Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
Perhaps I have misunderstood you all this time, but I was sure that in the past you were claiming that human activity had nothing to do with the warming climate...If so then I have to apologize, and eat some crow...
|
Let me clarify.
When I say contribution, the key is significant contribution. AGW is mans contribution to global warming. That contribution exists, but so far the significance of its contribution is like adding to a hurricane by blowing with the wind. Do you contribute? Absolutely. Is it significant? Absolutely not.
So, man does contribute C02, and C02 plays a part in warming (ie AGW is fact), but mans contribution and C02 as a significant driver is not validated to any significance (ie, mans contribution is like blowing into the wind).
Context is important because terms have changed (or rather how someone is interpreting them has changed or is often misunderstood). In that post, I was stating AGW in the context that those who were claiming it was "significant" and the main driver was false, unsubstantiated, etc...
It has resulted in even having to be more specific about the issue due to the political use of the meaning of them. For instance, the early surveys of the consensus on Global Warming and AGW were confusing. That is, scientist agreed we had warmed in the past record. They even agreed that man contributes to it, but what is lost is significance and the position that C02 is the dominate driver. That is, when the details of the issue were brought up, divergence in opinion arose greatly.
This leads to properly giving it a definition of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming which more accurately describes the position that man contributes to warming through C02 and C02 is the primary driver of climate change to which all of the volatile aspects of weather events are directly associated with. This is an unsupported hypothesis, not even remotely substantiated and in fact, the data directly conflicts with it.
My position in the past has always been that the position of mans contribution and that contribution being the causation is unsupported, often wild speculation and commonly politically driven.
I agree we have warmed in the past, this is clear even in the raw data before any manipulation (though where and when it depends, ie. we have not warmed in the recent past and there are issues of how much in some areas compared to past records).
I also agree that man contributes by adding C02 and that C02 plays a "part" of the warming in the system.
I do not think C02's contribution is significant in the process. Those who do believe such are basing it on a process we have no real understanding of. Models tend to deal with positive feedback's and completely ignore negative feedback's. Also, man's contribution of C02 is not significant either in the process.
That is the key problem of the issue and while I have referred to things as "global warming" or "AGW" in the past in terms of claiming it garbage politics, it has always been within the context of the person who really is stating CAGW, yet generally uses the term "GW" or "AGW".
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
