Since it appears that your deriving you information on this subject why don't we actually include the whole section that your referencing-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf
pg 894

Extract of the leading and preceding paragraph's of the quoted text.

The fingerprint of human-caused greenhouse gas increases is clearly apparent in the pattern of observed 20th century
climate change. The observed change cannot be otherwise explained by the fingerprints of natural forcings
or natural variability simulated by climate models. Attribution studies therefore support the conclusion that ‘it is
extremely likely that human activities have caused more than half of the observed increase in global mean surface
temperatures from 1951 to 2010.’
The Earth’s climate is always changing, and that can occur for many reasons. To determine the principal causes of
observed changes, we must first ascertain whether an observed change in climate is different from other fluctuations
that occur without any forcing at all. Climate variability without forcing—called internal variability—is the
consequence of processes within the climate system. Large-scale oceanic variability, such as El Niño-Southern Oscillation
(ENSO) fluctuations in the Pacific Ocean, is the dominant source of internal climate variability on decadal to
centennial time scales.
Climate change can also result from natural forcings external to the climate system, such as volcanic eruptions, or
changes in the brightness of the sun. Forcings such as these are responsible for the huge changes in climate that are
clearly documented in the geological record. Human-caused forcings include greenhouse gas emissions or atmospheric
particulate pollution. Any of these forcings, natural or human caused, could affect internal variability as well
as causing a change in average climate. Attribution studies attempt to determine the causes of a detected change in
observed climate. Over the past century we know that global average temperature has increased, so if the observed
change is forced then the principal forcing must be one that causes warming, not cooling.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------


Do you understand that you cant pull one sentence out of a report like this an claim it is legitimate research that supports your opinion, while simultaneously declaring your opposition to points it make much more clearly and forcefully. 

I don't have the information needed to disagree with any of the points that this report makes. That's fine with me, it accords with approximately what i think is going on with climate change.

Your the one saying climate change is not anthropogenic while cherry picking the research that disagrees with you.

Go find some really interesting nutty stuff for us to argue over, This constant referral to sources that torch you worse that I ever could is getting repetitive.

lee wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 10:35am:


I have no idea.

Why are you unable to read the first paragraph?

"The fingerprint of human-caused greenhouse gas increases is clearly apparent in the pattern of observed 20th century
climate change. The observed change cannot be otherwise explained by the fingerprints of natural forcings
or natural variability simulated by climate models. Attribution studies therefore support the conclusion that ‘it is
extremely likely that human activities have caused more than half of the observed increase in global mean surface
temperatures from 1951 to 2010.’"


If you agree with this fair enough, and while i've had a lot of trouble pinning you opinion down, im pretty sure you have stated multiple times that global warming is not anthropogenic.

Since all the credible evidence you post is 95% opposed to everything you say,
why do you only listen to the 5%?

I don't have a problem with you discounting the IPCC report, if you have an alternative credible source.

The thing is, you raise it up on your left hand a proclaim that the IPCC demonstrates the strength of your argument,
While also raising it in your right hand and claiming that it is nothing but distortions.

Either pick one, Or get some evidence that doesn't crap all over your assertions.

Ok, since you state the IPCC is NOT credible, why do you cite it as evidence for so many of your assertions?

I havnt referenced it once. Its always you that tries to use it as evidence.
and then states its unreliable.

If you want comprehension maybe try being coherent?
Your trying to use a document to invalidate itself, without providing any external source of data.

So long as your only reference the IPCC report, you are bound by the findings of that report.

Because you have not provided any other credible data which supports your numerous assertions, I am unable to give them any credibility.

The IPCC report is ONE of the many official documents which correlate with each other and can find no reason for climate change other than GHG's.

You have NOTHING that supports your position.

Please, get some evidence or shut up.

lee wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 5:32pm:


Go nuts on questioning the report. Its a unwieldy politco-scientific document.

I'm not basing my opinions on the report. I'm basing my opinions on the numerous more focused papers. (which i am happy to provide)

The global climate is currently heating at a rate greater than any recorded history. The only plausible driver for a temperature increase at this rate is GHG's.

If you want any part of that statement supported by credible scientific research, please highlight it and I will provide it.

This is the third time I have made this offer.

Its not so much the temperature levels which justify my opinions, rather its the rate the temperature is increasing.

During historical warming periods the temperature increased at a rate of .8-1.4 ddC per thousand years.

In the last 100 years the RECORDED average temperature has increased .7 dgC

This is 5-10 times faster than has been recorded at ANY time in the past.

Given that instead of a since the system is heating up at a speed an order of magnitude greater than any in all of history, maybe something slightly different is happening.


Derived from.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/mann2008.html






The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2.


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm




There you go.

Three totally separate peer reviewed articles, supporting two clear concise statements.

Please note, all these papers are based on empirical data.

I'm sure you are going to say that there were flaws in the papers I have quoted,

And i'm equally sure that your not going to provide ANYTHNG credible that supports any viewpoint counter my stated opinion.

Prove me wrong(not that proving is your strong suite!)

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 8:59pm:



1. It is a Letter to Nature. Not a peer reviewed paper.

2. It provides "experimental evidence". Have they finished the paper and provided more definite evidence.

3. A search for the DOI returns "DOI Not Found 10.1038/3506655"

Has it been retracted?

Why are the increase in greenhouse forcing only inferred?

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 8:59pm:


From the abstract -

"The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons."

Have they continued for a decade or so?

From the extended abstract-

"but they also provide a means of validating the predictions that are made by global warming models (Ellingson et al., 1991)."



So how is that going?

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 8:59pm:


Well done you got something right.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 8:59pm:


That's because you haven't proved anything.