Pop Poll! What do you blame for climate change?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by PracticalMac, May 16, 2018.

?

What do you blame for climate change?

Poll closed Jun 4, 2018.
  1. 100% Man made

    44 vote(s)
    37.6%
  2. 75% Man, 25% natural

    23 vote(s)
    19.7%
  3. 50/50 Man/natural

    11 vote(s)
    9.4%
  4. 25% Man, 75% natural cycle

    24 vote(s)
    20.5%
  5. 100% Natural! No additives or influences.

    15 vote(s)
    12.8%
  1. PracticalMac, May 16, 2018
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2018

    PracticalMac macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #1
    Pop Poll! What do you blame for climate change?

    Majority here believe (practically all?) the climate is changing, the question is the cause.

    Man's pollution and global Terra-forming, or Natures natural cycle?

    Or, put another way (looking at you, Sydde), the natural, pre-man, process is greatly accelerated.

    EDIT 5/17: OK, a small clarification: 100% was just rounding out for simplification (95% = 100%), basically I am saying man is causing practically all the climate change.

    (Poll closes in 18 days.)

    ========================================
    2nd August 2018 addition.

    NYT published story
    ,
     
  2. rafark macrumors 6502a

    rafark

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2017
    #2
    Man. Nature per se takes thousands of years to event start changing without animal intervention.
     
  3. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #3
    The feedback cycles are normal processes, but they are driven by anthropogenic warming effects: to call that part of it “natural” is disingenuous.
     
  4. lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
  5. PracticalMac thread starter macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
  6. 0007776 Suspended

    0007776

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #6
    I think some of it is likely natural, but it’s hard to argue that most of it isn’t man made if you look at the actual evidence.
     
  7. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #7
    To be ridiculously strict, humans themselves are part of nature: the Burj Khalifa is no less natural than a termite mound or ant hill. So, technically, AGW is a natural process, even if we are precipitating it.

    The question is whether turning that process around can happen naturally (by means of behavior correction), or are we all inherently doomed to doom ourselves.
     
  8. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #8
  9. SteveW928 macrumors 65816

    SteveW928

    Joined:
    May 28, 2010
    Location:
    Victoria, B.C. Canada
    #9
    I think the bigger question... is whether the climate change trend is good or bad (on the whole, there are obviously certain good/bad things).

    We're supposed to be heading into a ice-age at some point, which would be pretty devastating. Humanity, in general, as done better in warmer climate periods. Food production and plant-life (greening of the earth) are on the rise, which is a good thing.

    Of course, I'm not a fan of heat. Anything over about 20C and I'm going 'get me outta here' unless I'm on the beach. But, it's more important for all of humanity to benefit than just for my interests. Likewise, if the oceans eventually do rise a bit, some people will have to move or innovate. But, a greater number of people starving or not advancing in technology is more important than some relocation issues, IMO.

    This said, I'm all for reducing pollution and alternate energy. But, it has to be realistic. CO2 isn't a pollutant. But, other byproducts of fossil fuels are. However, many alternate energy solutions have impact and downsides as well. It's a matter of tradeoffs.
     
  10. GermanSuplex macrumors 6502a

    GermanSuplex

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    #11
    I went with 75%/25% man/natural, but I probably should have went with 100% manmade, because even the "natural" things are caused by man. Too many animals for breeding/food, altering landscapes in unnatural ways that throw the relationship between animals/the earth off balance (You go in and take out a huge section of trees. Animals move out; some perish, some over thrive and end up taking other animals out/allowing certain other animals to increase. It all plays a part. Man's mind is its own worst enemy.

    Of course, it would be nice to be ignorant of facts and science and just be able to have a cold day where I can convince myself that it just MUST prove manmade global warming is a Chinese hoax.
     
  11. SteveW928 macrumors 65816

    SteveW928

    Joined:
    May 28, 2010
    Location:
    Victoria, B.C. Canada
    #12
    So... the biggest historical factor, the sun, doesn't have any impact presently because people do stuff?

    It seems it isn't just the 'Chinese hoax' people who are ignorant of the facts and science, LOL. And, the MSM links pretty much every possible weather event or natural disaster to AGW... unless it doesn't fit the narrative, and then we hear 'weather isn't climate.'
     
  12. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
  13. spacemnspiff macrumors 6502a

    spacemnspiff

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Location:
    MD
    #14
    And Clinton.
     
  14. GermanSuplex macrumors 6502a

    GermanSuplex

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    #15
    Weather isn't the climate... A cold day doesn't mean there is no global warming....

    I can't even.
     
  15. SteveW928 macrumors 65816

    SteveW928

    Joined:
    May 28, 2010
    Location:
    Victoria, B.C. Canada
    #16
    Umm, yeah, that's what I just said. But the MSM (main stream media) doesn't adhere to this. When some weather event fits the AGW narrative, it's AGW. When it doesn't, then they say it's just weather.
    That was my whole point.
    But, you didn't respond to the sun aspect and your 100% man comment. Science?
     
  16. GermanSuplex macrumors 6502a

    GermanSuplex

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    #17
    -The sun is not the cause for global warming.
    -The other comment was a boiled-down, misrepresentation of everything I said. And that's putting it nicely.
    -My previous post was sarcastic.... I wasn't agreeing with you.
     
  17. SteveW928 macrumors 65816

    SteveW928

    Joined:
    May 28, 2010
    Location:
    Victoria, B.C. Canada
    #18
    Huh? Read much? Communicate much?
    The sun isn't a cause of climate change? Where did you take science?
    Give me a break.
     
  18. GermanSuplex macrumors 6502a

    GermanSuplex

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    #19
    Read what? Science fiction? Trump's report on Global Warming? Communicate? With who? Flat-earthers and global warming deniers? Sorry, the sun's effect and changes take a lot longer to notice than a lifetime, or a hundred.

    To the prom.
     
  19. SteveW928 macrumors 65816

    SteveW928

    Joined:
    May 28, 2010
    Location:
    Victoria, B.C. Canada
    #20
    Ok, sorry to interrupt your trolling. Have a nice day.
     
  20. Micky Do, May 16, 2018
    Last edited: May 16, 2018

    Micky Do macrumors 68000

    Micky Do

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2012
    Location:
    An island in the Andaman Sea.
    #21
    The composition of the atmosphere and its climate has changed continuously over planet Earth's existence (reckoned to be about 4.5 billion years) as a result of geophysical and biological influences. In general change has been gradual, over millennia, with the occasional catastrophic event such as a massive volcanic eruption or a massive incoming meteor.

    Early micro-biological activity in the oceans released oxygen to the atmosphere. To this day there are creatures deep in the oceans and under the earth's crust that do not rely on oxygen and energy from the sun for their existence. In time plants and creatures came to inhabit the land, with plants growing by using photosynthesis to extract carbon from the atmosphere. The oxygen released is used by land and sea dwelling creatures to combine with other nutrients as a source of energy to continue their life cycles....... creating a slowly changing equilibrium in the process.

    Shift one way, and there is some warming as a result of higher levels of carbon dioxide, methane and other gasses that result in global warming. In warmer conditions increased plant growth will consume those gasses, thus shifting the equilibrium the other way. Somewhere along the way, at various stages, vast amounts of living material died, then under the influence of pressure and anaerobic conditions they laid down the deposits of coal and oil. It effectively removed vast amounts of carbon from the system, and to lay down a store of what we now call "fossil fuel".

    Humankind as we know it arrived on the scene a couple of hundred thousand years ago, and scattered around the globe in relatively small numbers. By about 40,000 years ago less than a million of us had spread to inhabit niches over most of the planet. Locally humans may have had some effect on the environment, but not much on a global scale.

    The development of agriculture some 10,000 years ago would have seen the start of human activity having a greater effect on the environment. With a population of only a couple of million or so, relying on natural cycles and local
    resources for their farming systems, they had little effect outside their immediate environment.

    It is only in the past few hundred years that our numbers have increased exponentially. It was only 200 years ago that we reached a billion souls; now we are over 7.5 billion. With that our demands on the environment have increased, as have our economic expectations. With the coming of the industrial revolution we needed more concentrated sources of energy, which we found in the stores of coal, oil and gas, laid down over millions of years. In a relatively few years vast amounts of gasses such as carbon dioxide and methane have been released as a result of human activity, at a faster rate than the natural environment can cope with to maintain an equilibrium.

    Add to that, the development of land use practices in the form of farming and forestry to cater for the rapidly increasing population, and the concentrations of large numbers of people in urban areas (with a corresponding concentration of energy use and waste production).

    Over millions and billions of years, climate change has largely been natural. However in recent times mankind, with ever increasing numbers and expectations, has effectively become a catastrophic event. While climate change is not 100% man made, recent climate change is far from entirely natural.
     
  21. Snoopy4 macrumors 6502a

    Snoopy4

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
  22. SteveW928 macrumors 65816

    SteveW928

    Joined:
    May 28, 2010
    Location:
    Victoria, B.C. Canada
    #23
    How do we know it will be a catastrophic event?

    For example, this is probably good:
    https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

    Catastrophic predictions seem to rely on pretty shaky models that haven't proved to be realistic at all yet.
     
  23. Micky Do, May 16, 2018
    Last edited: May 16, 2018

    Micky Do macrumors 68000

    Micky Do

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2012
    Location:
    An island in the Andaman Sea.
    #24
  24. SteveW928 macrumors 65816

    SteveW928

    Joined:
    May 28, 2010
    Location:
    Victoria, B.C. Canada
    #25
    Please elaborate.
     

Share This Page