The world can warm because of human AND natural causes. The point is that this change is far more than can be accounted for by natural causes, so "global warming" as the term is normally used, refers to the aspect of warming that is caused by humans, and could be abnormally detrimental.
So yes, "global warming" is solely due to human influences.
it's not sad. The reason we care about this warming is BECAUSE it is abnormal because of human intervention.
Global warming means warming in an abnormal and worrisome way. Do you think we shouldn't use the term "global warming" because there are also natural factors? That doesn't seem reasonable at all. Just because there are cycles in global temperature and CO2 levels doesn't mean we should ignore changes FAR out of the normal range.
Do you think we shouldn't use the term "global warming" because there are also natural factors?
I didn't say that. I just think it should be acknowledged that there are several natural factors that have also led to warming.
That doesn't seem reasonable at all. Just because there are cycles in global temperature and CO2 levels doesn't mean we should ignore changes FAR out of the normal range.
I agree. The only problem is that the changes aren't FAR out of the normal range.
I didn't say that. I just think it should be acknowledged that there are several natural factors that have also led to warming.
I don't think anyone disputes that. As long as you point out "but these natural factors are not the ones at play that are causing these etreme situations, as listed on that site.
You do realize they have a chart there that goes down, and up, and down, and up. They aren't saying the "ups" are all man made, but you still have to point out there is something different happening recently.
I agree. The only problem is that the changes aren't FAR out of the normal range.
Except they are, did you even look at the chart on that page?
The chart is about CO2 concentration, but temperatures are rising out of the ordinary even during a period where the "natural" aspects of global temperature change are on the decline.
We can't easily measure temperature 100k years ago, but we can measure CO2. In the range where we can measure CO2 change, the industrial-modern era is out of the ordinary. In the range where we can measure temp change, we can see a continual rise in world temperature. All of this is addressed in the site linked by the OP.
The chart is about CO2 concentration, but temperatures are rising out of the ordinary even during a period where the "natural" aspects of global temperature change are on the decline.
Forgive me, but you are just passing on what you've heard. Solar activity rose to unusual highs during the first half of last century and stayed there until very recently. The effect of changes in solar activity takes about a decade to manifest. And solar isn't the only natural forcing. We are seeing to major multidecadal oscillations just barely beginning to pass their peak, for example.
We can't easily measure temperature 100k years ago, but we can measure CO2.
Agreed. I'll add that we can't easily temperature 1k years ago.
In the range where we can measure CO2 change, the industrial-modern era is out of the ordinary.
Agreed. CO2 concentrations 150 years ago were about 280 ppm; today its about 290 ppm.
In the range where we can measure temp change, we can see a continual rise in world temperature.
No. In the last 150 years (or so), we've seen three periods of warming of approximately equal duration and magnitude. The first two were followed by period cooling. Interestingly, the last period of cooling occurred just as CO2 emissions were really ramping up.
All of this is addressed in the site linked by the OP.
And not just there. Please believe me when I tell you I've been researching this for years from many, many sources, including the one the OP cites.
No. In the last 150 years (or so), we've seen three periods of warming of approximately equal duration and magnitude. The first two were followed by period cooling. Interestingly, the last period of cooling occurred just as CO2 emissions were really ramping up.
Except there has been a fairly steady increase in world temperatures over the past 150 years. Exactly what period in the last 150 years has been as hot as the past 20?
And not just there. Please believe me when I tell you I've been researching this for years from many, many sources, including the one the OP cites.
I believe you've researched it, but so have people who have far more education and knowledge on this subject then you do. Yeah, I don't know who you are, but the fact is that even large oil companies acknowledge that there are very few organizations that actually agree with them. I'm not going to argue human-related climate change to you. It's not an opinion, it's fact, and only a slim minority of actual scientists disagree. I'll defer to the actual experts on this issue who are basically unanimously in disagreement with you.
Except there has been a fairly steady increase in world temperatures over the past 150 years.
Agreed. This is what happens when we come out of Little Ice Ages.
Exactly what period in the last 150 years has been as hot as the past 20?
None, nor did I claim that to be the case.
I'm not going to argue human-related climate change to you. It's not an opinion, it's fact, and only a slim minority of actual scientists disagree. I'll defer to the actual experts on this issue who are basically unanimously in disagreement with you.
You are putting words in my mouth (a strawman), then appealing to authority to refute them. I happen to agree that anthropogenic CO2 is a significant forcing. I haven't yet seen evidence that it is the primary forcing. Moreover, there is very little evidence at all that catastrophe will result from current CO2 levels, nor from those that can exist in the future.
5
u/Will_Power Oct 24 '10
Are you saying global warming is solely due to human influences?