News1 min ago
Climate Change Is Not Man-Made.
55 Answers
I posted my reasons for that statement over six months ago. The post was removed, I presume, because a mod didn't like to hear that. However, here is another reason.
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by 10ClarionSt. 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.
Thanks for all the replies folks.
Gromit @ 09.50:
//A 3 year old article which actually says the opposite to what your headline says. The algae is growing in the arctic because it has got warmer.//
This condition was actually first discovered in 1818 by Capt. Ross during his search for the Northwest Passage. It took the scientists another 50 years to identify it. Was climate change the cause of it then as well? Not an oggy me old china.
Gromit @ 09.50:
//A 3 year old article which actually says the opposite to what your headline says. The algae is growing in the arctic because it has got warmer.//
This condition was actually first discovered in 1818 by Capt. Ross during his search for the Northwest Passage. It took the scientists another 50 years to identify it. Was climate change the cause of it then as well? Not an oggy me old china.
Khandro, // ... that is not to say [human activity] is ENTIRELY responsible [for Climate Change]. //
This is a false dichotomy, and also a misunderstanding of what the scientific consensus is claiming. It's well-understood that natural phenomena can have an impact on Earth's Climate, including but hardly limited to solar cycles, changes in Earth's orbit, volcanic activity, vegetation and algae, and long-term carbon cycles. In the gross accounting, indeed, many of these also appear to dominate human activity. For example, purely taking greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions into account, the balance seems to be around half-and-half between natural and human sources, although the balance can vary by type of gas and by how you define "natural". See the references at the end of this post (any differences between the scales implied by these references are, presumably, down to how much weight is given to oceanic CO2 emissions).
But one key point with regards to gas emissions is that what matters is not the gross annual GHG rate, but the *net* rate, ie the rate taking removal of GHGs from the atmosphere into account. And here's the key point: neglecting the human-sourced emissions, the net rate would be much smaller, and even close to zero. The rate at which GHGs are added to and removed from the atmosphere due to natural processes are rarely, if ever, precisely balanced, but on average they are quite stable. In this picture, human activities provide an extra source of emissions but no meaningful extra source of removal, and the balance is disturbed.
It also doesn't help that human activities disturb the balance further by reducing the rate at which GHGs are removed, eg by large-scale deforestation. So not only are we adding GHGs that the Earth can't remove, but we're also slowing the rate at which GHGs are removed in the first place. The result is a clear, net increase in GHG rates that can be unequivocally linked to human activity rather than natural processes.
Likewise, other sources are roughly cyclic, and while they are still relevant, they are often relevant on time scales far longer than the observed, rapid changes in Climate. Taking the Earth's orbital changes (Milankovitch cycles, if you want to look them up) as an example, these have impacts on the Climate measured over timescales of tens or hundreds of thousands of years. They just aren't relevant to Climate change on the scale of a few decades.
https:/
https:/
https:/
This is a false dichotomy, and also a misunderstanding of what the scientific consensus is claiming. It's well-understood that natural phenomena can have an impact on Earth's Climate, including but hardly limited to solar cycles, changes in Earth's orbit, volcanic activity, vegetation and algae, and long-term carbon cycles. In the gross accounting, indeed, many of these also appear to dominate human activity. For example, purely taking greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions into account, the balance seems to be around half-and-half between natural and human sources, although the balance can vary by type of gas and by how you define "natural". See the references at the end of this post (any differences between the scales implied by these references are, presumably, down to how much weight is given to oceanic CO2 emissions).
But one key point with regards to gas emissions is that what matters is not the gross annual GHG rate, but the *net* rate, ie the rate taking removal of GHGs from the atmosphere into account. And here's the key point: neglecting the human-sourced emissions, the net rate would be much smaller, and even close to zero. The rate at which GHGs are added to and removed from the atmosphere due to natural processes are rarely, if ever, precisely balanced, but on average they are quite stable. In this picture, human activities provide an extra source of emissions but no meaningful extra source of removal, and the balance is disturbed.
It also doesn't help that human activities disturb the balance further by reducing the rate at which GHGs are removed, eg by large-scale deforestation. So not only are we adding GHGs that the Earth can't remove, but we're also slowing the rate at which GHGs are removed in the first place. The result is a clear, net increase in GHG rates that can be unequivocally linked to human activity rather than natural processes.
Likewise, other sources are roughly cyclic, and while they are still relevant, they are often relevant on time scales far longer than the observed, rapid changes in Climate. Taking the Earth's orbital changes (Milankovitch cycles, if you want to look them up) as an example, these have impacts on the Climate measured over timescales of tens or hundreds of thousands of years. They just aren't relevant to Climate change on the scale of a few decades.
https:/
https:/
https:/
jim; I'm not disagreeing with you, I merely what to disabuse the view some hold that the planet is in a steady state which we are wrecking, we're certainly making a mess of things, but climate is constantly changing anyway.
I've been to places in Cambodia & India where there were once thriving societies which collapsed as the rainfall stopped.
When I was a boy, to get pictures of the 'news' you went to the cinema, & those pictures were probably a month old at least - film stock having to be transported around the world & processed.
Now every storm, flood & forest fire is brought out TV screens every day as it happens, with the usual trite comments that all these events are connected & 'man-made'.
I've been to places in Cambodia & India where there were once thriving societies which collapsed as the rainfall stopped.
When I was a boy, to get pictures of the 'news' you went to the cinema, & those pictures were probably a month old at least - film stock having to be transported around the world & processed.
Now every storm, flood & forest fire is brought out TV screens every day as it happens, with the usual trite comments that all these events are connected & 'man-made'.
I'm once again struck by how easy it is to just throw so many claims into an article, cite none of them, and rely on readers to just assume that the author knows what they are talking about. At least I had the decency to link you to a whopping research review that you can peruse at your leisure.
The 3% human v. 97% natural claim on C02 emissions, for example. Funnily enough, I'd understood this to be true as well, but in recent reading it seems more a question of how you do the accounting (see, for example, all the links I gave above). But in either case, the point is that this is gross, ignores the net change, and then also ignore that human activities are driving emissions up and absorptions down at the same time. Again, see the links above, that comment on the, conspicuously absent from Ancell's piece, rate of CO2 removal. Even Mr Micawber from David Copperfield understood this, for crying out loud: "annual CO2 emissions 102 units, absorptions 103 units, result: happiness! annual CO2 emission 103 units, absorptions 102 units, result: misery!" It doesn't take much to disturb a relatively stable system.
I wouldn't mind if her article were sourced, so that we could read and, if necessary, critique those sources, but, no... no primary sources at all. Just weird digs at Thunberg and Attenborough. Hard to comment further on what substance there is without knowing what her primary sources are. Also, even the claim, "that 97 per cent of scientists agree global warming is man-made... is false", is itself disputed still. Probably the issue is that the original claim made the mistake of referring to scientists in general, rather than climate science researchers in particular, but in any case, see https:/
The 3% human v. 97% natural claim on C02 emissions, for example. Funnily enough, I'd understood this to be true as well, but in recent reading it seems more a question of how you do the accounting (see, for example, all the links I gave above). But in either case, the point is that this is gross, ignores the net change, and then also ignore that human activities are driving emissions up and absorptions down at the same time. Again, see the links above, that comment on the, conspicuously absent from Ancell's piece, rate of CO2 removal. Even Mr Micawber from David Copperfield understood this, for crying out loud: "annual CO2 emissions 102 units, absorptions 103 units, result: happiness! annual CO2 emission 103 units, absorptions 102 units, result: misery!" It doesn't take much to disturb a relatively stable system.
I wouldn't mind if her article were sourced, so that we could read and, if necessary, critique those sources, but, no... no primary sources at all. Just weird digs at Thunberg and Attenborough. Hard to comment further on what substance there is without knowing what her primary sources are. Also, even the claim, "that 97 per cent of scientists agree global warming is man-made... is false", is itself disputed still. Probably the issue is that the original claim made the mistake of referring to scientists in general, rather than climate science researchers in particular, but in any case, see https:/
Thank you Jim. In the middle of that comprehensive reply, you say this:
//is itself disputed still.//
And the whole thing will be disputed, that's my point. But it can't be that bad can it? Where are China? Russia? India? Too busy being industrious probably. And in Russias' case, invading the Ukraine.
//is itself disputed still.//
And the whole thing will be disputed, that's my point. But it can't be that bad can it? Where are China? Russia? India? Too busy being industrious probably. And in Russias' case, invading the Ukraine.
If that were your point, then it would surely be better to phrase as a question rather than a statement of fact. But it's still problematic. It's confusing disputes over detail with disputes over the general statement. For example, there is some dispute going on right now in astrophysics about the precise value of the Hubble constant, a parameter which basically measures the age of the Universe. See https:/
But transplant that same issue, or something resembling it, to Climate Science, and you'd get a fair few people seizing upon something like this to call the entire field into question. Why? Because it suits those who stand to lose out from the necessary changes in behaviour to do so. Then they don't have to make difficult decisions, or they get to stir up public anger against those who *do*.
This really boils down to saying that climate science has become entangled in politics in a way that makes it very hard to assess. But there's a clear way out of this, and that's to refer as far as possible to the original sources and evaluate them using objective scientific criteria. By those criteria, it's well-established that there is a measurable effect, attributable to human activity, on the world's climate.
But transplant that same issue, or something resembling it, to Climate Science, and you'd get a fair few people seizing upon something like this to call the entire field into question. Why? Because it suits those who stand to lose out from the necessary changes in behaviour to do so. Then they don't have to make difficult decisions, or they get to stir up public anger against those who *do*.
This really boils down to saying that climate science has become entangled in politics in a way that makes it very hard to assess. But there's a clear way out of this, and that's to refer as far as possible to the original sources and evaluate them using objective scientific criteria. By those criteria, it's well-established that there is a measurable effect, attributable to human activity, on the world's climate.
jim; Co2 -- 97% nature-made and 3% human-made is, however you look at it (or quote Dickens) an amazingly significant figure & one even you agree with which puts things into perspective and doesn't see mto be quoted much, if at all.
Is it really so damaging that we have to tank the economy, scrap our cars and shiver for ?
Also it seems that behind the scenes at COP, - according to the Mark Steyn programme on GB News last night - huge deals are being done and many people are making fortunes out of 'man-made' climate change.
Is it really so damaging that we have to tank the economy, scrap our cars and shiver for ?
Also it seems that behind the scenes at COP, - according to the Mark Steyn programme on GB News last night - huge deals are being done and many people are making fortunes out of 'man-made' climate change.
If you'd read my posts, you'd see that (a) the 97% v. 3% figure is at least somewhat up for debate, and (b) highly misleading, since it also matters how many CO2 emissions linger. For example, something like 60% of human CO2 emissions are just reabsorbed annually, and in that sense nature can clearly "cope" with some level of human activity. But then this means that 40% or so stays -- a picture that is true every year, meaning that the gases just accumulate and drive an increasing greenhouse effect.
You're focusing on the wrong thing, really. As to what to do about it -- well, that's a political question, and one I don't intend to answer here, but it's also misleading to suggest that any action we take would tank the economy. Other, greener, sources of energy require investment, skilled labour, jobs, maintenance, research, and so on, and therefore could be just as productive if you view it in economic terms as in just ploughing on with the current direction. To say nothing of the advantage of self-sufficiency -- it can hardly have escaped people's attention, for example, that relying on gas/oil exports from Russia isn't necessarily the best position to be in currently, and while evidently switching to green energy sources wouldn't address this overnight, it would be a clear benefit to do so as soon as possible.
You're focusing on the wrong thing, really. As to what to do about it -- well, that's a political question, and one I don't intend to answer here, but it's also misleading to suggest that any action we take would tank the economy. Other, greener, sources of energy require investment, skilled labour, jobs, maintenance, research, and so on, and therefore could be just as productive if you view it in economic terms as in just ploughing on with the current direction. To say nothing of the advantage of self-sufficiency -- it can hardly have escaped people's attention, for example, that relying on gas/oil exports from Russia isn't necessarily the best position to be in currently, and while evidently switching to green energy sources wouldn't address this overnight, it would be a clear benefit to do so as soon as possible.
