how can the change so much within 5 years?

I'm not discounting that Global warming is or is'nt caused by man. I just think 99% a bit overzealous.

warming likely man made article

Originally posted by whoknew
Thousands of years of data seems like it still needs a couple zeros behind it. Thousands of years are but a bleep as far as the world is concerned.

We have millions of years for as far as the astronomical cycles go, we don't have daily data or extremely fine resolution data going back millions of years of course.

As for the data. Read the report linked below. Checkout the gaps of their theories. how can the change so much within 5 years?

You are going ot have to be more specific.

I'm not discounting that Global warming is or is'nt caused by man. I just think 99% a bit overzealous.

Based on what? They are saying 'more than 90 percent likely', that means 'very likely'. Do you disagree that its very likely, ignoring whether its 85, 97, 93%?

Clearly corrected from a data standpoint by Nygdan and Agit8dChop! It appears my ignorance has been exposed. I still wonder how well these are translated into today’s stats, but I’ll look into that and go from there.

You are going to have to be more specific.

However, the panel also said its best estimate was for temperature rises of 3.2-7.1 degrees Fahrenheit. In 2001, all the panel gave was a range of 2.5-10.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

My issue here is the variance in the numbers. how can you be 99% certain when you are posting estimates such as these. I understand with each year there maybe a whole new set of variables. I guess with such a bold statement ( 99% certain) I'd expect bolder numbers. My root issue here is the implication of global warming resting cozy on mans shoulders.

quote: I'm not discounting that Global warming is or isn’t caused by man. I just think 99% a bit overzealous.

Based on what? They are saying 'more than 90 percent likely', that means 'very likely'. Do you disagree that its very likely, ignoring whether its 85, 97, 93%?

To throw a dart easily 50 percent plus. But that would be ignorant. I have no idea. To say that all other factors only contribute to 1%???? We are accelerating a naturally warming and cooling planet with our SUV’s and overindulgent live styles. We need to fix it. Do we really need a report to tell us that it’s all are fault, that we need to trade our Escalade for a Metro?


[edit on 2-2-2007 by whoknew]

The mighty microbes

Human-caused global warming—also called “anthropogenic” global warming—is the latest example of life altering Earth, but it is not the most dramatic.

That title probably goes to the oxygenation of Earth’s early atmosphere by ancient microbes as they began to harness the power of sunlight through photosynthesis.

Humans “are having a strong effect on global geochemical cycles, but it does not compare at all to the advent of oxygenic photosynthesis,” said Katrina Edwards, a geo-microbiologist at the University of Southern California (USC). “That was a catastrophic environmental change that occurred before 2.2 billion years ago [which] wreaked its full wrath on the Earth system.”

Just trying to share some of my 1% A single "environmental change," caused this. Are we the current catastrophic change? Maybe so but that 1% is a lot bigger in my current state of mind.
source

Originally posted by whoknew
I'm not discounting that Global warming is or is'nt caused by man. I just think 99% a bit overzealous.

It's not 99% but 90% likeley according to the vague wording. Anyhoo, I think this is a step in the right direction and apparently would have been 99% if the chinese delegation had not been so hesitant in agreeing.
There is plenty of evidence for humans accelerating the global climate and I think this report helps or at least should help to make people more aware of this.

uk.news.yahoo.com...

The wording of the conclusion means there is a 90% chance humans are causing climate change.
The wording of the conclusion is critical because of the impact it will have on public perception and government action.
The last report, in 2001, said global warming was only "likely" to have been caused by human activity.
There had been speculation the participants might try to change the wording this time to "virtually certain," which means a 99% chance.

Examine the correlation between co2 in our atmosphere with temperature increase. The linear models are almost exactly the same. Furthermore, we have records of Co2 in our atmosphere raning back 150,00 + years. As of currently CO2 is literally off the charts in our atmosphere, it has been on the incline since the 1960's or so and no other period of time ranging back from the earliest known sample comes close to this. Have there been previous global warming periods? Yes. TO the extent to which we are experiencing now? Not even close.

THe only thing that is positive about this issue is that we already have the technology and ability to stop it. Ranging from hybird cars that get 100 miles to the gallon to implementing cleaner forms of energy (wind, solar power), to using more energy efficient technology such as energy efficient lights to just converving energy at night by turning your computer off and unplugging your cell phone charger, it is feasible for us to stop global warming. It is an irreversible cycle. THere is currently simply an overwhelming amount of green house gasses, however, if we can reduce our personal emission and governements start implementing environmental reforms there is no doubt our atmosphere will start to return to its natural state.

[edit on 2-2-2007 by Think About IT]

Agree. Where is the report itself?

All we have so far is the media reporting what the document says. I want to read the report myself and see how badly the media got this one wrong. Media reporters, especially science reporters, are generally 1) scientifically illiterate and 2) paid professional liars.

Here is the summary of the report for Policy makers. As I undestand it, the full report with all data and addenda will not be released until May or June.

ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu...

Thanks for the link Darkbluesky! I'm checking it out and while post soon.

This report is the first of four due this year. Each has their own subject within Global warming.