Attribution of recent climate change (Wikipedia)

[joshcryer]

Recent reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have concluded that:

"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

"From new estimates of the combined anthropogenic forcing due to greenhouse gases, aerosols, and land surface changes, it is extremely likely that human activities have exerted a substantial net warming influence on climate since 1750."

"It is virtually certain that anthropogenic aerosols produce a net negative radiative forcing (cooling influence) with a greater magnitude in the Northern Hemisphere than in the Southern Hemisphere.

Full article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change

---

Wikipedia has comprehensively laid out the attribution factors for climate change (in the form of global warming). I encourage everyone to check out the entry, because I consider it one of the finest works done by Wikipedia editors, and because it shows that climate change is most likely due to fossil fuel emissions, above all other possibilities. It will help anyone who is having a hard time debating climate change denialists.

This is not to say that other theories should not be given thought, only to show that other theories have less (or no) evidence, and require at the bare minimum evidence that addresses the observations made by the IPCC and other climate change oriented bodies.

One other thing that should be noted is that the attribution of recent climate change is considered at least a highly understood and agreed upon effect, scientists around the world have agreed upon this extensively: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

It is not something that is still in an infancy stage (which may have been arguable in the mid 20th century up until the last decade or so). We have a very good idea that it is happening, what is causing it, and what to do about it (stop polluting GHGs). When considering "alternate theories" I urge people to consider the full scope of climate change known attribution factors. You don't have to read whole IPCC reports, you only need to understand the fundamentals. If the fundamentals are being rejected, then you are not in error by questioning those alternatives, and giving them more scrutiny than you might otherwise. By doing so you are just using reason.

[defendandprotect]

1. Are new "aerosol" cans OK to use . .. ???

I haven't used any in more than 20 years . . . but did they change them?

[joshcryer]

2. In this context "aerosol" refers to things like smog and other air pollution.

When it comes to aerosol cans, the big deal in last century is that certain aerosol sprays were utilizing CFCs as a compression agent (and so were air conditioners and other compressors as refrigerants). CFCs are a compound that break down ozone, which decreases atmospheric UV protection. CFCs underwent a pretty big phaseout some time ago, but it will be quite awhile before we are rid of them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorofluorocarbon

So you are correct about modern aerosol cans. I make no statement about whether or not the modern variants are immune from contributing to aerosol pollution (after all, they can result in localized air pollution). Don't know of any study that discusses it.

[joshcryer]

3. Also, this guys YouTube videos are pertinent:

He explains in clear and concise language why CO2 pollution is the cause for global warming, and shows the very weak arguments in opposition to it: http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610