Is this true?
If so, why are we even bothering about it?
The total greenhouse effect makes the planet about 30 C warmer than it would otherwise be. Since 1900 the planet has warmed by 1 C. That means human effects have contributed to 3.3% of the current strength of the greenhouse effect, not 1%.
We are "bothering" about it not because of the current level of warming but for the potential that it might, possibly, continue (a terribly complicated idea to grasp, I know.) And if it continues, the warming could be a lot more than 1 C, it could be on the order of 3-4 C. Which is about the difference between the current climate, and an ice age, albeit obviously in the opposite direction. Which means the planet could look totally different. Which means a society entrenched and dependent on the current climate might not do so well: it might cause some hardship as we move and struggle to adapt. That might be less than rosy beautiful for human beings. It might, actually, be preferable to keep the climate as it is so that we don't have to spend the next thousand years chasing a moving target and adapting to agricultural areas of ideal climate but poor fertility.
And perhaps the bad effects of such a climate shift are worse than the bad effects of limiting carbon. Maybe not, but maybe they are. That is an important discussion, but since there are stubborn headed people like you around who religiously refuse to acknowledge that climate change could actually have some negative effects, that important discussion can never take place. So thank you for that, for betting humanity's entire future on your arrogant presumption that you are completely right and everyone else is completely wrong. I hope for God's sake you are right.
Not to mention your whole "1%" argument is a bunk appeal to stupid statistics. You compare the human effect to the total greenhouse effect. Why not just compare the human effect to the entire amount of heat in the system? Earth's average temperature is 285 K, therefore humans have only contributed 1/285 of the total temperature above absolute zero, or 0.35% of absolute heat!
Hell, you are right, that is nothing. We can do better! Fourteen billion years ago the entire universe (including the pieces of mass/energy that would eventually make up the earth) was at approximately 10 billion K. So what do we have to worry about now?? Forget 3-4 K, we could increase global warming by *1 billion* K, and it would still be a 9 bill K cooling compared to the time when the earth was at 10 billion K. That would still be "natural" compared to the early universe, so who cares if everything on earth dies, at least it's a 'natural' temperature!!
My God, man, you are brilliant! Why didn't anyone think of this type of comparison sooner??
*EDIT*
Sagebrush, the 30 C figure can be calculated very easily using the Stefan Boltzmann law. All you need to know is the radiative intensity of the sun and the diameter of the Earth, both known with extremely high certainty and readily available. Open a textbook for once in your life -- they don't teach basic physics on your political talk shows.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%8...
I read a few replys to your intial question and am truely fed up with the fear mongurs. If you google globel warming history you will see what has happened in the last few decades. We have been slipping into an ice age as well as been messing up the envirnment forever. Time magizine featured cover stories about us slipping into a mini ice age as recent as 1970 ish. We are screwing up the environment for a variety of reasons but the verdict is hard to detirmine if we are presently affecting anything. There are so many factors that effect this that our (humans) little foot print on the world is really causing anything. Think about the dust bowl or the winters of the late 70's early 80's in the midwest usa. Bottom line is that we are bad for the planet for a variety of reasons but weather patterns are affected by more than just the cars we drive or how high we keep our thermostats.
It's definitely not true considering the obvious effects our contribution is making to the worlds environment. Humans so far have increased the GHG effect by 40% since the beginning of the industrial age with the burning of fossil fuels and will continue to do so until we change our ways. A prospect that is hardly likely.
Where did you get that silly idea? The facts are that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that without greenhouse gases the earth average temperature would be 33C colder (a giant snowball) and that we have added 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere. There is not one scientist who denies these facts.
The claim that "Climate sensitivity is low" is denier myth number 13 on Skepticalscience dot com, a site that keeps a list of the more common denier claims and debunks each and every one of them.
The low pressure region of a tornado is about 1% lower than normal atmospheric pressure. Even small changes in climatic variables can have dramatic effects ...
Because if co2 doubles to 770 ppm we'll have an extra 1.2 degrees of warming ( not entirely true as the co2 warming effect bottoms out at 540 ppm but who cares? ) Do you know what that will mean ? We'll be responsible for 1% of that 1.2 degrees. That's an increase of 0.0012 degrees. Do you realise the devastation that will cause ? Millions dead, thousands of species extinct, well I for one don't want to fry or be drowned in rising seas of acid so I'll happily do extra work for less for the rest of life to be kept safe from this doom.
That depends on your baseline figures. I suppose that it is possible, when you compare it to the naturally-produced methane (are cows natural or is their contribution anthropogenic?), carbon dioxide, and water vapor.
Now pick up all the weight you can lift. I'll wait. Got it? Good. Now I'm going to add 1% more. Get the idea?
I don't think there's anything we can DO to change it. WE can't change china's exponential growth in emissions. China's annual ghg emissions now equal what the whole world produced in 1960, they are growing the equivalent of adding Germany's total emissions each year. We can't stop that.
Should we try? I doubt it. Anything we do will be swamped by china's emissions AND the climate consequences of our emissions appear to be hugely over-estimated when we compare projected to actual.
The climate moves to moderate any change imposed... I don't see this considered in any projection I have yet seen.
Edit prof Hinckley. Temperature doesn't start at 0 C, it starts at -273. So by your reckoning We have increased temperature by 0.36%.
<
Would you drink a glass which contains 99 droplets of water and to which someone has added 1 drop of arsenic?
Just because a percentage is small it doesn't mean that therefor the effect is minimal nor that we should not avoid it.
Human contribution to CO2 as activists like to mention is 40%, that is less than 1% of all greenhouse gases, water vapor is the major GHG.
Why do we bother I dont know there so many other pressing problems we should be concerned about.
The rise in temperature we had in the 80's and 90's plus the rising CO2 have had pleasant effects, the Sahara desert is receding the Kalahari is greener than ever, the Amazon rain forest is doing just fine, unfortunately the Earth is due for a cooling spell soon (due to solar inactivity) and so they might return to desert again, lets hope CO2 can work it's magic even if it gets cooler.
Humans total contribution to the "Greenhouse Effect" is less than 1%.
Is this true?
If so, why are we even bothering about it?
There is no proof that we even have that much. We are being manipulated, pure and simple.
As Kaz says
Then we have the good Professor (Who might be a relative of the guy who shot Reagan)
If it is less than 1% than why is pollution so high in some countries?
Think for yourself will you!
Call NOAA, GISS or the Met office and ask them. Do not believe what you see on Faux News or denialist blogs.
"Humans total contribution to the "Greenhouse Effect" is less than 1%.?"
No - it is a mindnumbingly stupid comment , regurgitated endlessly by those too lazy to read anything about climate change science
