Anthropogenic Climate Change analysis

Student Name

Department, Institution

Course Name and Number

Instructor Name

Date of Submission
Anthropogenic Climate Change analysis

It does not matter if you oppose climate change; it changes anyway. "Climate change"

is a mundane reality, not a scientific concept. The term "global warming" has no scientific

meaning. The phrase you were looking for was the Anthropogenic climate change hypothesis,

and the failure of that theory may explain why so much misinformation is being thrown about

right now.

Anthropogenic climate change theory was an actual scientifically proposed theory that

posited a mechanism and a result. Neither came to pass. According to Anthropogenic climate

change theory, the venerable radiative-convective climate models were considered weak.

According to R-C models, every doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide causes or correlates

with a rise in mean earth temperature of around one degree Celsius. Anthropogenic climate

change theory hypothesized a new radical forcing that would yield a comparable temperature

increase for as little as a ten-percent rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Anthropogenic climate change has also been around for millennia, primarily

dependent on the total solar input and the effect of water in gravity and under an atmosphere

as we have on Earth. Over the last several years, variations have seen us go from notably

colder to warmer, to cooler, and more recently back to warm on average. Still, no evidence of

changes larger than the reasonably expected random variations (noise) in the globe's immense

system has been found.

The forcing would result in a heat build-up in the upper troposphere above the tropical

latitudes. The build-up would become unstable, abruptly spilling over into the lower

troposphere causing sudden heat gain on par with what R-C models predict for a doubling of

concentration. The event was supposed to take place in 2004, according to the renowned

Hughes Hockey, Bradley, and Mann stick controversy. Not only did the event not take place
on time, but there was also no evidence of heat build-up in the upper troposphere. What

happened next was not science. What happened was all references to the specifics of AGW

theory disappeared from the Internet, replaced by dissembling general references to the R-C

model. That couldn't be more bogus given that the Anthropogenic climate change theory,

while an R-C model, disputed the older version.

The warming we've been experiencing since the end of the Dalton Minimum instead

leveled off as solar activity dropped. Anthropogenic climate change theory had stated that the

effect would be so strong that countervailing solar and ocean-current effects would not

impede it. Only two of forty-something Anthropogenic climate change models had leveled

off as a possibility and only a marginal possibility in both cases. In short, Anthropogenic

climate change theory turned out to have a near-zero predictive value. When theories have no

useful predictive value, it's back-to-the-drawing-board time. In this case, we're back to the

older science of the R-C models. These still allow for "climate change" and "global warming"

(as any modeling of climate must), just not of the catastrophic nature predicted by

Anthropogenic climate change theory. That explains why, a dozen years later, we are starting

to see articles like this one from Scientific American: Climate Change Will Not Be

Dangerous for a Long Time. So, the world will keep warming (and cooling) and climate

change, but the evidence is quite strong that the Anthropogenic climate change theory had no

merit.

In my interactions with skeptics, I have never been offered any scientific evidence

that supports their claims. I am usually greeted with criticisms of the proposed political

solutions, data manipulation accusations, climate modeling criticisms, or other various myths

and misinformation. Never any data or peer-reviewed paper. You can see this in some of the

other answers here. The science behind the hypothesis for anthropogenic global warming was

formed in the mid 19th century. There are still plenty of unknowns. But one of the knowns is
how our fossil fuel emissions affect the average global temperature. There is no evidence in

existence to dispute that.

Annotated bibliography

Kaufmann, R. K., Kauppi, H., Mann, M. L., & Stock, J. H. (2011). Reconciling

anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998-2008. Proceedings

of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(29), 11790-

11793. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1102467108

The author shows the increasing effects of greenhouse gas concentration. Given the

well-documented increase in warming effects caused by rising greenhouse gas

concentrations, it is perplexing that global surface temperatures did not rise between 1999

and 2018. This hiatus in warming is accompanied by a period of minimal change in the total

quantity of human and natural forcings, as we discover. The rapid increase in short-lived

sulfur emissions helps to balance rising greenhouse gas concentrations. The estimated human

contributions are dominated by decreased solar insolation as part of a regular eleven-year

cycle and a cyclical transition from an El Nino to a La Nina. As a consequence, recent global

temperature data are demonstrated to be consistent with the current understanding of the

relationship between internal variability, radiative forcing, and global surface

temperature, which includes human sources with well-known cooling and warming effects.

Abatzoglou, J. T., & Williams, A. P. (2016). Undefined. Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences, 113(42), 11770-11775. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1607171113

Many variables, including the legacy of fire prevention and urban sustainability,

natural temperature variability, and human-caused climate change, have mostly aided the rise

in forest fire activity in the United States in recent years. The authors evaluate the influence

of human climate change on reported increases in eight fuel aridity indices and forest fire
areas throughout the western United States using modeled climate predictions. Human-

caused climate change has been responsible for more than half of the documented increases

in fuel aridity during the 1970s, as well as an increase in cumulative forest fire area since

1984. While fuels are not a restriction, research indicates that anthropogenic climate change

will enhance the possibility for forest fire activity in the western United States.

Bell, D. (2011). Does anthropogenic climate change violate human rights? Critical Review of

International Social and Political Philosophy, 14(2), 99-

124. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2011.529703

In this paper, rather than political philosophers, economists dominated early talks

about "climate justice." Analytic liberal political philosophers have recently entered the

discussion. The intellectual discussion of climate justice, on the other hand, is still in its early

phases. This study examines one intriguing human-rights-based method lately promoted by

numerous theorists, including Tim Hayward, Henry Shue, and Simon Caney. A fundamental

argument is offered in support of the assertion that artificial climate change is a violation of

human rights. Counter-arguments to this argument include the 'prospective persons' objection,

the 'risk' objection, the 'collective causation' objection, and the 'demandingness' objection.

The assertion that artificial climate change infringes human rights is more precisely defined

and defended due to this rigorous analysis.

Ebi, K. L. (2021). Environmental health research is needed to inform strategies, policies, and

measures to manage the risks of anthropogenic climate change. Environmental

Health, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-021-00792-1

This article discusses environmental health strategies needed to mitigate the risks that

result from climate change. ACC is harming people's health and happiness all across the

planet. Mitigation and adaptation are the two key policy alternatives for preparing for and
managing these hazards; considerably greater investments in both are urgently needed.

Environmental health research, on the other hand, has received a pittance of funding from

medical research councils around the world in order to provide timely and useful insights on

how to effectively protect vulnerable regions and populations, build climate-resilient health

systems, and in a changing climate, encourage health-system-related greenhouse gas emission

reductions.

Hamilton, L. C., Hartter, J., Lemcke-Stampone, M., Moore, D. W., & Safford, T. G. (2015).

Tracking public beliefs about anthropogenic climate change. PLOS ONE, 10(9),

e0138208. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138208

According to this report, more than half of the American people believe that climate

change is occurring now and is mostly caused by human activities. Few people claim they

don't believe the climate is changing or have no view. A detailed review of 21 successive

surveys conducted in one fairly representative state (New Hampshire) reveals a gradual

increase in agreement. The influence of Hurricane Sandy on New Hampshire's time series has

been negligible. Individual-level determinants of climate beliefs are dominated by political

orientation, which moderates the favorable impacts of education. Among Democrats and

Independents, acceptance of artificial climate change grows with education, but not among

Republicans. The ongoing series of polls provide a baseline for monitoring how future

scientific, economic, political, and climatic changes affect public acceptance of scientific

consensus.
 References

Abatzoglou, J. T., & Williams, A. P. (2016). Undefined. Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences, 113(42), 11770-

11775. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1607171113

Bell, D. (2011). Does anthropogenic climate change violate human rights? Critical Review of

International Social and Political Philosophy, 14(2), 99-

124. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2011.529703

Ebi, K. L. (2021). Environmental health research is needed to inform strategies, policies, and

measures to manage the risks of anthropogenic climate change. Environmental

Health, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-021-00792-1

Hamilton, L. C., Hartter, J., Lemcke-Stampone, M., Moore, D. W., & Safford, T. G. (2015).

Tracking public beliefs about anthropogenic climate change. PLOS ONE, 10(9),

e0138208. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138208

Kaufmann, R. K., Kauppi, H., Mann, M. L., & Stock, J. H. (2011). Reconciling

anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998-2008. Proceedings

of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(29), 11790-

11793. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1102467108