Is climate change due to human activity?

[ahinton]

Sure, we are ingenious, and able to overcome difficulties, but demand for resources is outstripping supply. Every time we make a technical improvement, so that fewer resources are needed, what happens instead is that demand increases, and quite possibly the net effect may be worse than if no improvements had been made.

Most of us seem not to understand the meaning of the phrase "non renewable resources".

The available evidence does not prompt me to agree with you. The problem is less that "most of us seem not to understand the meaning of the phrase "non renewable resources"" than that most of us don't seem prepared to accept that the extent to which resources can be renewed should be encouraging us to find practical ways of renewing them and to distinguish between renewables and non-renewables. Yes, I have little doubt that there remains ample oil and gas to keep us all going for quite a while, but the extraction, refining and distribution processes that their heavy use demands only ever increase as the supplies of the fuels themsevles decrease.

The principal basic needs are heat, light and water - these are fundamental requirements not only of humans but of almost all living organisms on the planet - so, where's the problem? Is it a lack of these resources or a lack of due harnessing of those resources? Clearly, it's the latter. There's more than enough light and heat energy from the sun to keep the planet going for the foreseeable future and but a tiny proportion of the world's available water could be capable of supporting all life on it many times over (for some basis statistics, see http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html); the problem, therefore, is obviously harnessing and distribution in both cases. In the first, it's the need for solar installations of all sizes and capacities from vast farms down to individual panel arrays and then how best to store and distribute the energy harnessed; in the second, it's about ensuring that sufficient fresh water be sourced, collected, stored and distributed - and possibly that some saline water is desalinated, too, unless adequate advance arrangements can be made to capture, store and distribute some of the fresh water to be released by melting ice caps (which would, if possible, amount to playing climate change at its own game by turning one effect of it to our advantage). OK, these are both very big asks and the fact that so little work has been undertaken on either until relatively recently is undoubtedly a vast human indictment, but at least this illustrates that we're not talking about resources "running out" or being "overused" or about human demand getting out of proportion but about putting up the (solar-powered) red warning light to encourage the focussing of minds of addressing these vast opportunities for the future.

Another factor about much of the more emotive and agenda-driven talk about climate change is the avowed presumption on the part of some of the more Puritanical eco-moralists that all climate change, howsoever caused, is somehow "bad news"; quite a lot of it is so, of course, but not necessarily all of it and, if it were all bad news, then the planet would be our potential enemy in terms of all climate change that occurs and has occurred naturally without human intervention. The term that used to be used widely (and erroneously) for climate change was "global warming" and it's pretty obvious to most people that this is an absurdly simplistic descriptor for what's happening; we're enduring a miserably cold and wet summer in UK while America basks in the hottest six months since records began. More importantly, however, had the principal manifestation of climate change been global cooling, the eco-warriors would have had to suppress their natural instincts to try to persuade people to manage on less of this and that because the driving need would have been to burn ever more fossil fuels to keep us warm and keep us going until the effects of that ice age passed.

You are correct in stating that "demand for resources is outstripping supply", but this is because we've done nowhere near enough preparatory work to ensure that this incresing demand doesn't outstrip supply; likewise, you are right to point out that "every time we make a technical improvement, so that fewer resources are needed, what happens instead is that demand increases, and quite possibly the net effect may be worse than if no improvements had been made" but, again, it's for the same reason. We've been putting the cart before the horse for generations rather than addressing these issues head on and seizing available opportunities before it begins to become a global problem. Whether we still have enough time left after decades of complacent dawdling to deal with these resource issues so that demand outstripping supply ceases to be an issue for the future remains to be seen, but there can be little doubt that we are having to confront a serious race against time in order to achieve this end.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Every human being is a net producer of CO2. The number of human beings is increasing at a rate similar to the rate of increase in CO2 levels.

Until we tackle population levels, pollutants will continue to rise.

The correlation of CO2 levels and human population might persuade us to assume cause and effect between the two. I used to take this as a plausible link until I came across the work of Prof. Salby and others who argue this is not the case. In simple terms, the amount of CO2 produced by human activity can be quantified quite accurately, but the natural sinks and sources of CO2 cannot, they vary diurnally, seasonally and annually, and they swamp the level of human production by a factor close to 100!

This article explains the observations.

http://meteolcd.wordpress.com/2012/04/29/the-part-of-natural-co2-emissions-dynamite-conference-by-prof-murray-salby/

So not only is the link between CO2 levels and and the scale of temperature contested, but even the correlation between human activity and CO2 levels now seems to be up-for-grabs.

As for us polluting humans, I wouldn't accept that as a given either; Bjørn Lomborg in The Skeptical Environmentalist discusses this, rather controversially (i.e. the greens don't like it).

http://www.lomborg.com/publications/the_skeptical_environmentalist

[Sydney Grew]

. . . As for us polluting humans, I wouldn't accept that as a given either . . .

I fear I would. In fact to me it seems obvious: 1) I can see the curvature of the earth from my kitchen window, which overlooks the sea. The curvature thus observable indicates that the earth is distinctly finite. 2) In Britain, on the continent, in China, and in northern america there are thousands of power stations and chemical factories belching out tons of nasty stuff continuously, day and night. 3) It used to be thought that, because that nasty stuff was belched out and is no longer seen, it somehow ceases to exist. But that view is no better than primitive magic - or rather the propaganda of the capitalists. (Out of sight out of mind what.) All that stuff does not somehow fly off into space. It accumulates, and more and more rapidly; a process with a finite term. And the outcome is very unnatural indeed. No wonder the ice is melting!

By the way, already in the '-seventies of the last century the Swedes and Norwegians found that vast tracts of their forests were being poisoned by pollution from Britain. Is that still happening? Because I somehow doubt that the British would throttle back their power stations . . . As Mr. Wright points out (and a good many others have over the past three thousand years), human nature is quite a problem.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

So what do we do - give up and sit on our cynical behinds?

In fact what's happened is that acid rain has been identified as being caused by SO2 and NOX from coal fired generation and now steps are/have been taken to remove both from power station smokestacks (as have particulates). Where such treatment is not economically possible the coal station will be closed. So human nature is NOT a problem, the British have addressed the problem. And such actions are typical of those described in Lomborg's book - industry isn't an irresponsible polluter.

[Dave2002]

So what do we do - give up and sit on our cynical behinds?

In fact what's happened is that acid rain has been identified as being caused by SO2 and NOX from coal fired generation and now steps are/have been taken to remove both from power station smokestacks (as have particulates). Where such treatment is not economically possible the coal station will be closed. So human nature is NOT a problem, the British have addressed the problem. And such actions are typical of those described in Lomborg's book - industry isn't an irresponsible polluter.

I have visited some of the most polluted cities in the world, including one which I think was listed as the 3rd most polluted in 2005. In the middle of the day the sky was dark, and there was coal dust everywhere. That was in China.

I haven't visited Japan, but apparently that had severe problems a few decades ago, arguably comparable, and most of the obvious pollution problems have been reduced. It is only 60 years since there were obviously severe problems with pollution in London. However, there still are problems, but they are nothing like so obvious.

Flying back from China it was clear as we flew over Europe that in comparison much of the air over Europe is relatively clear. This does not, however, mean that it is totally innoccuous, but compared to China it is quite good. India is another country which has pollution problems, though in some cities, such as Delhi, the obvious vehicle pollution at least is being tackled.

One argument is that there's no point in the UK doing anything about any of this stuff, as China is producing enough pollution for most of the rest of the world. It's not an argument I agree with, though there does seem to be some logic. However China is investing quite heavily in PV panels. I don't know exactly what technology they are using, but many of the street lights are powered by PV, even in relatively rural areas. Maybe they're using battery packs to store the energy during the day? The Chinese are trying to address some of the problems.

I would suggest that there is ample evidence for human activity to be influencing the climate. I have seen arguments based on a notion that natural emissions of CO2 and other gases outweigh the output from human industry before, but I think the magnitude of human activity is now such that there is an effect. Obviously events such as the Mount Pinatubo eruption also influence the climate, so I'm not disputing natural activity, but the human influence can no longer be considered insignificant, IMO.

We cannot be absolutely sure, but I do believe that with so many people working on this issue, and with so many indicating that there is an issue with greenhouse gases, global warming, climate change etc., that choosing to side with the few who have a contra view is simply perverse.

[JohnSkelton]

As for us polluting humans, I wouldn't accept that as a given either; Bjørn Lomborg in The Skeptical Environmentalist discusses this, rather controversially (i.e. the greens don't like it).

http://www.lomborg.com/publications/...vironmentalist

The claim is that he deliberately misrepresents evidence:

http://yalepress.yale.edu/book.asp?isbn=9780300161038

http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/friel.htm (has Lomborg's rebuttal and Friel's response)

http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

the science jury is in; it is; we did it .......

we will be most unlikely to solve this at all and certainly not willingly ....

it is the collapse in the human population that awaits ..... plan for that instead - we might have a chance of saving civilised culture .....

[Dave2002]

There are others who make a case against some of the warming/climate change people - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven_...rth_%28book%29

It appears, at least superficially, to be reasonable - though some of the later chapters seem to have quite a lot of opinionated statements.
There is also humour. I liked the bit about the prediction of the end of the world at 4.15pm, 23rd September, 1179, in which the Emperor walled up his windows. "Walling up windows worked. The world did not end." p 457.

At least Plimer's views should be considered - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer - and he is IMO on the right side here - "Plimer is an outspoken critic of creationism and is famous for a 1988 debate with creationist Duane Gish in which he asked his opponent to hold live electrical cables to prove that electromagnetism was 'only a theory'." Wikipedia.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

I would suggest that there is ample evidence for human activity to be influencing the climate. I have seen arguments based on a notion that natural emissions of CO2 and other gases outweigh the output from human industry before, but I think the magnitude of human activity is now such that there is an effect. Obviously events such as the Mount Pinatubo eruption also influence the climate, so I'm not disputing natural activity, but the human influence can no longer be considered insignificant, IMO.

We cannot be absolutely sure, but I do believe that with so many people working on this issue, and with so many indicating that there is an issue with greenhouse gases, global warming, climate change etc., that choosing to side with the few who have a contra view is simply perverse.

Human emissions of CO2 constitute approximately 3 % of all global CO2 emissions. If you look at a map of the world to find the main sources of CO2 they are not over centres of human population and activity but over the Amazon and tropical Africa. I'm not saying that human emissions of CO2 have no impact. I'm sure we do influence the climate, but not to any alarming degree.

The record on pollution control in the west is not a journey of shining glory, by any means, but over the years a great deal of effort has gone into cleaning up our industrial activities, in most cases without any lobbying from so-called environmental groups. The acid rain issue is a case in point: the UK has taken steps, and is continuing to do so, to eradicate this issue.

As for your numbers argument I would prefer to consider the science of the argument and draw informed conclusions. But if you will have numbers, then perhaps you could read Donna LaFramboise's book on the workings of the IPCC to assess the quality of the cohort assessing our supposed CO2 impacts.

[Dave2002]

The record on pollution control in the west is not a journey of shining glory, by any means, but over the years a great deal of effort has gone into cleaning up our industrial activities, in most cases without any lobbying from so-called environmental groups. The acid rain issue is a case in point: the UK has taken steps, and is continuing to do so, to eradicate this issue.

Much to my surprise the UK is actually reasonably good at this. Other countries are also reasonable with respect to other matters, such as the depletion of the ozone layer. I'm less sure that as a country we would do this without some input from lobbyists. Why, for instance did we bother to try to reduce the acid rain? Were we really scared that the Scandinavians would do anything about it if we didn't? Perhaps as a country we really are fairly responsible, and responsive to other neighbour countries, but there might be others which are not with theirs.

If anyone thinks that politicians are capable of understanding this ... My belief is that it is scientists and engineers who mostly have investigated the issues, and in some cases effected remedies.

Numbers arguments based on people's opinions are tricky. It's perfectly possible that many people could have opinions and understandings which are wrong, and only a few hold correct views. Just think about religion!

[Dave2002]

This guy seems to present reasonable arguments - http://blip.tv/jim-karlock/climate-o...a-hoax-5924187

[Lateralthinking1]

Is climate change due to human activity?

Yes.

It might also be due to other factors. However, when everyone points to great natural changes in history, no one says that those occurred in less than two decades. Because they didn't. The political problem we have is akin to the nuclear 'deterrent'. Even many of us who would like there to be a moral lead know that acting unilaterally is unlikely to be successful in establishing international change.

I think we need to be far, far more emotive worldwide on this issue than any campaign against cigarette smoking. Feature families' future generations, eg their grandchildren as adults, living the most atrocious lives. Play the scenes on broadcasting networks hourly. Put the blame firmly on those currently living lives of greed. This needs to be a policy agreed by the relevant international bodies. No opting out allowed.

[Serial_Apologist]

I'm no longer sure what to believe on global warming. What I am sure about, however, is pollution, and exhausting the world's natural resources. The latter will happen one day anyway, regardless of world population growth. I've always argued that capitalism goes against the tenets of sustainability because the components parts of it which are in competition with one-another have to grow to survive, and furthermore prevent information about their success getting outside the walls in the name of commercial secrecy. When those switching boardrooms take the secrets with them and divulge them, they are rendered traitors, which they would not be but for the system. In a different system they'd be heroes. But we're shaped by peer group pressures to view the side you're supposed not to let down as some phenomenon of nature, rather than (usually) man-made. Of course we all know that if those commercial secrets were out this would slow the whole process down. But the parts of the process supposedly ahead of the pack and therefore supposed to be exemplifying to the cynical and indolent all that is great about the system, are on speed, out of control, polluting and using up earth's resources. They have to be, or go under. Keeping this going is called "incentivisation".

[ahinton]

Is climate change due to human activity?

Yes.

Only to the extent that certain human activity almost certainly aggravates it.

It might also be due to other factors.

No "might be" about it; it IS due to other factors - natural ones over which we have no control as yet and are unlikely to develop any in the foreseeable future.

However, when everyone points to great natural changes in history, no one says that those occurred in less than two decades. Because they didn't.

The first sentence there is untrue, actually; yes, some people don't mention it but others do. The fact remains, however, that past warm periods and ice ages were not all of anywhere near identical duration or severity - they just happen all to have been more long-term incidents than what's happening now, but there's no reliable scientific information to prove that naturally occurring climate change cycles are always going to involve long-term changes rather than the much shorter ones that you rightly say that we're in the midst of today.

The political problem we have is akin to the nuclear 'deterrent'. Even many of us who would like there to be a moral lead know that acting unilaterally is unlikely to be successful in establishing international change.

That much is certainly true.

I think we need to be far, far more emotive worldwide on this issue than any campaign against cigarette smoking. Feature families' future generations, eg their grandchildren as adults, living the most atrocious lives. Play the scenes on broadcasting networks hourly. Put the blame firmly on those currently living lives of greed. This needs to be a policy agreed by the relevant international bodies. No opting out allowed.

Merely "being emotive" is unllikely of itself to achieve the unilateral agreements that you correctly observe are necessary prerequisites for action. Why try to put all the blame of "those currently living lives of greed" and on what specific parameters do you identify "lives of greed" in any case? - they'll obviously be very different yardsticks between countries with widely differing economies, which will hardly assist the attainment of those unilateral agreements! - and what of those emerging economies such as China and India where poverty on a grand scale affects large proportions of their respective populations but which are often cited as being as guilty or more so than many other countries in contributing to man-made climate change and atmospheric pollution? Furthermore, "playing scenes on broadcasting networks hourly" will cut little ice (or is it steam?!) with the poor in India, Africa, China and elsewhere who don't even have access to them...

[ahinton]

I'm no longer sure what to believe on global warming. What I am sure about, however, is pollution, and exhausting the world's natural resources. The latter will happen one day anyway, regardless of world population growth. I've always argued that capitalism goes against the tenets of sustainability because the components parts of it which are in competition with one-another have to grow to survive, and furthermore prevent information about their success getting outside the walls in the name of commercial secrecy. When those switching boardrooms take the secrets with them and divulge them, they are rendered traitors, which they would not be but for the system. In a different system they'd be heroes. But we're shaped by peer group pressures to view the side you're supposed not to let down as some phenomenon of nature, rather than (usually) man-made. Of course we all know that if those commercial secrets were out this would slow the whole process down. But the parts of the process supposedly ahead of the pack and therefore supposed to be exemplifying to the cynical and indolent all that is great about the system, are on speed, out of control, polluting and using up earth's resources. They have to be, or go under. Keeping this going is called "incentivisation".

I think that you have some truth and some half-truth here.

You are absolutely right about the pollution problem and this is why I've long since advocated drastic reductions in the use of fossil fuels which are one of the principal culprits in this because, even if after a couple of decades this is seen to have made little difference to climate change, it will still have been immensely beneficial to society as a whole.

I do not agree that the world's natural resources will inevitably become exhausted.

I can see your point about where certain abuse of capitalist practice such as that to which you draw attention can delay and hinder advancements in what's needed to be done, but the politics that helps to enable and preserve these strictures centre at least in part of the sheer power and might of the multi-national corporations who force people's dependency upon them for such things as energy; the more small-scale distribution-lite sustainable alternative energy production installations that can be pressed into service, the more that global corporate strangleholds can and will weaken and, hopefully, the less environmental damage is likely to be done.