I already have. In most of my posts here. Or I could put it this way: the itemized points I noted previously are a partial list of key scientific conclusions. They are supported by a vast body of scientific evidence summarized and cited in the literature in the IPCC WG1 AR5 report mentioned. If you don’t like the IPCC, you can find exactly the same information in the online literature at the National Academy of Sciences and directly in the relevant science journals. But thank you for at least clarifying where you stand on this issue.
The answer to #1 is that it was exactly the same cause as today, but it’s not a good question. It’s clear from radiative transfer physics that the warming influence has been growing steadily with the accumulation of atmospheric CO2 since the beginning of industrialization, with notable upswings in CO2 growth towards the end of the 19th century and again in the 1970s. The only scientifically interesting question is why the warming stalled between the 1940s and the mid-70s. The answer seems to be, aside from normal chaotic climate behavior, at least in part the prevalence of sulphate aerosol byproducts from fuel combustion. With cleaner technologies and particularly as a result of initiatives against acid rain, these started disappearing from the atmosphere around the mid-70s.
Well, geez, I can’t cover everything in a single definition!! I’ve already linked to at least three major reports upthread that discuss the impacts and vulnerabilities of rapid climate forcing and the shifting probabilities toward extreme weather events.
I mean global warming caused by humans. That’s all the term means. I also believe the IPCC when they conclude that human-caused warming is the dominant force that has led to recent global warming.
Someone who is skeptical that the globe is warming, I imagine.
Ah, thank you. I see the distinction.
Right. My understanding is that the temperature is rising precipitously in comparison to long term trends established over that time period, but that it is not yet higher than it has ever been over that period. The IPCC results and the Marcutt et.al. study predict that it soon will be, however.
That was my fourth example in post #176. I can definitely trust you know what obfuscation is. I’m very sorry, I thought you offered that list up for discussion. I’ll describe what I see, you describe what you see … maybe we can find common ground. Then again maybe that’s not what you’re interested in. I’m glad to know I have a 5% probability of being right [bewildered gaze] for what that’s worth.
The nice thing about waste-free reactors is that they’re waste free, which is a good thing. I just read up on thorium reactors, looks very promising. I’ve changed my position on nuclear power in general, I think we just rushed into too fast and got in over our heads. The clean-up won’t be as bad as some in the past speculated, but there’s a few hot-spots that are … well … really bad. I don’t know very much about the Physics, but it seems to me something can be done with the waste, like burn it again … it is radioactive after all. With today’s technology, I feel we can exploit nuclear power as much as we can.
But in the wedginess world, we should look to this as one of the “after we implement the first set” group. I think we all agree this is NOT something to be rushed into … again.
Well, waste-free is brand new tech. I’m not even sure the concept has been fully engineered or any design put out, yet.
The nice thing about nuclear power, though, is that at this point we can say that they aren’t “rushed into” anymore. The international community has spent an incredible amount of time and energy (heh) on the problem and we have reactor designs these days that are fairly bullet proof. I mean, look at Fukishima. It’s two (or was it one?) generations old and, while it wasn’t an ideal situation, the actual contamination was fairly low from the reactor failure. Newer designs mitigate the weak points of the Fukishima reactor, e.g. - all passive cooling without need for pumps that might get destroyed in a tidal wave. Note that this rating of damage done is talking just about the reactor failure and initial radioactive expulsion and doesn’t take into account the failure of the people repeatedly spilling contaminated water into the pacific ocean for the two years following the failure.
I just wish that we would build a nuclear plant that was more modular, so it wouldn’t be a one-year/18-month, 3 billion upgrade to replace a reactor. This mentality is what lures me to the thorium generators. We could build them as big or as small as we need and we could decentralize the power needs of the planet.
For instance, a 4Mw per couple-of-blocks (roughly 200 homes) reactor could be installed significantly cheaper than a 40Mw coal plant. Plus upgrades for new houses or increased electrical use wouldn’t be a cumbersome issue and not taxing the electrical grid would be a snap.
We could even go coo-coo for cocoa puffs and have every home install a 2kw reactor and make it akin to a home furnace or air conditioner. Most of the thorium reactor designs I’ve seen come with enough shielding to not be harmful unless you open the casing. (Opening the casing and holding your dangly bits near it is not recommended)
Are you aware that according to the IPCC, global warming in the first half of the 20th century was primarily NOT caused by mankind’s activities whereas according to the IPCC, global warming the second half of the 20th century WAS primarily caused by mankind’s activities?
If so, are you claiming that the IPCC is wrong on this point?
If not, do you dispute the IPCC’s claim?
So you are saying that it’s impossible to define “AGW” with a single definition?
In that case, you are attacking a bit of a strawman. Very few people dispute that mankind’s activities, whether they be CO2 emissions, changes in land use, or something else, are likely to cause some minor increase in global surface temperatures.
Even Professor Richard Lindzen – who is regularly labeled a “denier” – appears to accept AGW as you have defined it.
The real areas of dispute are in the areas of attribution and feedback.
Well do you believe the IPCC’s assertion that global warming in the first half of the 20th century was primarily NOT human-caused?
If so, how can anyone know that the same cause was not a big factor in late 20th century warming?
In that case, the study – even assuming that it is correct and represents established scientific knowledge – would not appear to rebut the claim that global surface temperature are within the range of natural variation.
The morass of contradiction from many contrarians is clear, there is AGW they claim to admit, we are only discussing the levels of it and feedback, they claim.
But then it is followed right away with classic denier talking points like if it is all natural anyhow. That it is once again a step back from what we should be discussing now.
WolfPup
Myself, and I suppose many others, think those climatic changes mean a great deal. Let me express this in another way.
Over the course of roughly 2200 years since the time of the 2 Caesar’s we have seen.
Warm Climate
cool climate
warmer climate again
cold climate
now again warm climate
All of these events lasting from 300 to 600 years in length and all before the might of the industrial revolutions kicks in. Also, all of the above is well documented despite the efforts of the GW advocates to ignore it.
Now the GW advocates want me to buy into the theory that recent human activity, and only that, is the cause of all climate and weather changes. To me that defies logic and I not buying that dog food.
It was not ignored, in fact it was thanks to one of the first IPCC reports (based mostly just on records from northern Europe) the cause of the misconception that denier sources adopted those early incomplete graphs as what it should had been “the final report” of paleoclimate; however, better records showed that the changes you describe are still there, but not as wide and as warmer as it is getting today.
It is called the march of science, your sources of information are just stuck in the past and misleading you, when are you going to take them to task?
Actually you should get rid of your dog. (Not really, but you should then make more efforts to ensure that addition to your carbon footprint is minimized)
Once gain, there is logic and science to report that recent human activity is the main reason for the current warming, and natural forcings are not going to keep it in the same levels as the very recently seen ones.
I would add one thing, which is that at the moment it is not known what caused these changes in climate. Without such knowledge, it’s difficult to rule the same cause for at least a big chunk of more recent warming.
Let me put it a different way:
A few hundred years ago, for reasons unknown, the Little Ice Age began.
Towards the end of the 19th century, again for reasons unknown, the world started warming again and has been warming ever since, at least until 10 or 15 years ago.
Warmists assert that whatever caused this warming “switched off” around 1950 and after that it was all mankind’s emissions which caused warming.
They offer essentially no evidence for this “switching off”; they don’t seriously attempt to explain what it was that switched off; why it switched off; or how anyone knows that it switched off. The switching off is what is necessary for their models to work so they essentially assume it to be true.
Not quite, the most likely reason where the natural forcings of the day:
Once again, not unknown as was already mentioned.
Strawman, you can not turn off a cycle, what many contrarians miss is that once the cycle goes up the natural warming will be added to the human made one, that is why even skeptical scientists advice the louder contrarians to pipe it down on this point.
(“You are going to kill us” [on the public arena if you continue with this silly argument] - Pat Michaels)
Even more straw, they are not off, as pointed before most natural cycles were found to be going down now as nature does, but the human forcing continues to keep it up and going up is the most likely thing to expect, specially when nature comes back in the background and makes the human induced warming worse.
And the more I see the return of already disposed denier talking point of the past in an effort to prevent going forward, I can conclude that a good number of “skeptics” that claim that they are not deniers are just assuming that just because they understand that a theory exists that therefore they can not be deniers. It is not that simple.
Going back to discuss or claim that scientists are not aware of basic items are boiler plate contrarian points from the denier sources out there.
Well, you know them clowns at the National Center for Atmospheric Research are a laugh a minute, just read your local weather forecast, haha, great joke there. Here’s one citation. It is offered here simply to confirm my statement is scientifically valid. Thank you for not inserting words into my statement for the sole purpose of argument, that’s terribly bad form. I’m concerned that those who threw “global warming on other planets” into the statement have very little knowledge of what an orbital perturbation is.
Ah, the ad hominem attack, I’m pleased that you find my ideas unassailable, and have only my person to attack. Unfortunately, it’s still a violation of the rules of the board. Would you please be so kind as to stay within the bounds set by the owners of this website, who so generously have provided a separate board where such bounds are greatly expanded.
Let’s try some simple math. I claim I have a 5% probability of being right, and you being wrong. Okay, 100% minus 5% gives us a 95% probability that I am wrong, and you are right. If you insist on being 100% right, then I’ll call your science religious dogma … thus making me a heretic for only offering a 95% concession.
There’s a 1000 W/m^2 incoming radiative flux, what is the outgoing flux? If you don’t know, just say you don’t know. I’d rather move on to the mitigation discussion anyway.
This information about Thorium reactors is all new to me, and I find it pleasing to read. The research of these past 50 years looks to have a big pay-out in our future. I think it reasonable to say that all my objections from back in the day have been answered, except waste disposal. As far as energy sources, I think it safe, abundant and carbon neutral (there’s a 95% chance that’s important [grin]). I can give allowances to TEPCO for their bone-head mistakes, but cheapskating the water storage was a premeditated choice … shame on them.
I would dispute it if they had said such a foolish thing. But they didn’t.
I am basing my claim on modeling studies that reproduce first-half 20th century warming only when anthropogenic CO2 is taken into account, a fact also noted by the IPCC. It is no coincidence that the growth of CO2 increased its gradient in the late 19th century and again in the early to mid 70s.
For the record, here is what the IPCC actually said in two different contexts – the first from the AR4, the second from AR5 (empasis mine) – and I once again lament their extreme scientific conservatism, but they make no statement even remotely like what you claim:
Does that sound like they said that “the first half of the 20th century was primarily NOT caused by mankind’s activities”? Isn’t it curious that you’re debating how we can possibly know that current warming IS caused by mankind’s activities, but you have no issue with the fact that we somehow know for sure that it wasn’t so caused more than half a century ago? You wouldn’t possibly be getting your information from disreputable denialist sites, would you?
The harms caused by AGW are what you insisted I was omitting. The harms caused by AGW are not part of the definition of what it is, they are the consequences. If you demand that a “definition” must encompass an encylopedic treatment of a subject, then yes, it will always be incomplete. What is your point?
Take them to task for what? Daring to ask questions? How “unscientific” of them. :smack: The IPCC and it’s supporters have a history of making mistakes and your undying support of the IPCC isn’t convincing anyone to change their position.
I’m sure that when the soon to be fully released latest IPCC report has been truly vetted by impartial and honest organizations, all of our questions will be answered.
If I may quote “It’s [blanking] complicated”. There’s so many factors, all inter-dependent, and inter-dependent in ways we don’t understand. It’s a grave mistake to only limit our vision to the past 250 years. But if you’re in the market for dog food, I’ve got some cheap stuff you can buy … cow farts as a form of bovine revenge … eat steak tonight !!! Yes, I’m making a joke
Maybe your conclusions are no more accurate than the IPCC’s guesstimations? A “skeptic” would be the perfect person to fully and truly vet any organizations study results. Is the math correct? Were the instruments calibrated by any recognized standards? Were the human inputs translated correctly and entered correctly?
Or is the vetting organization made up of people who are willing to except the basic underlying work of the IPCC as fact and not bother to verify the very foundation of the IPCC’s results?
I’ve already linked to at least three major reports upthread that discuss the impacts and vulnerabilities of rapid climate forcing and the shifting probabilities toward extreme weather events.
(Not really, but you should then make more efforts to ensure that addition to your carbon footprint is minimized)