What percentage is Man responsible for Climate Change?

originally posted by: woodwardjnr

originally posted by: woodwardjnr

thing is 100% natural.

a reply to: xuenchen so are human beings

Obviously I'm no expert, but we do have an effect on our planets environment, when we cut down the rain forests, the lungs of the planet, fished most of the fish out of the sea and placed many species on the verge of extinction.

I definitely be more concerned if I had kids or grandchildren

That's one that boggles the mind. It's really easy to understand how important the trees are no matter how you feel about climate change, and it's likely the easiest thing we could do to try and put things back a bit. Re-forestation campaigns. You could even plant trees that will make your grandkids money like Black Walnut.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: network dude

Climate or climate change?

If climate, the sun would be the biggest factor but since the sun isn't and hasn't done anything differently in a long, long time, likewise volcanic activity etc... for change man is the largest factor.

But that isn't what some science is saying.
www.sciencedaily.com...

And I think we are still at the same point of not having any idea what the numbers are as far as what percentage is caused by man, and what percentage is natural changes like emerging from an ice age.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
When was the climate not changing? Man thinks far too highly of himself. Compared to Mother Nature, we are insignificant.

I wish I could buy into that 100%. It sure would be the best outcome.

originally posted by: woodwardjnr

originally posted by: woodwardjnr

thing is 100% natural.

a reply to: xuenchen so are human beings

Obviously I'm no expert, but we do have an effect on our planets environment, when we cut down the rain forests, the lungs of the planet, fished most of the fish out of the sea and placed many species on the verge of extinction.

I definitely be more concerned if I had kids or grandchildren

Trees actually aren't the lungs of the planet. The oceans are.

Trees can’t take credit for all the oxygen in the world. In fact, algae and other marine plants produce an estimated 70 percent of Earth’s oxygen through the photosynthesis process that takes place in oceans.

source

a reply to: network dude

I think that mankind has responsibility for what it has put into the environment, of that there really can be no doubt.

Has what we have put into the environment resulted in a negative impact on the planet?

Here are the problems I have with the argument that we have:

First- There really is no proof that what we have done is detrimental to the planet to a greater extent than what nature itself has done. Solar cycles; volcanic activity; universal (moving through regions of space more or less conducive to life on earth) serendipity.

Second: This is the most important point for me; We only care about the planet with regards to its facility and use for us as human beings. No one cares about if the planet is better for organisms if that is not somehow directly related to humanity and its comfort.

The question really should be: Are we influencing the planet negatively FOR HUMANITY?

a reply to: network dude

Trying to put some kind of a real number on the debate wont really help .CO2 makes up something like 4% of our atmosphere and man has a small part of the 4% ...Looking at graphs and numbers can always be misleading if a bias was put into the study ....Climate Audit crunches numbers and usually becomes suspect of some of the climate papers that are put out .The chicken little scientist seldom show up to discuss the issues with their own papers .Sad in a way but if you want to keep getting the grant money to feed the kids then you have to tow the line and so avoiding the issues is the game .....Here is a quick look at some of how the issues can misrepresent the issues with numbers and graph . This link is to A rough guide to spotting bad science and worth the read .wattsupwiththat.com...

a reply to: network dude

If solar activity drops by 60% then yes it will trigger global cooling. You missed the point however, solar activity hasn't really changed enough as of yet to cause a CHANGE in the climate.

Hotter-burning sun warming the planet

The sun is burning hotter than usual, offering a possible explanation for global warming that needs to be weighed when proceeding with expensive efforts to cut emissions of greenhouse gases, Swiss and German scientists say.

“The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures,” said Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research.

“The sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently — in the last 100 to 150 years,” Mr. Solanski said.

a reply to: xuenchen

Just an old article about sun cycles

The Sun is what is really, the be all and end all of our local economy lol.

a reply to: Kali74
Sunspot numbers. Annual mean. At solar max.

1979: 220
1989: 211
2000: 173
2014: 113

A 48% decline. Is it cooler than 1979?

a reply to: Phage

Does intensity have anything to do with it?

i.e. like quantity vs quality

a reply to: xuenchen
Your source is somewhat dated.
TSI has been on the decline.

a reply to: xuenchen

The article posted earlier was about a predicted decrease in solar activity, as indicated by sunspot numbers.

originally posted by: network dude
That's one that boggles the mind. It's really easy to understand how important the trees are no matter how you feel about climate change, and it's likely the easiest thing we could do to try and put things back a bit. Re-forestation campaigns. You could even plant trees that will make your grandkids money like Black Walnut.

You can't just "put back things a bit". Planting trees, particularly on a large scale, will effect hydrological systems and in areas where deforestation occured centuries ago, on land that has been planted to exhaustion, the soil requires microbial and sometimes mycorrhizal replenishment, as well as, at least initially, irrigation to support tree establishment. Trees are not a quick fix, used in that way, large scale planting could make the situation better for some, but by disrupting hydrological systems both in terms of land water retention and rain generation, as well as increasing the need for irrigation, however, temporary, could do far more harm than good.

Selective reforestation is an objective, but a much greater priority is reducing the deforestation of virgin forest in first place.

a reply to: xuenchen

Less sunspots means more sun to shine .Jim we have a winner :>)

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Actually, no.
The Sun is less bright. By a very small amount.
ftp.pmodwrc.ch...

a reply to: Phage

I just looked outside and its bright . It has less sun spots that are not bright and so the sun is more hot ...make perfect sense .

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Yeah. Look at the Sun. It rises in the east and sets in the west. It is clearly moving around the Earth.
Makes perfect sense.

a reply to: Phage

Doh.

a reply to: Phage

In todays world military boots on the ground can mean something other then boots on the ground .The sun being less bright can make it warmer .Does anyone really have this all figured out yet ? ...