What If The Labour Party Got Rid Of...
Politics4 mins 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.
// Jim, //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,//
I can't be confident in ruling it out - not at all. //
Sure, but then I meant "we" as in "people who understand Climate Science" -- by implication, those who've studied this intensely, rather than those who are merely curious. In that sense, I couldn't technically call myself confident in ruling it out either. But I trust those who do. It's their day job.
I can't be confident in ruling it out - not at all. //
Sure, but then I meant "we" as in "people who understand Climate Science" -- by implication, those who've studied this intensely, rather than those who are merely curious. In that sense, I couldn't technically call myself confident in ruling it out either. But I trust those who do. It's their day job.
Jim. What about the people whose day job is at the World Meteorological Society and who say that the Antarctic ozone hole closed after an exceptional season due to naturally occurring meteorological conditions and the continued presence of ozone depleting substances in the atmosphere? I get the impression that you're dismissing anything deemed 'natural'.
I haven't dismissed them at all, so far as I can see. Natural events obviously have a huge part to play in shaping our weather. But there's no contradiction between that and acknowledging the role that humans have had to play in the recent Climate Change.
Out of interest, do you have a link? I'm struggling to find your source. If by "World Meteorological Society" you meant the World Meteorological Organisation, then they too don't seem to recognise any contradiction either, since they seem to be equally unequivocal in recognising that human activities are driving climate change.
Out of interest, do you have a link? I'm struggling to find your source. If by "World Meteorological Society" you meant the World Meteorological Organisation, then they too don't seem to recognise any contradiction either, since they seem to be equally unequivocal in recognising that human activities are driving climate change.
Here for example is a recent WMO statement: https:/
Two key passages:
// Four key climate change indicators ... set new records in 2021. This is yet another clear sign that human activities are causing planetary scale changes... //
later:
// The ozone hole over the Antarctic was unusually large and deep... as a result of a strong and stable polar vortex and colder than average conditions in the lower stratosphere. //
I can't find anything commenting on the 2022 ozone layer straightaway, so as I say if you had a link I'd be grateful -- but my point still is that the WMO recognises that human activities drive climate change. Weather is a fluctuation on top of that. So there's no contradiction: an unusual season running against the trend doesn't mean that the trend does not exist, or no longer exists. I'm not therefore dismissing the importance of natural drivers of climate and weather, and nor is any other expert or expert body.
Two key passages:
// Four key climate change indicators ... set new records in 2021. This is yet another clear sign that human activities are causing planetary scale changes... //
later:
// The ozone hole over the Antarctic was unusually large and deep... as a result of a strong and stable polar vortex and colder than average conditions in the lower stratosphere. //
I can't find anything commenting on the 2022 ozone layer straightaway, so as I say if you had a link I'd be grateful -- but my point still is that the WMO recognises that human activities drive climate change. Weather is a fluctuation on top of that. So there's no contradiction: an unusual season running against the trend doesn't mean that the trend does not exist, or no longer exists. I'm not therefore dismissing the importance of natural drivers of climate and weather, and nor is any other expert or expert body.
Ah, I think I've found your source:
https:/
As I say, though, read in the wider context, there's nothing here that is intended to underplay the human impact.
https:/
As I say, though, read in the wider context, there's nothing here that is intended to underplay the human impact.
Jim, Yes, sorry, I did mean 'Organization'.
https:/
Again, no one has said humans don't play a role - I don't understand why you keep saying that - and I didn't suggest that the WMO considers climate change to be natural, but what they have said in this instance aligns to an extent with my impression that the role humans play may not be as damaging as we're led to believe and that nature itself is in fact playing a bigger role. Quite frankly, I feel that there's an incredible arrogance in the notion that we can manipulate nature to any significant degree. Regardless of what we do, nature will do what it does - and it won’t ask our permission to do it.
https:/
Again, no one has said humans don't play a role - I don't understand why you keep saying that - and I didn't suggest that the WMO considers climate change to be natural, but what they have said in this instance aligns to an extent with my impression that the role humans play may not be as damaging as we're led to believe and that nature itself is in fact playing a bigger role. Quite frankly, I feel that there's an incredible arrogance in the notion that we can manipulate nature to any significant degree. Regardless of what we do, nature will do what it does - and it won’t ask our permission to do it.
If that's what you've taken from that press release then it seems pretty clear that you've taken something that was never intended.
Also, again, there's no dispute that Climate Change can occur naturally, but "accelerating" the process, as meghan puts it, is still a human cause. If the world would have warmed by one degree over a couple of thousand years, but instead has done so over a fraction of that time, that's a pretty big impact. And it's frustrating to see such sleight of hand described as "worthy" when it's based on... what, exactly?
Read the IPCC report. Then decide if natural activities have been understated or not, once you've seen what weight they've been given, and more importantly *why* the consensus is that they are comparatively minor when set against human activity.
As to the assertion of arrogance in the notion that humans can disrupt anything: we've created whole new environments, and destroyed others; we've created whole new chemicals, and released more natural ones at a far greater rate than they would be if left to their own devices; we've been responsible for the extinction of hundreds of species. Quite frankly, it would be arrogant to assume we can get away with all that.
Also, again, there's no dispute that Climate Change can occur naturally, but "accelerating" the process, as meghan puts it, is still a human cause. If the world would have warmed by one degree over a couple of thousand years, but instead has done so over a fraction of that time, that's a pretty big impact. And it's frustrating to see such sleight of hand described as "worthy" when it's based on... what, exactly?
Read the IPCC report. Then decide if natural activities have been understated or not, once you've seen what weight they've been given, and more importantly *why* the consensus is that they are comparatively minor when set against human activity.
As to the assertion of arrogance in the notion that humans can disrupt anything: we've created whole new environments, and destroyed others; we've created whole new chemicals, and released more natural ones at a far greater rate than they would be if left to their own devices; we've been responsible for the extinction of hundreds of species. Quite frankly, it would be arrogant to assume we can get away with all that.
We can't control nature, but we can control our influence upon it. In any given *individual* extreme weather event, it's difficult to disentangle the natural from the human origin, but it's the cumulative effect, over multiple such events, across years and decades, that's important in reaching a judgment.
Anyway, bottom line: it's worth reading, or at least looking at the summary of, the IPCC report. It should lay clear to what extent natural sources are a factor, and why scientists are fairly confident that they are much less a factor than human activity.
Anyway, bottom line: it's worth reading, or at least looking at the summary of, the IPCC report. It should lay clear to what extent natural sources are a factor, and why scientists are fairly confident that they are much less a factor than human activity.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank5 mins ago
Are The West In The Grip Of The Woke...
News7 mins ago
Crosswords8 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles21 mins ago
Technology34 mins ago
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.