(May 10, 2011 at 2:34 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(May 10, 2011 at 8:59 am)popeyespappy Wrote: ...... claims you care to make about anthropic global warming......

anthropogenic?

Any warming while humans exist can be called anthropic warming.

Adjective: Anthropic
Relating to mankind or the period of mankind's existence

Adjective: Anthropogenic
Of or relating to the study of the origins and development of human beings

I've heard the terms used interchangeably in relation to global warming. Is the usage incorrect?

Anthropogenic is usually taken to mean "caused by humans". Anthropic usually means "related to humans". Everything Anthropogenic is by definition Anthropic, but vast majority of things Anthropic can not be said to be Anthropogenic in the sense used in Anthropogenic climate change.

(May 10, 2011 at 3:46 pm)Welsh cake Wrote:

(May 10, 2011 at 8:59 am)popeyespappy Wrote: Well Cup Cake, I posted the link not so much as something to discuss but as a data source for others.

With all due respect this isn't the proper place to make shameless plugs, you started a thread, I'm expecting you to follow-through now and start the debate about any given topic matter relating to general science. You picked climate change data. The ball's in your court.

That’s right. I started a thread with the intention of sharing information. To the best of my knowledge that’s not against the rules of this forum. Part of the information available at the site I linked to is thousands of pages of data that is being prepared for policy makers. It includes not only summaries of the current scientific consensus on global warming but also potential impacts and suggestions as to how to proceed in the future. As a global warming skeptic who is not happy with your government’s policy decisions concerning global warming, I would think you should be interested in what those policy makers are being told. Apparently you’re not though and would prefer to simply whine and cry about it.

Quote:

Quote:I would however be happy to address any specific evidence backed claims you care to make about anthropic global warming. I don’t know what good that would do though because everything you’ve ever had to say on the subject has already been thoroughly refuted in recent threads on this forum.

Then you obviously haven't even bothered to read my posts. I haven't presented anything that could be refuted or supported.

There’s a thread in this forum not too far from here where you claim, “Oh well since we know the government's preference is to fund any support of global warming theory let's continue to ignore the giant Elephant in the room a little longer shall we?” right below a big picture of the sun. Void presented a bunch of data that showed that claim to be false. You promptly ignored it. You made the claim that instrument temperature has only been available since 1880, and that was not sufficient to provide a basis for claims of anthropogenic global warming. You totally ignore the fact that reliable paleoclimate data is available for the 400,000 years plus. You have also made an unsupported assertion that anything related to the IPCC is unreliable. All I can say about that is LOLOL!

Quote:I'm not the majority who are lobbying with the rest of the scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and human activities are chiefly responsible. That's a big fucking claim and all I've ever been presented with when I ask for proof why we must have carbon taxes is some statistical crap that would make my managers proud as opposed to a direct correlation that greenhouse gases are in fact forcing these climate feedbacks.

I also haven't been given a single peer reviewed paper on this, I don't know yet if this has gone through the process to determine if it's creditable or not. I looked and can't find them. Even if peer reviews were presented, you still must know this is a necessary but still not sufficient condition to presenting a scientific case for AGW. If neither of us can find these papers it demonstrates IPCC are not fundamentally serious about their position.

All I am is simply skeptical of anthropogenic climate change. :>

Sorry, it’s not my job to provide you with peer reviewed papers. However, if you want to make an evidence based specific claim that shows current global climate warming trends are caused by something other the anthropogenic greenhouse gasses, I’ll see what I can do.

Quote:

Quote:Unlike Earth, Martian climate is driven primarily by dust and albedo.

We're not talking about climate change on other planets.

And if we are, Zen Badger is the link broken?

Zen Badger’s link was to an article about global warming on Mars. The inference being that if Mars is warming too and the only thing Earth and Mars have in common is the Sun the cause must be the Sun. I provided a link to the original article that served as a source for Zen’s article. I also provided an explanation of why the original conclusion that Mars was warming along with the Earth was flawed.

---

(May 10, 2011 at 4:57 pm)Chuck Wrote: Anthropogenic is usually taken to mean "caused by humans". Anthropic usually means "related to humans". Everything Anthropogenic is by definition Anthropic, but vast majority of things Anthropic can not be said to be Anthropogenic in the sense used in Anthropogenic climate change.

Guess I’ve been reading too many articles by anthropogenic global warming skeptics. That’s usually where I seen the term used as I used it.

(May 10, 2011 at 2:34 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(May 10, 2011 at 5:38 am)ib.me.ub Wrote:

(May 10, 2011 at 5:33 am)Chuck Wrote:

(May 10, 2011 at 5:23 am)ib.me.ub Wrote: Climate Change itself isn't caused by humans, but the rate of change is.

Were there no human induced warming, "climate change at this time should be going in the opposite direction" from what is observed based on what we know of the long tern natural factors impacting on global climate.

Links please.

Roe G (2006). "In defense of Milankovitch". Geophysical Research Letters

The "Milankovitch Hypothesis" has neither been properly evaluted or verified. I would say it is a good source for skeptics to lean towards.

(May 11, 2011 at 12:34 am)ib.me.ub Wrote: The "Milankovitch Hypothesis" has neither been properly evaluted or verified. I would say it is a good source for skeptics to lean towards.

Actually, Milankovich cycle predicts climactic condition over the last million years, as determined from Antarctic ice core samples, extremely well. The theory also predicts we should currently be in the first half of a period of downward trending global temperature. Milankovich cycle thus suggest agent(s) whose strength was not notable during much of last million years being responsible for the observed global temperature rise. Anthropogenic GHG, not present in strength except during last few hundred years, certainly seem like a worthy candidate.

As to whether the theory can be used for support by skeptics, it does not seem that way. But so what if it could? How a theory might be used is not a measure of the merit and validity of the theory. Rather, if a sound theory can be used to support a position not to one's liking, it is reason to adjust one's liking, not reason to dismiss the theory.

ok. Its strange you say that, because the Milankovitch Hypothesis dosen't support human iduced warming as stated in your first post. Its support "insolation changes arising from variations in the Earth’s orbit."

So you have used a example showing there is minimal human iduced warming to support the claim that there is massive human induced warming.

I would say that this hypothesis supports my claim more so than yours.

The hypothesis also states that;

Quote:This implies only a secondary role for CO2 – variations in which produce a weaker radiative forcing than the orbitally-induced changes in summertime insolation – in driving changes in global ice volume.

I still can't find the part where it states that "climate change at this time should be going in the opposite direction" in this paper.

Milankovitch doesn't speak directly to human induced warming. It speaks to a pattern in the orbital dynamics of the earth that has been closely echoed by a pattern in the climate of the planet in the last million years. The correlation is strong. The causation is not completely worked out, but it seems enough has been worked out to form basis of predictive models

The different milankovitch predictive models seem to converge on the prediction that factors which had governed climate for the last million years should be driving global temperature in a lengthy downward trend starting in early Holocene, and that the trend will continue for tens of thousands more years. See J Imbrie, J Z Imbrie (1980). "Modeling the Climatic Response to Orbital Variations". Science 207 (1980/02/29): 943–953. And Berger A, Loutre MF (2002). "Climate: An exceptionally long interglacial ahead?". Science 297 (5585): 1287–8.

This is not what we observe. The closeness of the match between Milankovitch cycle and climate cycle over the bulk of last million years is such that deviation as we observe for the Holocene requires special explanation. One plausible explanation is anthropogenic GHG emission.

hmm, ok, interesting. I thought you were a skeptic.

(May 11, 2011 at 5:21 am)ib.me.ub Wrote: hmm, ok, interesting, cheers. I thought you were a skeptic.

Frankly I don’t get it. Being a skeptic doesn’t mean denial of a large body of evidence simply because it favors a position you don’t like.

don't know. Some people just don't care about evidence. Some people are afraid of the consequences and choose to beleive its not happeneing. Others focus on the argument against. The reasons are probably as varied as the opinions on the subject out there.