Remember me
▼ Content

How Much Is Trly Human Caused?


How Much Is Trly Human Caused?26-03-2018 20:31
hjcihak46
☆☆☆☆☆
(4)
I do not dispute the reality of the climate change now taking place. But there is one aspect I have yet to see discussed or mentioned in the news articles I've read.

This planet has undergone numerous climate changes over the past 3 to 4 billion years, the most recent of which occurred approximately 11,000 years ago. Obviously, in all those previous cases Nature didn't need a "human contribution" to trigger the change. And that raises the following question ...

"What percentage of the current climate change can be solely attributed to Nature and what percentage can be attributed as a by-product of 7+ billion human beings on this planet?"

If it could reasonably be shown that the current human contribution accounts, for the sake of discussion, 50% of the total current climate change, then it's obvious that humans can also slow down the change. However, for the sake of discussion, humans can only be blamed for 5% of the current change, then it seems to me we'd all be better off forgetting about slowing the climate change and devote ourselves to figuring out how to adapt and survive the inevitable.

Mind you, I have no position on this question. I'm simply trying to see if it's even been researched and addressed.
26-03-2018 21:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5741)
hjcihak46 wrote:
I do not dispute the reality of the climate change now taking place. But there is one aspect I have yet to see discussed or mentioned in the news articles I've read.

This planet has undergone numerous climate changes over the past 3 to 4 billion years, the most recent of which occurred approximately 11,000 years ago. Obviously, in all those previous cases Nature didn't need a "human contribution" to trigger the change. And that raises the following question ...

"What percentage of the current climate change can be solely attributed to Nature and what percentage can be attributed as a by-product of 7+ billion human beings on this planet?"

If it could reasonably be shown that the current human contribution accounts, for the sake of discussion, 50% of the total current climate change, then it's obvious that humans can also slow down the change. However, for the sake of discussion, humans can only be blamed for 5% of the current change, then it seems to me we'd all be better off forgetting about slowing the climate change and devote ourselves to figuring out how to adapt and survive the inevitable.

Mind you, I have no position on this question. I'm simply trying to see if it's even been researched and addressed.


Depends on who you ask.

Almost any faithful member of the Church of Global Warming will tell you that man is the primary cause of climate change through the effects of CO2.

But while CO2 does absorb infrared light (like most gases do, including both oxygen and nitrogen), and while CO2 happens to absorb infrared light on a frequency that is emitted by portions of the Earth due to it's temperature (while oxygen and nitrogen don't), all it does is provide yet another way for the surface to cool itself by warming the atmosphere.

Most of the atmosphere is warmed by conduction from the surface, and then dispersed through the atmosphere by the effects of convection.

ALL substances, including the atmosphere radiate energy into space, with the surface itself being the predominant source. Unless the output of the Sun changes, ALL of the absorbed energy is emitted again by the Earth. That means 100%. ALL of it. That only changes if the amount the Earth absorbs from sunlight changes. That means changing the output of the Sun, or changing Earth's distance from it. Those are the only factors that can alter Earth's temperature.

No gas or vapor can warm the Earth. CO2 absorption does not warm the Earth. It cannot warm the surface by 're-emission', even if the emitted radiance of CO2 strikes the warmer surface of the Earth.

In other words, humans have no control over the temperature of the Earth. We can't change the Sun, and we can't change Earth's orbital parameters.


The Parrot Killer
RE: Where's the Research?26-03-2018 21:56
hjcihak46
☆☆☆☆☆
(4)
Thanks for your comment, but it does seem to be an opinion. Frankly, we're all drowning in opinions that lack evidence from scientific research. I'm hoping that someone somewhere has or is conducting research into this question. I refuse to believe I'm the only person to have posed this particular question.
26-03-2018 23:56
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1046)
hjcihak46 wrote:
Thanks for your comment, but it does seem to be an opinion. Frankly, we're all drowning in opinions that lack evidence from scientific research. I'm hoping that someone somewhere has or is conducting research into this question. I refuse to believe I'm the only person to have posed this particular question.


What is your scientific explanation of man's contribution to a warming earth?
RE: Not a Scientist27-03-2018 02:23
hjcihak46
☆☆☆☆☆
(4)
I'm not a scientist, so I can't offer a scientific explanation. However, as a non-scientist it seems logical to me that the current episode of climate change would be the first one in all of Earth's history that can blamed mostly or entirely on human intervention. Since so many climate changes have occurred over the past eons, it seems reasonable to ask whether human intervention may be, at best, a very minor contributing factor. If so, and if that contribution is fairly minor, then I would argue that any of the known prescriptions for slowing down climate change are likely to make little, if any, difference at all.
27-03-2018 03:25
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(206)
hjcihak46 wrote:
......But there is one aspect I have yet to see discussed or mentioned in the news articles I've read......


You won't find much of actual value on any technical subject in the mass media. In my opinion anyway. Including anything in-depth on climate change/global warming.

So, where to look for useful information?
Scientists publish the results of research, including research on climate and on atmospheric physics and on oceanography and other subjects relevant to global warming in what are called "peer-reviewed" journals, publications (hardcopy and online). These journals are mostly not readily available to the general public and since they are written by scientists for other scientists to read they are generally unintelligible to the public or even scientists in other fields. There are occasionally review articles in the journals that explain things enough so a scientist in another specialty might comprehend, but even they are generally too technical for a lay person. Too, what is a lay person? Had any college level chemistry and physics? High school level? If not, then a lot of ground has to be made up. Might take a long of time.

The IPCC periodically publishes an assessment of the state of climate change research and mitigation/adaptation proposals.
Might start here https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
For the science see https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
For more see [url]See https://www.ipcc.ch/index.htm[/url]

Note that IPCC doesn't do research or run climate models either, but summarizes what others have done.

For the peer-reviewed journals, see https://www.omicsonline.org/climatic-change-journals-conferences-list.php

For a textbook, try Principles of Planetary Climate by R Pierrehumbert. Amazon has it.

For a volume that includes lot of the original research papers/articles on which much of today's climate research rests, try The Warming Papers edited by Archer and Pierrehumbert. Amazon has it too.

A website with some climate change information is https://skepticalscience.com/
RE: Thank you.27-03-2018 04:06
hjcihak46
☆☆☆☆☆
(4)
I appreciate your suggestions, and your reasoning for them.

I originally posted my question in hopes someone would already know of and could refer me to a specific research study, paper, or project that would address that question. Not having been trained in science, I've had little luck in comprehending much of anything that I've tried to read in other scientific papers in the past.
27-03-2018 04:07
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(206)
hjcihak46 wrote:

"What percentage of the current climate change can be solely attributed to Nature and what percentage can be attributed as a by-product of 7+ billion human beings on this planet?"



Back to your actual question: 100%.

The reasons given are that the observed temperature anomaly is explainable by the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gasses, mainly the increase of 285 parts per million (by volume) to 400 ppm of carbon dioxide and that the CO2 increase is a result of fossil fuel burning. Also, no natural cause for the temperature anomaly has been found. Lots of folks have looked for a natural cause without success.

That the CO2 increase is from fossil fuel burning is certain. In some past episodes of climate change it's thought that huge increases in volcanic carbon dioxide emissions were a factor. No such increase in volcanism lately. No increase in the Sun's activity, just the usual 11 year cycle. None of the periodic small changes lately in the Earth's orbit that triggered earlier climate change episodes.

Actually show that it's not human caused and you'll be a hero.
27-03-2018 07:49
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5741)
hjcihak46 wrote:
Thanks for your comment, but it does seem to be an opinion. Frankly, we're all drowning in opinions that lack evidence from scientific research. I'm hoping that someone somewhere has or is conducting research into this question. I refuse to believe I'm the only person to have posed this particular question.


What's to research? The phrase 'climate change' is meaningless. It's a buzzword. It's only meaning is itself.

There's no such thing as 'scientific' research. There is just research. Science isn't a 'research' or a 'study'. Science is just a set of falsifiable theories.

You are not the only one to have posed this particular question. The question itself is based on a belief that 'climate change' is occurring (whatever the heck THAT means).


The Parrot Killer
27-03-2018 07:54
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5741)
still learning wrote:
hjcihak46 wrote:
......But there is one aspect I have yet to see discussed or mentioned in the news articles I've read......


You won't find much of actual value on any technical subject in the mass media. In my opinion anyway. Including anything in-depth on climate change/global warming.

So, where to look for useful information?
Scientists publish the results of research, including research on climate and on atmospheric physics and on oceanography and other subjects relevant to global warming in what are called "peer-reviewed" journals, publications (hardcopy and online). These journals are mostly not readily available to the general public and since they are written by scientists for other scientists to read they are generally unintelligible to the public or even scientists in other fields. There are occasionally review articles in the journals that explain things enough so a scientist in another specialty might comprehend, but even they are generally too technical for a lay person. Too, what is a lay person? Had any college level chemistry and physics? High school level? If not, then a lot of ground has to be made up. Might take a long of time.

The IPCC periodically publishes an assessment of the state of climate change research and mitigation/adaptation proposals.
Might start here https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
For the science see https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
For more see [url]See https://www.ipcc.ch/index.htm[/url]

Note that IPCC doesn't do research or run climate models either, but summarizes what others have done.

For the peer-reviewed journals, see https://www.omicsonline.org/climatic-change-journals-conferences-list.php

For a textbook, try Principles of Planetary Climate by R Pierrehumbert. Amazon has it.

For a volume that includes lot of the original research papers/articles on which much of today's climate research rests, try The Warming Papers edited by Archer and Pierrehumbert. Amazon has it too.

A website with some climate change information is https://skepticalscience.com/


The IPCC and the skeptical science site deny science and mathematics.


The Parrot Killer
27-03-2018 07:55
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5741)
hjcihak46 wrote:
I appreciate your suggestions, and your reasoning for them.

I originally posted my question in hopes someone would already know of and could refer me to a specific research study, paper, or project that would address that question. Not having been trained in science, I've had little luck in comprehending much of anything that I've tried to read in other scientific papers in the past.


Science isn't papers. It isn't peer reviews. It is just a set of falsifiable theories.


The Parrot Killer
27-03-2018 08:03
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5741)
still learning wrote:
hjcihak46 wrote:

"What percentage of the current climate change can be solely attributed to Nature and what percentage can be attributed as a by-product of 7+ billion human beings on this planet?"



Back to your actual question: 100%.

The reasons given are that the observed temperature anomaly is explainable by the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gasses, mainly the increase of 285 parts per million (by volume) to 400 ppm of carbon dioxide and that the CO2 increase is a result of fossil fuel burning.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. Not CO2, not H20, not CH4, not anything. Also, fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel.
still learning wrote:
Also, no natural cause for the temperature anomaly has been found.

There is no 'temperature anomaly'. There is no data at all. It's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. We don't have enough thermometers to do it.
still learning wrote:
Lots of folks have looked for a natural cause without success.

It really doesn't matter. CO2 is not capable of warming the Earth.
still learning wrote:
That the CO2 increase is from fossil fuel burning is certain.

CO2 does not come from fossil fuels. Fossils don't burn.
still learning wrote:
In some past episodes of climate change it's thought that huge increases in volcanic carbon dioxide emissions were a factor.

CO2 is not capable of warming the Earth.
still learning wrote:
No such increase in volcanism lately.

True.
still learning wrote:
No increase in the Sun's activity, just the usual 11 year cycle.

Actually, the last cycle was a remarkably quiet one. We are coming out of it now. It will be at minimum in about 2021.
still learning wrote:
None of the periodic small changes lately in the Earth's orbit that triggered earlier climate change episodes.

True, except for the usual seasonal changes, which happen to be a lot greater temperature difference than the 'disaster' claimed by the Church of Global Warming.
still learning wrote:
Actually show that it's not human caused and you'll be a hero.

You can't show what is undefinable and just a buzzword. The phrase 'climate change' has no meaning other than itself. It's a buzzword.


The Parrot Killer
27-03-2018 08:30
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1198)
hjcihak46 wrote:
I do not dispute the reality of the climate change now taking place. But there is one aspect I have yet to see discussed or mentioned in the news articles I've read.

This planet has undergone numerous climate changes over the past 3 to 4 billion years, the most recent of which occurred approximately 11,000 years ago. Obviously, in all those previous cases Nature didn't need a "human contribution" to trigger the change. And that raises the following question ...

"What percentage of the current climate change can be solely attributed to Nature and what percentage can be attributed as a by-product of 7+ billion human beings on this planet?"

If it could reasonably be shown that the current human contribution accounts, for the sake of discussion, 50% of the total current climate change, then it's obvious that humans can also slow down the change. However, for the sake of discussion, humans can only be blamed for 5% of the current change, then it seems to me we'd all be better off forgetting about slowing the climate change and devote ourselves to figuring out how to adapt and survive the inevitable.

Mind you, I have no position on this question. I'm simply trying to see if it's even been researched and addressed.


Even more primary question;

If it is the case that the upper end of the IPCC's predictions are on the cards, then what exactly is bad about a slightly warmer world?
28-03-2018 20:49
Wake
★★★★★
(3401)
still learning wrote:
hjcihak46 wrote:

"What percentage of the current climate change can be solely attributed to Nature and what percentage can be attributed as a by-product of 7+ billion human beings on this planet?"



Back to your actual question: 100%.

The reasons given are that the observed temperature anomaly is explainable by the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gasses, mainly the increase of 285 parts per million (by volume) to 400 ppm of carbon dioxide and that the CO2 increase is a result of fossil fuel burning. Also, no natural cause for the temperature anomaly has been found. Lots of folks have looked for a natural cause without success.

That the CO2 increase is from fossil fuel burning is certain. In some past episodes of climate change it's thought that huge increases in volcanic carbon dioxide emissions were a factor. No such increase in volcanism lately. No increase in the Sun's activity, just the usual 11 year cycle. None of the periodic small changes lately in the Earth's orbit that triggered earlier climate change episodes.

Actually show that it's not human caused and you'll be a hero.


You are having a lot of trouble understanding what climate change is because of the hoax surrounding it.

Is the climate changing? Uh, actually no and that is different from the normal changing climate cycle. Or perhaps due to a lot of things we have reached an early peak in the normal ice-age to warm period cycle.

There is NO DOUBT that CO2 has no effect on atmospheric temperatures after some 200-250 ppm. This is because CO2 has three VERY narrow bands of absorption and the Earth doesn't contain any more energy in these bands above 250 ppm at the highest.

Let's show some examples: https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/StateoftheClimate_2016_CO2_graph_large.jpg

This is a NASA chart. Since these are direct measures NASA cannot lie about this so it is accurate. Now their "past levels of CO2" are lies because of the way they have been gathered.

CO2 is soluable in water at normal pressure and temperatures of some 260 ppm. Should it be surprising that the air bubbles discovered in ice cores is 260 ppm? So reporting this as "past levels of CO2 in the atmosphere" is faulty. Alternate means of discovering these levels are in rocks that require carbon dioxide to form. But these are rough measures at best.

Another means is leaf stomata of fossilized leaves. Stomata are the pores usually on the underside of leaves that allow the leaf and consequently the plant to "breath". Plant stomata research isn't very complete but what it shows is that "normal" CO2 content of the atmosphere was 320-350 ppm.

In that chart up above GEE - it's 340 ppm. Lower levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are very bad since at 180 ppm photosynthesis ceases. Yet to the environmental whackos that's good. Now CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been measured in the past but usually through chemical analysis which isn't terribly accurate. Also in the late 1800's Arrhenius performed a thought experiment using color analysis of moonlight to make assumptions but I wouldn't have given that much credit for accuracy since he used published numbers from several other's papers that are somewhat questionable. Remember that they only had access to limited scientific instruments of limited accuracy at that time.

Now more to the point: since about 1980 the levels of CO2 have risen some 20% but what of Mean Global Temperature?

According to NASA it has risen 1.2 degrees Centigrade or about 2.2 degrees F.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg

But that is coming entirely out of a clear blue sky because there hasn't been any warming between 1979 and the present.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_February_2018_v6.jpg

This is measured FROM the Earth Weather Satellites. It is NASA's own real data and not the doctored stuff they put out to the public.

That center line is actually the AVERAGE for that graph. And it means that there is NO heating for the last 38 years or more.

So the facts are that Man-Made Climate Change does not exist. While man CAN make climate changes in extremely limited areas - in and around large cities with extremely large areas of asphalt and cement, this is limited to the general vicinity of cities. And these changes disappear completely in wind speeds at or above 27 kph (about 17 mph).

Now it is possible that we have been in a pause and will soon start upwards again but this would be totally NORMAL warming and not man-made.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:EPICA_temperature_plot.svg

This comes from The European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica and is the most accurate record we have available. As you see, presently we haven't warmed as much as other times. Not that that doesn't mean we couldn't because ice core records distort time periods a bit.

So the question of "what percentage of global warming has man caused" is 0% or so close to it that it doesn't matter.
28-03-2018 23:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5741)
Wake wrote:
still learning wrote:
hjcihak46 wrote:

"What percentage of the current climate change can be solely attributed to Nature and what percentage can be attributed as a by-product of 7+ billion human beings on this planet?"



Back to your actual question: 100%.

The reasons given are that the observed temperature anomaly is explainable by the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gasses, mainly the increase of 285 parts per million (by volume) to 400 ppm of carbon dioxide and that the CO2 increase is a result of fossil fuel burning. Also, no natural cause for the temperature anomaly has been found. Lots of folks have looked for a natural cause without success.

That the CO2 increase is from fossil fuel burning is certain. In some past episodes of climate change it's thought that huge increases in volcanic carbon dioxide emissions were a factor. No such increase in volcanism lately. No increase in the Sun's activity, just the usual 11 year cycle. None of the periodic small changes lately in the Earth's orbit that triggered earlier climate change episodes.

Actually show that it's not human caused and you'll be a hero.


You are having a lot of trouble understanding what climate change is because of the hoax surrounding it.

Is the climate changing? Uh, actually no and that is different from the normal changing climate cycle. Or perhaps due to a lot of things we have reached an early peak in the normal ice-age to warm period cycle.

There is NO DOUBT that CO2 has no effect on atmospheric temperatures after some 200-250 ppm. This is because CO2 has three VERY narrow bands of absorption and the Earth doesn't contain any more energy in these bands above 250 ppm at the highest.

Let's show some examples: https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/StateoftheClimate_2016_CO2_graph_large.jpg

This is a NASA chart. Since these are direct measures NASA cannot lie about this so it is accurate. Now their "past levels of CO2" are lies because of the way they have been gathered.

CO2 is soluable in water at normal pressure and temperatures of some 260 ppm. Should it be surprising that the air bubbles discovered in ice cores is 260 ppm? So reporting this as "past levels of CO2 in the atmosphere" is faulty. Alternate means of discovering these levels are in rocks that require carbon dioxide to form. But these are rough measures at best.

Another means is leaf stomata of fossilized leaves. Stomata are the pores usually on the underside of leaves that allow the leaf and consequently the plant to "breath". Plant stomata research isn't very complete but what it shows is that "normal" CO2 content of the atmosphere was 320-350 ppm.

In that chart up above GEE - it's 340 ppm. Lower levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are very bad since at 180 ppm photosynthesis ceases. Yet to the environmental whackos that's good. Now CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been measured in the past but usually through chemical analysis which isn't terribly accurate. Also in the late 1800's Arrhenius performed a thought experiment using color analysis of moonlight to make assumptions but I wouldn't have given that much credit for accuracy since he used published numbers from several other's papers that are somewhat questionable. Remember that they only had access to limited scientific instruments of limited accuracy at that time.

Now more to the point: since about 1980 the levels of CO2 have risen some 20% but what of Mean Global Temperature?

According to NASA it has risen 1.2 degrees Centigrade or about 2.2 degrees F.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg

But that is coming entirely out of a clear blue sky because there hasn't been any warming between 1979 and the present.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_February_2018_v6.jpg

This is measured FROM the Earth Weather Satellites. It is NASA's own real data and not the doctored stuff they put out to the public.

That center line is actually the AVERAGE for that graph. And it means that there is NO heating for the last 38 years or more.

So the facts are that Man-Made Climate Change does not exist. While man CAN make climate changes in extremely limited areas - in and around large cities with extremely large areas of asphalt and cement, this is limited to the general vicinity of cities. And these changes disappear completely in wind speeds at or above 27 kph (about 17 mph).

Now it is possible that we have been in a pause and will soon start upwards again but this would be totally NORMAL warming and not man-made.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:EPICA_temperature_plot.svg

This comes from The European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica and is the most accurate record we have available. As you see, presently we haven't warmed as much as other times. Not that that doesn't mean we couldn't because ice core records distort time periods a bit.

So the question of "what percentage of global warming has man caused" is 0% or so close to it that it doesn't matter.


I'll not pick apart your bad science at this time because it serves no purpose for my basic message.

Absorption is not the issue. Absorption is just another way for the surface to cool itself by warming the atmosphere.

Absorption of infrared light emitted by carbon dioxide or any other gas does not warm the Earth. It can't.

Absorption does not stop energy from leaving the Earth.

Emitted light from the atmosphere does not warm the surface of the Earth. It is not possible for heat to flow from cold to hot. It is not possible to slow or trap heat, not even radiant heat.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics is very clear about this.

If, for some reason, the Earth DOES warm up, it will radiate more energy.
If, for some reason, the energy radiated is reduced, the Earth must be cooling.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law is very clear about this.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 28-03-2018 23:36
29-03-2018 01:50
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1046)
ITN, sent you a PM. Just wanted to make sure you saw it...or maybe you don't want to go near that one??
29-03-2018 10:52
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5741)
GasGuzzler wrote:
ITN, sent you a PM. Just wanted to make sure you saw it...or maybe you don't want to go near that one??


Gotit...and thanks. I responded.

*humble bow*


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate How Much Is Trly Human Caused?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
This is one of the reasons why I am skeptical of human-induced global warming5608-10-2018 17:56
20 Reasons To Be Skeptical Of Human-Induced Global Warming6927-09-2018 18:50
When (if at all) did human co2 emissions begin to affect the climate?915-05-2018 00:30
Is Human Activity the Reason for Climate Change407-03-2018 10:36
next step-human kulling1017-02-2017 19:22
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact