If the planet is naturally already warming, how much are humans contributing to this increasing warming rate? (Percentage wise)?
Is it 65 percent? 5 percent? 95 percent? If humans went extinct before the industrial revolution (1750), how fast would the planet be warming by itself? 0.01°C/year? Does anybody really know?
- JimZLv 71 year agoFavorite Answer
The intentional ignorance of those that pretend we weren't already warming is staggering. These science deniers deny that climates were cooler 300 years ago. These ignoramuses deny that it was cold enough to freeze the Thames even though we have historic records and that doesn't happen anymore. They deny scores of other proxies so that they can protect their cult which tells them they are planet savers and they are saving the planet from capitalism and freedom. What a bunch of bozos. We were warming for over 200 years. The warming in the last 100 years is similar to the previous 100 years. Because of that, it is hard to say what impact our CO2 has had. Really it would have been impossible anyway because climate is quite complex but there certainly isn't any smoking gun. The real world hasn't been very kind to global warming alarmists. Clearly temperature hasn't correlated very well with CO2 concentrations. In the past, any correlation was CO2 responding to temperature, not vice versa.
We don't know. Those that pretend to know are the most ignorant among us. They are sometimes versed in their cult but are too stupid to know they have been lied to.
- JimLv 71 year ago
Whether it's heating or cooling, the REAL question is how do we survive?
1. We NEED to control the population explosion. We need to wake up!
2. We NEED a solid plan to maintain temperatures that will feed us all.
3. We NEED to preserve critical ecosystems. It's not a matter of want, it's a true need.
4. We need to stop screwing with GMO.
5. We need to stop poisoning our planet.
Imagine we are on a spaceship, how would we act? Think about it deeply.
Earth is a spaceship, it's the ONLY one we get.Source(s): Mathematician & physicist, teacher, businessman, amateur astronomer, almost an astronaut!
- oldprofLv 71 year ago
Here's the real deal. We have natural climate cycles on planet Earth. They result from a variety of factors: Sun spots, heating cycles of the Sun, rotating orbit, and others that I've forgotten.
And if we plot out these cycles we see that each one spikes rapidly to a warm high, which is when the glaciers melt and the Bearing becomes a strait of water. But then each cycle begins to cool. And at the bottom of each one, we have an ice age when the planet is covered with glaciers and the Bearing becomes a land bridge because the water is locked up in the glaciers.
The period of such climate cycles is tens of thousands of years. And we are coming off the point where the Bearing is a strait, not a land bridge. In other words, we are coming off the global warm part of the cycle.
The planet should be cooling down, towards another ice age, if it's following its natural climate cycle. [See source.]
But it isn't. And the only difference between all the previous half dozen or so well-documented climate cycles and this current one is the effects of fossil fuel burning by mankind. It's not rocket science; humankind is causing the planet to warm up when it should be cooling down.
- 1 year ago
There is no reliable, consistent way to measure that.
Even the most ardent AGW theorist admits that there is little or no consistency in measuring human effects on global warming.
The only way to do it in a scientific way is to remove the entire human population from the Earth for a period of 100 years. Then measure everything.
Then bring the whole population back, doing what we were doing before, and re-measure and see if there’s any difference.
Any other method is too inaccurate to give a definitive answer.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- CowboyLv 61 year ago
It's toomuch% The planet was in equilibrium by itself - we've intervened and altered the natural processes. Now the natural processes still work but they'll take hundreds of years to get things back to equilibrium, until then things might get really weird.
- ElizabethLv 71 year ago
72 to 146% is the range based on attribution studies examined by the IPCC, with its best estimate at 110%.
How can the figure be more than 100%? Because natural factors such as the solar cycle, the El Nino Southern Oscillation and volcanic activity (as well as our production of aerosols) would have cooled the earth over the past 50 years. Therefore the warming we observe experimentally is offset by natural cooling, leading to a figure above 100% for our impact on warming.
In other words, all of it. And a bit more because the planet would be cooling otherwise.
- PETER MLv 71 year ago
Humans are contributing .01% (point 01) to global warming. The rest is the natural cycle of the planet which is contributing to global warming. Global warming is proceeding at a much faster rate than the scientists first predicted and the oceans will rise much sooner than originally predicted. Cities and towns along the coasts of the world will have to be abandoned because they will be flooded by the rising oceans and the inhabitants will have to move to higher ground. Most of Manhattan in New York City will be flooded and be abandoned as the waters rise. This will happen in less than 20 years and nobody is planning for this.
- Harry ButtcrackLv 71 year ago
1. Accurate data on weather patterns and climate change has only been collected for less than 200 years, while the Earth has "climate" since it has had an oxygen enriched atmosphere, somewhere between 2 and 3 billion years. For any "scientist" to assert that they fully understand mankinds impact on climate is ludicrous.
2. Archaeological and geological evidence suggests that ever since the Earth has had "climate" (atmosphere), it has been constantly changing, without the effects of mankind.
3. To think that man's impact on climate is greater than natural forces (the Sun, galactic cosmic ray flux, planetary orbital mechanics and naturally occurring terrestrial events) is only a testament to mankind's extreme vanity.
- samLv 61 year ago
- SatanLv 71 year ago
Depending on who you ask, you get a different figure.
Some argue that its zero to negligible, whilst others argue that it's a lot higher, whilst a few argue that humans are solely responsible.
I personally believe it's somewhere between negligible to lower contribution.
I do not believe that we should now start tampering with the climate. Every few years, we release a new paper saying how we understand the climate works, which just goes to show that we don't know it all yet, and ramming proverbial knives into the climate toaster is probably not the best way to get the crumpet out