Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
How Much Influence Does Nature Have On Climate Change?
I don't doubt for a moment that human beings are neglecting and abusing the planet dreadfully - oh if only I could invent a viable alternative to plastic and save our oceans and wildlife! - but man is taking the brunt of the blame for the extremes of weather we're experiencing lately, and I'm not at all sure we're recognizing the whole picture. With this year's extraordinary temperatures I can't help thinking that changes are occurring far faster than man might fundamentally be responsible for. Could nature be taking a bigger role than we're acknowledging? I think it likely.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The planet is 70% ocean, so a temperature rises, man-induced or otherwise, inevitably have an effect on wind, rain and temperature. "We" (possibly through neglect and ignorance) have destroyed vast habitats, in particular the rainforests in South America. Maybe it isn't all down to humankind but there are twice as many of us as there were less that 50 years ago. That's a lot of extra mouths to feed, to provide dwellings for. We have more "stuff" and use more energy.
Why do you think it likely, though? On what is that assessment based?
Also, have you read, or at least glanced at, the latest IPCC report? It's best seen as the most comprehensive review of all scientific studies on Climate Change, and, although they are careful to avoid the use of the word "certain" most of the time, it's pretty clear where the evidence points:
https:/
Extreme weather of the sort we've seen this year could clearly happen anyway, even without a human contribution. It's just far less likely, and we've seen sustained extremes, and regular breaking of records of one sort or another, for quite some time. It's difficult to attribute that to a given natural source.
Also, have you read, or at least glanced at, the latest IPCC report? It's best seen as the most comprehensive review of all scientific studies on Climate Change, and, although they are careful to avoid the use of the word "certain" most of the time, it's pretty clear where the evidence points:
https:/
Extreme weather of the sort we've seen this year could clearly happen anyway, even without a human contribution. It's just far less likely, and we've seen sustained extremes, and regular breaking of records of one sort or another, for quite some time. It's difficult to attribute that to a given natural source.
yes I think you are right
there are a coupla hundred scientists who agree with you
the oddest thing is that it is the by-standers ( that would be you) who are saying this and not the flooded in Pakistan, Burnt out in California, burnt out and frazzled in France, or oliveless in Thpain
or dry in Kent
and no appeals to God like there usually is - is it because Floods Everyone knows are punishment for earthly misdeeds
there are a coupla hundred scientists who agree with you
the oddest thing is that it is the by-standers ( that would be you) who are saying this and not the flooded in Pakistan, Burnt out in California, burnt out and frazzled in France, or oliveless in Thpain
or dry in Kent
and no appeals to God like there usually is - is it because Floods Everyone knows are punishment for earthly misdeeds
// oh if only I could invent a viable alternative to plastic and save our oceans and wildlife! //
Naomi, have you come across a product called Marinatex? This is a compostable plastic substitute made from fish waste which was created by Lucy Hughes, an entrepreneur, when she was a product design student at Sussex University, and won the 2019 James Dyson award.
According to her company’s website the product is still under development, but the goal is to reduce single-use plastic for items such as food wrappings.
I don’t want to contravene the AB rules on advertising but I hope it’s OK to post a link to the Marinatex Wikipedia page:
https:/
Naomi, have you come across a product called Marinatex? This is a compostable plastic substitute made from fish waste which was created by Lucy Hughes, an entrepreneur, when she was a product design student at Sussex University, and won the 2019 James Dyson award.
According to her company’s website the product is still under development, but the goal is to reduce single-use plastic for items such as food wrappings.
I don’t want to contravene the AB rules on advertising but I hope it’s OK to post a link to the Marinatex Wikipedia page:
https:/
HTB, I don’t think there’s a problem with posting that link. In my opinion everyone should know about the work being done on something like that. It sounds fantastic. It would be great if it could replace plastic on a universal level. I scuba dive and what I see breaks my heart - it really does. It’s at times like that I really don’t like people:
I read that Lucy Hughes was inspired to do something about single use plastic after she saw an article saying that by 2050 there would be more plastic by weight than fish in the oceans.
I haven’t been diving for a while now, but I have dived extensively, mostly round the UK and Ireland, and it used to make my blood boil to see the seas being treated like a dustbin.
I haven’t been diving for a while now, but I have dived extensively, mostly round the UK and Ireland, and it used to make my blood boil to see the seas being treated like a dustbin.
HTB, thank you for posting that link. Anyone who cares about our world must welcome something as positive as that.
Jim, //Why do you think it likely, though? On what is that assessment based?//
It's not an 'assessment', just a thought that crossed my mind because the weather is changing so rapidly - too rapidly I suspect. We're assured that our efforts to combat the damage we're inflicting upon the planet are working and we're urged to continue, but I see that the World Meteorological Society report that the Antarctic ozone hole, the longest-lasting and one of the largest and deepest holes since the ozone layer monitoring began 40 years ago, closed after an exceptional season due to naturally occurring meteorological conditions and the continued presence of ozone depleting substances in the atmosphere. That doesn’t sound to me to be the result of man's attempts to combat nature, but rather nature's attempt to remedy its own ailments.
Jim, //Why do you think it likely, though? On what is that assessment based?//
It's not an 'assessment', just a thought that crossed my mind because the weather is changing so rapidly - too rapidly I suspect. We're assured that our efforts to combat the damage we're inflicting upon the planet are working and we're urged to continue, but I see that the World Meteorological Society report that the Antarctic ozone hole, the longest-lasting and one of the largest and deepest holes since the ozone layer monitoring began 40 years ago, closed after an exceptional season due to naturally occurring meteorological conditions and the continued presence of ozone depleting substances in the atmosphere. That doesn’t sound to me to be the result of man's attempts to combat nature, but rather nature's attempt to remedy its own ailments.
There was a bit on TV yesterday about aerial photographing Scottish coast & sending teams to clean up those bits they can get to. The amount & variety of rubbish was disgusting.
Not sure it was in the same report but it seems 1000s of containers are lost overboard from freight ships every year. Summat should be done!
Not sure it was in the same report but it seems 1000s of containers are lost overboard from freight ships every year. Summat should be done!
In that case I'm wondering if you're in effect making the classic "mistake" of confusing weather and climate. The reason we know that humanity has contributed to Climate Change (as the report I linked says, it is "unequivocal") is because there is a clear signal that dates from the Industrial Revolution, where you can measure the human contribution to a rise in CO2 (and other greenhouse gases, but mainly CO2), above and beyond that which could be accounted for in natural sources. In other words, there's nothing particularly about *this* year that screams "Humans caused this", but rather what screams it is the last few decades.
As an example in a different direction, this year has been, at least compared to the last few, very quiet in the Atlantic Hurricane front. That's been attributed to something called the "Saharan Air Layer", and I won't pretend to know what that means beyond what it says in the wiki page. But, for every one of the last seven years, storms have formed earlier than usual, activity has been higher (often far higher) than usual, and there have been several record-breaking storms, and in general there's been a trend of increasing rates of activity in the region since at least the mid-1990s. It's easy to see why this might be due to Climate Change: hurricanes form more easily over warmer seas, and while it's clearly more complicated than that, it's enough of a hint to tell you that as the world heats up then you'd expect, in general, more hurricanes, and stronger ones at that, to form. One year bucking the trend doesn't change this.
Conversely, of course, one year of particularly extreme heat isn't in itself suggestive of anything. But, again, that's why it's important to consider the longer-term trends. Again, the report I linked notes that average global temperatures have increased by something like one degree as compared to the late 19th Century, and it is "likely" that most of that change has been driven by human activity. As an aside, it's important to note that the report's use of "likely" is based on the weight of evidence gathered over many hundreds of studies conducted by many thousands of scientists over some decades.
Climate sceptics, as a rule, love to point to certain exceptional years as evidence for, or even proof of, humanity's inability to affect the Climate in a meaningful way. They are invariably mistaken to do so. I'd encourage you not to fall into this same trap. As you note, humans have affected the planet in numerous ways dreadfully, and, yes, plastics and the waste they create are one particularly tragic example. Climate Change in general is, sadly, just one more tragedy in a whole pile of tragedies.
As an example in a different direction, this year has been, at least compared to the last few, very quiet in the Atlantic Hurricane front. That's been attributed to something called the "Saharan Air Layer", and I won't pretend to know what that means beyond what it says in the wiki page. But, for every one of the last seven years, storms have formed earlier than usual, activity has been higher (often far higher) than usual, and there have been several record-breaking storms, and in general there's been a trend of increasing rates of activity in the region since at least the mid-1990s. It's easy to see why this might be due to Climate Change: hurricanes form more easily over warmer seas, and while it's clearly more complicated than that, it's enough of a hint to tell you that as the world heats up then you'd expect, in general, more hurricanes, and stronger ones at that, to form. One year bucking the trend doesn't change this.
Conversely, of course, one year of particularly extreme heat isn't in itself suggestive of anything. But, again, that's why it's important to consider the longer-term trends. Again, the report I linked notes that average global temperatures have increased by something like one degree as compared to the late 19th Century, and it is "likely" that most of that change has been driven by human activity. As an aside, it's important to note that the report's use of "likely" is based on the weight of evidence gathered over many hundreds of studies conducted by many thousands of scientists over some decades.
Climate sceptics, as a rule, love to point to certain exceptional years as evidence for, or even proof of, humanity's inability to affect the Climate in a meaningful way. They are invariably mistaken to do so. I'd encourage you not to fall into this same trap. As you note, humans have affected the planet in numerous ways dreadfully, and, yes, plastics and the waste they create are one particularly tragic example. Climate Change in general is, sadly, just one more tragedy in a whole pile of tragedies.
Not too long ago, Naomi, I stated my case on here that climate change is natural and not man-made. Nothing disrespectful, abusive, offensive etc. Just my opinions and reasons for them. My reply was deleted. I wrote to Ed and asked why, and was told that my response was speculation, not fact, which was total rubbish as all my rferences were to naturally occurring things. It was just that some mod didn't like my reply, so deleted it.
Jim, //The reason we know that humanity has contributed to Climate Change//
No one has said differently but contribution doesn't equate to sole cause.
//Climate sceptics, as a rule, love to point to certain exceptional years as evidence for, or even proof of, humanity's inability to affect the Climate in a meaningful way. They are invariably mistaken to do so. I'd encourage you not to fall into this same trap.//
And I would encourage you to think outside 'the box' occasionally. There may be something you can learn.
No one has said differently but contribution doesn't equate to sole cause.
//Climate sceptics, as a rule, love to point to certain exceptional years as evidence for, or even proof of, humanity's inability to affect the Climate in a meaningful way. They are invariably mistaken to do so. I'd encourage you not to fall into this same trap.//
And I would encourage you to think outside 'the box' occasionally. There may be something you can learn.
The thing is that that's what Climate Scientists *do*. I'm not arrogant enough to think there's anything I can add to the field when I'm not inside it.
There are plenty of potential sources for natural Climate Change. We know this because of course there are: you can point to the Sun, the moving of continents, changes in the Earth's orbit, volcanic eruptions, impacts from meteorites, and many others besides. There's much still to learn about these, but on the other hand there's also a lot that's well-understood about them -- and, in particular, that many of these sources of Climate Change operate either on cycles, or on timescales that are measured in tens of thousands, or even millions, of years. They simply don't register over a few decades.
It's a general rule of thumb that, if, as a non-expert, you ask the question "Why haven't scientists considered X?" then the answer is almost certainly "They did, ages ago." Nothing new under the Sun. The idea that Climate is driven also by natural causes is completely unoriginal, and while as I say there's no doubt plenty more to understand, we can be confident in ruling it out as an explanation of the present period of warming, and all the changes to Climate (and weather) that that will bring over the next few centuries.
There are plenty of potential sources for natural Climate Change. We know this because of course there are: you can point to the Sun, the moving of continents, changes in the Earth's orbit, volcanic eruptions, impacts from meteorites, and many others besides. There's much still to learn about these, but on the other hand there's also a lot that's well-understood about them -- and, in particular, that many of these sources of Climate Change operate either on cycles, or on timescales that are measured in tens of thousands, or even millions, of years. They simply don't register over a few decades.
It's a general rule of thumb that, if, as a non-expert, you ask the question "Why haven't scientists considered X?" then the answer is almost certainly "They did, ages ago." Nothing new under the Sun. The idea that Climate is driven also by natural causes is completely unoriginal, and while as I say there's no doubt plenty more to understand, we can be confident in ruling it out as an explanation of the present period of warming, and all the changes to Climate (and weather) that that will bring over the next few centuries.
Clarion, I know. I remember it vividly and I wasn't happy about it either - but that's all changed now. The new wording at the top of the Science section states:
//Any discussion that is scientifically led is acceptable, whether it is about physics or a conspiracy theory.//
….and since there are people of science who hold opinions similar to your own, you may now post without fear of your efforts disappearing.
//Any discussion that is scientifically led is acceptable, whether it is about physics or a conspiracy theory.//
….and since there are people of science who hold opinions similar to your own, you may now post without fear of your efforts disappearing.
Incidentally, the full IPCC report on the scientific basis for human-induced Climate Change is here:
https:/
(I previously linked only the Summary).
It comes out to some 2,409 pages, with contributions from dozens of authors, and cites well over 1000 separate papers. That's a lot of reading material, and of course each of those papers will themselves cite others that were either missed by, or not mentioned in, this review. But the point is that, as someone not in the field, I have barely scratched the surface of what's going on, and if I have any role here it's only to point you to the best starting point for your own reading.
https:/
(I previously linked only the Summary).
It comes out to some 2,409 pages, with contributions from dozens of authors, and cites well over 1000 separate papers. That's a lot of reading material, and of course each of those papers will themselves cite others that were either missed by, or not mentioned in, this review. But the point is that, as someone not in the field, I have barely scratched the surface of what's going on, and if I have any role here it's only to point you to the best starting point for your own reading.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.