Climate Change Rhino Crisis Round Up: Western Black Rhino Declared Extinct, Rhino Killed in India & More

Published on January 19th, 2012 | by Zachary Shahan

85

What is Causing Global Warming?

January 19th, 2012 by

In another wonderful post on global warming, Skeptical Science recently conducted a comprehensive review of scientific studies on the causes of global warming.

This follows up on recent posts on whether human or natural factors cause global warming (hint: it’s the former) and “more science on human versus natural causes of global warming.”

Check out this latest post on these matters here (reposted in full):

At Skeptical Science, we have several recent studies which have used a number of diverse approaches to tease out the contributions of various natural and human effects to global warming.  Here we will review the results of these various studies, and a few others which we have not previously examined, to see what the scientific literature and data have to say about exactly what is causing global warming.

All of these studies, using a wide range of independent methods, provide multiple lines of evidence that humans are the dominant cause of global warming over the past century, and especially over the past 50 to 65 years (Figure 1).

global-warming-causes

Figure 1: Net human and natural percent contributions to the observed global surface warming over the past 50-65 years according to Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, light blue), and Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange).  This has been added to the SkS Climate Graphics Page.

Note that the numbers provided in this summary post are best estimates from each paper.  For the sake of simplicity we have not included error bars, but we have provided links to the original research for those who would like to see the uncertainty ranges in each estimate.

A Quick Look at the Various Effects on Global Temperature

Most of the studies discussed below looked at the same few influences on global temperature, because they are the dominant effects.

As we know, human greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions warm the planet by increasing the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, thus increasing the greenhouse effect.

Solar activity also warms or cools the planet by increasing or decreasing the amount of radiation reaching the Earth’s atmosphere and surface.

Volcanic activity generally cools the planet over short timeframes by releasing sulfate aerosols into the atmosphere, which block sunlight and reduce the amout of solar radiation reaching the surface.  However, unlike many greenhouse gases, aerosols are washed out of the atmosphere quickly, mostly after just 1-2 years.  Thus the main volcanic impact on long-term temperature changes occur when there is an extended period of particularly high or low volcanic activity.

Human aerosol emissions (primarily sulfur dioxide [SO2]) also tend to cool the planet.  The main difference is that unlike volcanoes, humans are constantly pumping large quantities of aerosols in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels and biomatter.  This allows human aerosol emissions to have a long-term impact on temperatures, as long as we keep burning these fuels.  However, because aerosols have a number of different effects (including directly by blocking sunlight, and indirectly by seeding clouds, which both block sunlight and increase the greenhouse effect), the magnitude of their cooling effect is one of the biggest remaining uncertainties in climate science.

The El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is an oceanic cycle which alternates between El Niño and La Niña phases.  El Niño tends to shift heat from the oceans to the air, causing surface warming (but ocean cooling), whereas La Niña acts in the opposite manner.  As we’ll see, a few studies have begun examining whether ENSO has had a long-term impact on global surface temperatures.  Because it’s a cycle/oscillation, it tends to have little impact on long-term temperature changes, with the effects of La Niña cancelling out those of El Niño.

There are other effects, but GHGs and SO2 are the two largest human influences, and solar and volcanic activity and ENSO are the dominant natural influences on global temperature.  Now let’s see what the scientific literature has to say about the relative influences of each effect.

Tett et al. (2000)

Tett et al. (2000) used an “optical detection methodology” with global climate model simulations to try and match the observational data.  The inputs into the model included measurements of GHGs in the atmosphere, aerosols from volcanic eruptions, solar irradiance, human aerosol emissions, and atmospheric ozone changes (ozone is another greenhouse gas).

Tett et al. applied their model to global surface temperatures from 1897 to 1997.  Their best estimate matched the overall global warming during this period very well; however, it underestimated the warming from 1897 to 1947, and overestimated the warming from 1947 to 1997.  For this reason, during the most recent 50 year period in their study (shown in dark blue in Figure 1), the sum of their natural and human global warming contributions is larger than 100%, since their model shows more warming than observed over that period.  Over both the 50 and 100 year timeframes, Tett et al. estimated that natural factors have had a slight net cooling effect, and thus human factors have caused more than 100% of the observed global warming.

Meehl et al. (2004)

Meehl et al. 2004 used a similar approach to Tett et al., running global climate model simulations using various combinations of the different main factors which influence global temperatures (GHGs, solar activity, volcanic aerosols, human aerosols, and ozone), and comparing the results to the temperature data from 1890 to 2000.  They found that natural factors could account for most of the warming from 1910 to 1940, but simply could not account for the global warming we’ve experienced since the mid-20th Century.

Meehl et al. estimated that approximately 80% of the global warming from 1890 to 2000 was due to human effects.  Over the most recent 50 years in their study (1950-2000), natural effects combined for a net cooling, and thus like Tett et al., Meehl et al. concluded that human caused more than 100% of the global warming over that period.  Over the past 25 years, nearly 100% of the warming is due to humans, in their estimate.

Stone et al. (2007)

Stone et al. actually published two studies in 2007.  The first paper examined a set of 62 climate model simulation runs for the time period of 1940 to 2080 (the Dutch Meteorological Institute’s “Challenge Project”).  These simulations utilized measurements of GHGs, volcanic aerosols, human aerosols, and solar activity from 1940 to 2005, similar to the Tett and Meehl studies discussed above, and then used projected future emissions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to project future global warming.  Whereas Tett and Meehl examined the climate response to each individual factor (and/or combinaton of factors), Stone compared these 62 climate model runs to a series of energy balance models, each representing the climate’s response to a different effect.  Over the 60 year period, Stone et al. estimated that humans caused close to 100% of the observed warming, and the natural factors had a net negative effect.  As with Stott, their model did not fit the data perfectly, though they had the opposite result, underestimating the observed warming.

In their second 2007 paper, Stone et al. updated the results from their first paper by including more climate models and more up-to-date data, and examining the timeframe of 1901 to 2005.  Over that full 104-year period, Stone et al. estimated that humans and natural effects had each contributed to approximately half of the observed warming.  Greenhouse gases contributed to 100% of the observed warming, but half of that effect was offset by the cooling effect of human aerosol emissions.  They estimated that solar and volcanic activity were responsible for 37% and 13% of the warming, respectively.

Lean and Rind (2008)

Lean and Rind 2008 used more of a statistical approach than these previous studies, using a multiple linear regression analysis.  In this approach, Lean and Rind used measurements of solar, volcanic, and human influences, as well as ENSO, and statistically matched them to the observational temperature data to achieve the best fit.  Analyzing what is left over after summing the various contributions shows whether the most significant contributions are being considered.

LR08 did this over various timeframes, and found that from 1889 to 2006, humans caused nearly 80% of the observed warming, versus approximately 12% from natural effects.  As with the previous studies discussed, this doesn’t add up to exactly 100% because the statistical fit is not perfect, and not every effect on global temperature was taken into consideration.  From both 1955 and 1979 to 2005, they estimated that humans have caused close to 100% of the observed warming.

Stott et al. (2010)

Stott et al. (S10) used a somewhat similar approach to LR08, but they used their statistical multiple linear regression results to constrain simulations from five different climate models.  S10 calculated regression coefficients for greenhouse gases, other human effects (dominated by aerosols), and natural effects (solar and volcanic), and estimated how much warming each caused over the 20th Century.  The average of the five models put the human contribution at 86% of the observed warming, and greenhouse gases at 138%, with a very small natural contribution.

Stott et al. also corrobarated their results by looking not only at global, but also regional climate changes by reviewing the body of scientific literature.  They note that human influences have been detected in changes in local temperatures, precipitation changes, atmospheric humidity, drought, Arctic ice decline, extreme heat events, ocean heat and salinity changes, and a number of other regional climate impacts.

Huber and Knutti (2011)

Huber and Knutti 2011 implemented a very interesting approach in their study, utilizing the principle of conservation of energy for the global energy budget to quantify the various contributions to the observed global warming from 1850 and 1950 to the 2000s.  Huber and Knutti took the estimated global heat content increase since 1850, calculated how much of the increase is due to various estimated radiative forcings, and partition the increase between increasing ocean heat content and outgoing longwave radiation.  More than 85% of the global heat uptake has gone into the oceans, so by including this data, their study is particularly robust.

Huber and Knutti estimate that since 1850 and 1950, approximately 75% and 100% of the observed global warming is due to human influences, respectively.

Foster and Rahmstorf (2011)

Foster and Rahmstorf (2011; FR11) implemented a very similar statistical approach to that in Lean and Rind (2008).  The main difference is that FR11 examined five different temperature data sets, including satellites, and only looked at the data from 1979 to 2010 (the satellite temperature record begins in 1979).  They also limited their analysis to the three main natural influences on global temperatures – solar and volcanic activity, and ENSO.  What remains once those three effects are filtered out is predominantly, but not entirely due to human effects.  For our purposes, we will classify this remainder as the human contribution, since FR11 removed the three largest natural effects.

Using the temperature data from the British Hadley Centre (which was used by LR08, and is the most frequently-used temperature data set in these studies), FR11 found that the three natural effects in their analysis exerted a small net cooling effect from 1979 to 2010, and therefore the leftover influence, which is predominantly due to human effects, is responsible for more than 100% of the oberved global warming over that timeframe.

One key aspect of this type of study is that it makes no assumptions about various possible solar effects on global temperatures.  Any solar effect (either direct or indirect) which is correlated to solar activity (i.e. solar irradiance, solar magnetic field [and thus galactic cosmic rays], ultraviolet [UV] radiation, etc.) is accounted for in the linear regression.  Both Lean and Rind and Foster and Rahmstorf found that solar activity has played a very small role in the observed global warming.

Gillett et al. (2012)

Similar to S10, Gillett et al. applied a statistical multiple linear regression approach to a climate model – the second generation Canadian Earth System Model (CanESM2).  They used data for human greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions, land use changes, solar activity, ozone, and volcanic aerosol emissions.  In their attribution they grouped some of the effects together into ‘natural’, ‘greenhouse gas’, and ‘other’.  The authors estimated the effects of each over three timeframes: 1851-2010, 1951-2000, and 1961-2010.  For their attributions over the most recent 50 years, we took the average of the latter two, and used their ‘other’ category as an estimate for the influence of human aerosol emissions (which will result in somewhat of an underestimate, since most ‘other’ effects are in the warming direction).

Gillett et al. estimated that over both timeframes, humans are responsible for greater than 100% of the observed warming.

Human-Caused Global Warming Consensus

The agreement between these studies using a variety of different methods and approaches is quite remarkable.  Every study concluded that over the most recent 100-150 year period examined, humans are responsible for at least 50% of the observed warming, and most estimates put the human contribution between 75 and 90% over that period (Figure 2).  Over the most recent 25-65 years, every study put the human contribution at a minimum of 98%, and most put it at well above 100%, because natural factors have probably had a small net cooling effect over recent decades (Figures 3 and 4).

Additionally, in every study over every timeframe examined, the two largest factors influencing global temperatures were human-caused: (1) GHGs, followed by (2) human aerosol emissions.  This is a dangerous situation because as we clean our air and reduce our SO2 emissions, their cooling effect will dissipate, revealing more of the underlying GHG-caused global warming trend.  Note that not all studies broke out the effects the same way (i.e. only examining ‘natural’ and not solar or volcanic effects individually), which is the reason some bars appear to be missing from Figures 2 to 4.

what-is-causing-global-warming

Figure 2: Percent contributions of various effects to the observed global surface warming over the past 100-150 years according to Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Stott et al. 2010 (S10, gray), and Huber and Knutti 2011 (HR11, light blue).

causing-global-warming

Figure 3: Percent contributions of various effects to the observed global surface warming over the past 50-65 years according to Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004(M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple)Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, light blue), and Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange).

Contrib25-30

Figure 4: Percent contributions of various effects to the observed global surface warming over the past 100-150 years according to Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), and Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 (FR11, green).

There was a period of warming between 1910 and 1940 which was predominantly caused by increasing solar activity and an extended period of low volcanic activity, with some contribution by human effects.  However, since mid-century, solar activity has been flat, there has been moderate volcanic activity, and ENSO has had little net impact on global temperatures.  All the while GHGs kept increasing, and became the dominant effect on global temperature changes, as Figures 3 and 4 illustrate.

A wide variety of statistical and physical approaches all arrived at the same conclusion: that humans are the dominant cause of the global warming over the past century, and particularly over the past 50 years.  This robust scientitic evidence is why there is a consensus amongst scientific experts that humans are the dominant cause of global warming.

Note: this post has been incorporated into the rebuttals to It’s not us (Advanced), Increasing CO2 has little to no effect (Advanced), It’s the sun (Intermediate and Advanced), and A drop in volcanic activity caused warming.

Keep up to date with all the most interesting green news on the planet by subscribing to our (free) Planetsave newsletter.




Tags: , , ,


About the Author

is the director of CleanTechnica, the most popular cleantech-focused website in the world, and Planetsave, a world-leading green and science news site. He has been covering green news of various sorts since 2008, and he has been especially focused on solar energy, electric vehicles, and wind energy since 2009. Aside from his work on CleanTechnica and Planetsave, he's the founder and director of Solar Love, EV Obsession, and Bikocity. To connect with Zach on some of your favorite social networks, go to ZacharyShahan.com and click on the relevant buttons.



  • Josh

    Did you read the article? Or are you just making a comment based on your preconception?

  • Dan White

    After viewing the charts, several questions come to mind that challenges their validity. How is any one factor able to contribute over 100%? How can multiple factors not add up to just 100%? With a variance of 5 or more years, how is the data used being normalized? I don’t doubt our contribution to the warming phenomenon, but statistical presentations like these undermine the message.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

      i’m not sure why you find them confusing (note: i didn’t make them). some factors have had a negative effect, some have had a positive effect — the net effect is the warming we’ve seen to date.

      • Dan White

        Zachary, It’s not confusing, there simply is not a way to contribute over 100% of anything, net or otherwise.

        • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

          if the globe warmed 4 degrees, but would have warmed 6 degrees without some cooling affect, you do understand that something could have caused 6 degrees of warming, right?

          • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

            Obviously, there are different ways it could have been presented, and this is the way they chose. And it is, imho, a very good way to present it.

  • Dan White

    After viewing the charts, several questions come to mind that challenges their validity. How is any one factor able to contribute over 100%? How can multiple factors not add up to just 100%? With a variance of 5 or more years, how is the data used being normalized? I don’t doubt our contribution to the warming phenomenon, but statistical presentations like these undermine the message.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

      i’m not sure why you find them confusing (note: i didn’t make them). some factors have had a negative effect, some have had a positive effect — the net effect is the warming we’ve seen to date.

      • Dan White

        Zachary, It’s not confusing, there simply is not a way to contribute over 100% of anything, net or otherwise.

        • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

          if the globe warmed 4 degrees, but would have warmed 6 degrees without some cooling affect, you do understand that something could have caused 6 degrees of warming, right?

          • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

            Obviously, there are different ways it could have been presented, and this is the way they chose. And it is, imho, a very good way to present it.

  • map0557

    Thanks Zachary – very informative presentation, although I note a few of the other posters here continue to deny reality.
    I find it astounding that people can believe that pumping millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every day isn’t effecting the climate, and they seem to discount the unprecendented melting of the polar caps, ice sheets and glaciers worldwide.
    Personally I think we have passed the tipping point, and that no matter what we do there will be ever more serious climatic consquences as we go forward. That’s not say we shouldn’t do anything, as doing nothing will only further exascerbate the problem, but we should be prepared for a decreasing ability to feed ourselves because large areas of once aerable land will be desert, while currently highly populated coastal regions will gradually become inundated by rising sea levels.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

      Agreed, fully.

      It’s really hard to see how people can ignore the reality so adamantly. Ideology over facts.

  • map0557

    Thanks Zachary – very informative presentation, although I note a few of the other posters here continue to deny reality.
    I find it astounding that people can believe that pumping millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every day isn’t effecting the climate, and they seem to discount the unprecendented melting of the polar caps, ice sheets and glaciers worldwide.
    Personally I think we have passed the tipping point, and that no matter what we do there will be ever more serious climatic consquences as we go forward. That’s not say we shouldn’t do anything, as doing nothing will only further exascerbate the problem, but we should be prepared for a decreasing ability to feed ourselves because large areas of once aerable land will be desert, while currently highly populated coastal regions will gradually become inundated by rising sea levels.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

      Agreed, fully.

      It’s really hard to see how people can ignore the reality so adamantly. Ideology over facts.

  • http://twitter.com/aligatorhardt aligatorhardt

    How much atmospheric warming is provided by heat released from nuclear reactors and the 95 degree water released into waterways? CO2 emissions do not tell the whole story.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

      that’s a recycling of energy, not creation of new energy.

  • http://twitter.com/aligatorhardt aligatorhardt

    How much atmospheric warming is provided by heat released from nuclear reactors and the 95 degree water released into waterways? CO2 emissions do not tell the whole story.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

      that’s a recycling of energy, not creation of new energy.

  • 2shay

    I saw that too, in Al Gores movie. I had to take a screen shot then lower the time lines so that they overlapped, then it was clear, CO2 lagged warming. Its not only Mars that is warming, Jupiter too, according o the linked article from http://www.skepticalscience. The graph in figure 2 on that page takes a point after one storm and before another – that is a bit naughty. Studies have shown that albedo is higher directly after a storm but then falls due to winds clearing up the dust after a storm.
    http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2010/pdf/1598.pdf

    If you take the points before a storm and much later after a storm and then plot that, the line is flat! Mars Albedo is not increasing over time.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars-intermediate.htm

  • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

    Thanks.

  • ranou

    good presentation

  • mishti

    nice presentation

    • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

      Thanks.

  • http://www.facebook.com/randall.champlin Randall Champlin

    “ugh, humanity…” I think I detect a bias.

  • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

    i love when people drop ridiculously simplistic arguments on here and act as if scientists haven’t considered them. ugh, humanity…

    “Mars and Jupiter are not warming, and anyway the sun has recently been cooling slightly.” http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm
    “Martian climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo and there is little empirical evidence that Mars is showing long term warming.” http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars-intermediate.htm

    • Anonymous Coward

      I’m becoming very tired of all you Anti-Humans.

    • Fowardthinker

      How about this simplistic argument, prove it? No more scientific consensus show us how the ecosystem works and prove your point then there will no debate because it will be science based on facts and not (like psychology) stastistics.

      • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

        Wow, do you honestly think this hasn’t been done a thousand times?

        • Fowardthinker

          Can you show me the 1000 papers that scientificly prove using scientific method “man made global warming”? Consensus is not scientic method it’s statistics that many scientist agree upon. Statisitcs can be skewed, data altered but not with scientific method it can be proven again and again with the exact same result

          • Fowardthinker

            one more thing consesus is opinion proven science is fact

  • Get2venkataraman

    hi shahan i think co2 emission is concern earlier also large co2 emission taking place but global warming is due to deforestation every country shld adopt 20-35% forest cover as it is great decrease the co2 

  • Pbkahuna

    If you check Google for temperature rise on earth for the past 30 years you will find a rise in temperature of about 1 C. If you check the temperature on Mars for the same period, you will find about the same increase.  If this is true it is hard to blame humans and their industrial gases as the cause of martian warming!  

    • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

      i love when people drop ridiculously simplistic arguments on here and act as if scientists haven’t considered them. ugh, humanity…

      “Mars and Jupiter are not warming, and anyway the sun has recently been cooling slightly.” http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm
      “Martian climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo and there is little empirical evidence that Mars is showing long term warming.” http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars-intermediate.htm

      • Anonymous Coward

        I’m becoming very tired of all you Anti-Humans.

      • Fowardthinker

        How about this simplistic argument, prove it? No more scientific consensus show us how the ecosystem works and prove your point then there will no debate because it will be science based on facts and not (like psychology) stastistics.

        • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

          Wow, do you honestly think this hasn’t been done a thousand times?

  • Justforfun

    CO2 lags all warming events. It has not been the cause. When it gets warmer the oceans emit CO2. Lots of people need food, water and cheap energy. Stop being so selfish!

    • Josh

      Did you read the article? Or are you just making a comment based on your preconception?

  • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

    Some people won’t be convinced no matter what is presented to them. For others, this should prove useful.

    • Broadlands

      What’s the big deal? The very close relationship between humans and CO2 has been known for at least 25 years. And just today (11/20/12: BBC NEWS, November 20, 2012:

      “Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere hit a new record high in 2011, the World Meteorological Organization has said. In its annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin released on Tuesday, the organisation said that carbon dioxide levels reached 391 parts per million …”And global human population also a record:
      6,973,738,433 – 2011
      Source: World Bank

      Please read a very short 1987 paper by Newell & Marcus entitled “Carbon Dioxide and People” Norman Newell was a National Academy of Sciences member and Leslie Marcus a prominent statistician. Their Figure 1 is a plot of Mauna Loa CO2 against global population from 1959-1983. It has a stunning, almost perfect correlation of 0.9985. Updating their data  shows that their prediction was right “on the money” and the correlation coefficient remains the same. Since 1960 the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii has risen from ~317 ppm to ~391 ppm in 2011, an increase of 74 ppm or 23%. Over the same 51 years the global population has risen from ~3 billion to ~6.974 billion or 132%.
      Linear extrapolation of the data  to 2050 leads to a projected global population of 10.5 billion people and 490 ppmv CO2. Clearly, there is no realistic way for humans to reduce atmospheric CO2 without a politically unacceptable and drastic change in human population worldwide. Solution: We must learn to adapt to the rise in CO2 rather than wring our collective hands. The Vikings did, twice.

      • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

        Not burning fossil fuels & not cutting down forests would do the trick.
        What we’re facing is not something many or most people will be able to adapt to (increased water & food scarcity, more extreme natural disasters, etc.). But we definitely do need to do what we can to adapt…

        • Broadlands

          Mr. Shahan… I suspect that you did not read Newell & Marcus? As they observed, 25 years ago, given an increasing global population it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to lower atmospheric CO2 significantly without major changes to our standard of living and disruptions to the global economies. They also observed that solar and nuclear energy sources can be useful supplements but are unlikely to replace fossil fuels in such uses as transportation. 

          Stop burning fossil fuels and cutting down forests will do the trick? Lower our carbon footprints…. while the number of our feet continues to increase? Decrease CO2 by 50%? That seems like Don Quixote tilting at windmills, and doing so while going up a down escalator. The scarcity of food and water is, of course, all part of the increase in the number of humans. The human race has been adapting to natural disasters for eons. It becomes more difficult as more people are facing these disasters. We can adapt and you are correct that we need to start planning soon. 

          • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

            Most important note: 25 years ago. A lot has changed in that time with regards to technology. :D

          • http://www.facebook.com/dirk.faegre Dirk Faegre

            I beg to differ. We have not been adapting … at least not much. And most of it has been in a ‘borrowed time’ way.  We haven’t had to go ‘backwards’ — and when we have had to quickly (think something like the great depression), many just commit suicide — the change is too great and too harsh for them.  The thing we’re talking about here makes the great depression look like a cake walk (think NY/NJ in 10/2012).  Hang on to your hats, it’s going to be a wild ride.

      • http://www.facebook.com/dirk.faegre Dirk Faegre

        I am unable to figure out how we will adapt — and I’ve been trying for years.  I rather suspect that nature is going to have to do the dirty work for.  But that’s OK, she does’t mind.  It’s just another day at the zoo, so to speak.

  • Dot B

    As a scientist I find the evidence connecting warming with human activity convincing already.
    But I know a skeptic or two, and to take this piece by itself, I imagine the skeptic’s question might be, How did you choose these studies?  How does one know you didn’t pick out only the studies that agree with you?

    • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

      Some people won’t be convinced no matter what is presented to them. For others, this should prove useful.

      • Broadlands

        What’s the big deal? The very close relationship between humans and CO2 has been known for at least 25 years. And just today (11/20/12: BBC NEWS, November 20, 2012:

        “Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere hit a new record high in 2011, the World Meteorological Organization has said. In its annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin released on Tuesday, the organisation said that carbon dioxide levels reached 391 parts per million …”And global human population also a record:
        6,973,738,433 – 2011
        Source: World Bank

        Please read a very short 1987 paper by Newell & Marcus entitled “Carbon Dioxide and People” Norman Newell was a National Academy of Sciences member and Leslie Marcus a prominent statistician. Their Figure 1 is a plot of Mauna Loa CO2 against global population from 1959-1983. It has a stunning, almost perfect correlation of 0.9985. Updating their data  shows that their prediction was right “on the money” and the correlation coefficient remains the same. Since 1960 the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii has risen from ~317 ppm to ~391 ppm in 2011, an increase of 74 ppm or 23%. Over the same 51 years the global population has risen from ~3 billion to ~6.974 billion or 132%.
        Linear extrapolation of the data  to 2050 leads to a projected global population of 10.5 billion people and 490 ppmv CO2. Clearly, there is no realistic way for humans to reduce atmospheric CO2 without a politically unacceptable and drastic change in human population worldwide. Solution: We must learn to adapt to the rise in CO2 rather than wring our collective hands. The Vikings did, twice.

        • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

          Not burning fossil fuels & not cutting down forests would do the trick.
          What we’re facing is not something many or most people will be able to adapt to (increased water & food scarcity, more extreme natural disasters, etc.). But we definitely do need to do what we can to adapt…

          • Broadlands

            Mr. Shahan… I suspect that you did not read Newell & Marcus? As they observed, 25 years ago, given an increasing global population it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to lower atmospheric CO2 significantly without major changes to our standard of living and disruptions to the global economies. They also observed that solar and nuclear energy sources can be useful supplements but are unlikely to replace fossil fuels in such uses as transportation. 

            Stop burning fossil fuels and cutting down forests will do the trick? Lower our carbon footprints…. while the number of our feet continues to increase? Decrease CO2 by 50%? That seems like Don Quixote tilting at windmills, and doing so while going up a down escalator. The scarcity of food and water is, of course, all part of the increase in the number of humans. The human race has been adapting to natural disasters for eons. It becomes more difficult as more people are facing these disasters. We can adapt and you are correct that we need to start planning soon. 

          • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

            Most important note: 25 years ago. A lot has changed in that time with regards to technology. :D

          • riverrat37

            I beg to differ. We have not been adapting … at least not much. And most of it has been in a ‘borrowed time’ way.  We haven’t had to go ‘backwards’ — and when we have had to quickly (think something like the great depression), many just commit suicide — the change is too great and too harsh for them.  The thing we’re talking about here makes the great depression look like a cake walk (think NY/NJ in 10/2012).  Hang on to your hats, it’s going to be a wild ride.

        • riverrat37

          I am unable to figure out how we will adapt — and I’ve been trying for years.  I rather suspect that nature is going to have to do the dirty work for.  But that’s OK, she does’t mind.  It’s just another day at the zoo, so to speak.

  • Pingback: Great Transition Part II - CleanTechnica

  • Pingback: Marcacci Communications

  • Ken Towe

    What’s the matter with “Nathan” at Planetsave? No comments allowed about butterflies and global warming?

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      not sure what you’re talking about. i moderate comments and are going through ones now that were held for moderation ( a very small % of comments).

      • Ken Towe

        I must be doing something wrong. Several comments, “awaiting moderation”, have never appeared.

  • dr nick

    hello

  • d

    hello everybody

  • http://ahilan007.wordpress.com ahilanraman

    Thank you for the information. Can we combat global warming by reducing carbon emission by using solar/wind/bio energy combined? What about the newly added coal fired power plants in China and India? It is unlikely without three major polluters, US,China and India signing a legally binding agreement to reduce their emissions to an accepted level.

  • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

    To commenters who directly say they haven’t even read the article, and then go on to proclaim about a dozen or so common myths, I’m sorry, but you are not carrying on the conversation and are only working to spread misinformation that you would learn is incorrect if you read a bit — so I’m not approving your comments/myths and spending my whole night explaining why they’re wrong. If you won’t even read the article you are commenting on, why would you read or look into my responses?

  • Pingback: How Do Humans Cause Global Warming? | Planetsave

  • Pingback: Human Global Warming: What Are the Main Causes? | Planetsave

  • Pingback: Do You Know the Cause of 51% or More of Humanity’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions? | Planetsave

  • Pingback: 80% of Amazon Deforestation Stems from Cattle Ranching | Planetsave

  • Pingback: Top Environmental Organizations in the United States (7 Green Bloggers) | Planetsave

  • Pingback: Scientific Proof of Global Warming | Planetsave

  • Pingback: Humans Cause Global Warming: 10 Indicators | Planetsave

  • Pingback: Yes, Global Warming is Real AND Caused by Humans | Planetsave

    • gator1020

      How many degrees is the Earth warming, how do you know it’s warming. Last winter was mild in a lot of places. It wasn’t that long ago scientists said the Earth was cooling off. I believe global warming is a hoax. Much along the same lines as Darwins theory of evolution. Can’t be proven, because there is not a base line. So the answer to your question is…there is no cause because there is no global warming. But go ahead and keep getting Al Gore richer with this nonsense.

      • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

        @gator1020: Sorry, have you read the article above? It seems no. Do you actually think you have more ability to evaluate how well thousands of scientists have used the scientific method and come to a sound conclusion than EVERY national scientific academy in the world?

        Do you realize that even the oil companies recognize that the world is warming? http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/06/14/499502/oil-companies-that-caused-climate-change-now-fear-its-financial-impacts/

        Do you realize how far outside of common sense you have wandered?

        try reading the article above, or almost any scientific literature on the matter, and you will have your answers.

  • Pingback: 5 Ways to Prevent Global Warming That Big Media Won’t Tell You | Planetsave

  • Pingback: Global Warming Effects and Causes: A Top 10 List | Planetsave

  • Pingback: What Causes Global Warming: Human or Natural Factors? | Planetsave

  • Pingback: ‘Virtually’ Certain Effect of Human-Caused ‘Climate Change Is Observable in Arctic Sea Ice Already Today’ (Study) | Planetsave

  • Pingback: 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #3

  • Victor

    Thank you for the overview and clear explanation of the major studies. Hopefully, the political leadership will also take note of it also.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

      Hopefully :D

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_CI6PKYCNZHSAWFAKNUSGLVD554 Dana N

      I wouldn’t count on it, but thanks :-)

  • Victor

    Thank you for the overview and clear explanation of the major studies. Hopefully, the political leadership will also take note of it also.

    • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

      Hopefully :D

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_CI6PKYCNZHSAWFAKNUSGLVD554 Dana N

      I wouldn’t count on it, but thanks :-)

Back to Top ↑