Honest Question About Anthropomorphic Global Warming

[Meh Gerbil]

Disclaimers:
1: This isn't an honest question.
2: I'm a vessel full of acrimony and hate.
3: I'm really stupid.
4: I want to return all of civilization to the Stone Age.
5: I've done next to no research on AGW.

Question:
I've several bits of incongruent pieces of information flittering about in my mind like ticker tape and glitter. One of these is the idea that about 20,000 years ago where I live in Michigan was under several hundred feet of ice and snow. The theory I heard was that the Great Lakes were carved out by, and subsequently filled by, melting glaciers. This means that 10,000 years before man could possibly have an impact on Global Warming the earth was already in the process of undergoing a substantive warming - that massive continent sized glaciers were lost before the first internal combustion engine came online. It is my understanding that this warming process continues to this day.

My question: How do the AGW cultists know that GW is AGW and not merely a continuation of a process that began 20,000 years ago?

I don't entertain that idea that the question is a new one.
I'm not interested in dozens of links to technical papers.
Please use little words in your reply.

Thanks

[seer]

Disclaimers:
1: This isn't an honest question.
2: I'm a vessel full of acrimony and hate.
3: I'm really stupid.
4: I want to return all of civilization to the Stone Age.
5: I've done next to no research on AGW.

Question:
I've several bits of incongruent pieces of information flittering about in my mind like ticker tape and glitter. One of these is the idea that about 20,000 years ago where I live in Michigan was under several hundred feet of ice and snow. The theory I heard was that the Great Lakes were carved out by, and subsequently filled by, melting glaciers. This means that 10,000 years before man could possibly have an impact on Global Warming the earth was already in the process of undergoing a substantive warming - that massive continent sized glaciers were lost before the first internal combustion engine came online. It is my understanding that this warming process continues to this day.

My question: How do the AGW cultists know that GW is AGW and not merely a continuation of a process that began 20,000 years ago?

I don't entertain that idea that the question is a new one.
I'm not interested in dozens of links to technical papers.
Please use little words in your reply.

Thanks

I think they would say that they know what natural processes dove that previous warming, and that it was much more gradual than what see see today. And that the only thing that can account for this more rapid warming is man. There are no other natural drivers that can account for it. I think that is what they would say. BTW where I live in New England was once covered in 50-100 foot glaciers.

[TheLurch]

2: I'm a vessel full of acrimony and hate.
3: I'm really stupid.

My question: How do the AGW cultists know that GW is AGW and not merely a continuation of a process that began 20,000 years ago?

No arguments on 2 and 3, given your phrasing here. Regardless of your trolling, i'll treat "AGW cultists" as if you said "scientists".

Short answer: we know why the warming that brought us out of the ice age began - it was driven by orbital climate forcings with a CO2 feedback. Since (contra JM) we understand orbital mechanics really well, we can calculate when those orbital forcings peaked. It was about 5,000 years ago, and temperatures have been sliding downward since that peak. That downward slide has been reversed in the last century.

So, the mechanism that drove that warming ended, and the temperatures responded accordingly. There has been nothing to continue for 5,000 years.

If you want more details as to how we know it's humans, the IPCC has an entire chapter devoted to it:
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and...g1/en/ch9.html

[oxmixmudd]

Disclaimers:
1: This isn't an honest question.
2: I'm a vessel full of acrimony and hate.
3: I'm really stupid.
4: I want to return all of civilization to the Stone Age.
5: I've done next to no research on AGW.

Question:
I've several bits of incongruent pieces of information flittering about in my mind like ticker tape and glitter. One of these is the idea that about 20,000 years ago where I live in Michigan was under several hundred feet of ice and snow. The theory I heard was that the Great Lakes were carved out by, and subsequently filled by, melting glaciers. This means that 10,000 years before man could possibly have an impact on Global Warming the earth was already in the process of undergoing a substantive warming - that massive continent sized glaciers were lost before the first internal combustion engine came online. It is my understanding that this warming process continues to this day.

My question: How do the AGW cultists know that GW is AGW and not merely a continuation of a process that began 20,000 years ago?

I don't entertain that idea that the question is a new one.
I'm not interested in dozens of links to technical papers.
Please use little words in your reply.

Thanks

These were my questions for quite some time as well Gerbil. At this point though I am fairly convinced from the same data that convinces most AGW scientists that the current warming trend is mostly driven by increasing CO2, and that CO2 is mostly being increased by human activity.

We ARE in an interglacial period. And so there are many natural factors that have been driving warming over the millennia up to this point. It is also true that, based on previous cycles, the world could well be trying to cool down about now, but our activities are preventing it from doing so, which might not be such a bad thing ... i.e. I'm tending to think our civilization will fare better +2 or 3 degrees C than the -5 or more associated with entry into an ice age period. That is not to diminish the problems associated with increasing temperatures and warming seas and melting ice caps. Just comparing it to what might realistically be the alternative.

But the direct answer to your question is the amount of warming and it's apparent direct correlation with the rather significant increase in CO2 of human origin associated with the latter half of the 20th century and continuing into the first quarter of the 21st.

for instance, the atmospheric CO2, in parts per million, in march 1966 was around 322, in March of 2016, it was 404. A slightly more than 25% increase in just 50 years.



Jim

ETA: Some counter arguments will look to natural sources of CO2. E.g. outgassing from the oceans: as they warm they can release CO2. The problem there is we know how much we are producing and can compare that to the amount of increase (though that is complicated too, CO2 is absorbed by the oceans among other things) It is that complexity in properly assessing sources and sinks that helps to fuel continued debate - though most in the climate sciences would say that debate is more related to ignorance than any actual question as to the dominant source of CO2 increase.

[seer]

for instance, the atmospheric CO2, in parts per million, in march 1966 was around 322, in March of 2016, it was 404. A slightly more than 25% increase in just 50 years.

What is the percentage of CO2 that man puts in as compared to what "nature" puts in?

[Meh Gerbil]

But the direct answer to your question is the amount of warming and it's apparent direct correlation with the rather significant increase in CO2 of human origin associated with the latter half of the 20th century and continuing into the first quarter of the 21st.

I'll look into some of this at bit more.
Don't take the next paragraph as a dismissal of what you've already provided.

Based on a quick search I've learned that glaciers have been losing mass since about 1850. All things being equal it appears as if the trend of losing mass had been ongoing for 100 years before the 'latter half of the 20th century'. Given that, what is the justification for the increase of CO2 in the last 50 years being considered causation instead of correlation? It appears to me that with absolutely no C02 increase that the glaciers may have continued to lose mass right up until the current day. Couldn't I just as easily claim that my advancing age causes glaciers to melt?

Thanks in Advance

[Spartacus]

Someone needs to point out the difference between anthropomorphic (having human qualities) and anthropogenic (originating with or caused by humans). It may as well be me.

[Carrikature]

What is the percentage of CO2 that man puts in as compared to what "nature" puts in?

Contributions.jpg

[Carrikature]

Also,

IPCC Report.jpg

[Meh Gerbil]

Someone needs to point out the difference between anthropomorphic (having human qualities) and anthropogenic (originating with or caused by humans). It may as well be me.

I've wondered about that more than once.
I see it all over the internets as 'Anthropomorphic' - internets created by Al Gore.
The man is a menace to the cause.

[Spartacus]

Incidentally, if you have an hour or so, I recently came across a lecture by a Christian climate scientist which answers your question pretty directly about midway through, but I don't remember the timestamp. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqjBioAQaM0

[Carrikature]

Someone needs to point out the difference between anthropomorphic (having human qualities) and anthropogenic (originating with or caused by humans). It may as well be me.

As the climate continues to be affected by human actions, it's begun to display certain, less than desirable, traits. Nature really is a mother.

[seer]

Also,

[ATTACH=CONFIG]15586[/ATTACH]

I have no idea what these mean - I'm asking what percentage of all CO2 comes from man? 10% 20%?

[Cow Poke]

Someone needs to point out the difference between anthropomorphic (having human qualities) and anthropogenic (originating with or caused by humans). It may as well be me.

Proceed, please.

[Carrikature]

I have no idea what these mean - I'm asking what percentage of all CO2 comes from man? 10% 20%?

Look at graph (c) and (d) on that larger picture. 1850 is approximately the end of the Industrial Revolution. Call that 'normal' emissions/concentrations. Compare that to the increase in both emissions and concentrations. That's pretty much all us.