Anthropogenic Global Warming

[misterd]

godf said:

Crono said:
"This is spot on. People look at % values instead of the bigger picture, as in what would happen if that 5% wasn't there."

No, its not spot on. Its freaking loco. If we add what amounts to a margin of error, then its basically like we add nothing at all. You HAVE to look at the amount added vs the total to realize that our effect on the greenhouse effect is negligable at best

You've provided a perfect example as to why you're chatting rubbish.

You seem to have some half remembered notions of 95% confidence ratios, and margins of error, that have somehow led you to conclude "its basically like we add nothing at all".

Even if you can't understand what other people are posting, at least try to think about what you're posting.  It's not like we're adding nothing at all.  Is it? 

If other sources of greenhouse gasses have been reasonably constant, and we're now adding to it, then it really makes no difference what level of natural greenhouse gasses were required to maintain previous temperature levels, human emmissions can still have just as much impact, regardless of the ratios between the two.

We only need a tiny % increase in the ammount of heat energy in the world to cause massive problems for humanity. Thinking 'Oh, less than 5% isn't that important' isn't really a sensible way of approaching things.

 

re warming being caused by solar activity:

"A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.

It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6290228.stm

Of course, I'm sure you know one study does not a case settle. We need a string of good cases, from one side or the other, to prove the point. I'm not sure that's been done yet (for the solar argument).