The climate change refers to the changes in composition of atmosphere by enrichment of green house gases like carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorocarbons which caused the increase of earth surface temperature (global warming).
In the IPCC report, it is mentioned that the global average surface temperature has increased 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century.
It is fact that the anthropogenic activities like burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), various industrial activities, deforestation etc. have contribution in the enhancement of green house gases.
Are the natural processes playing any role in the global warming? If it is so what could be the natural influencing factors?
Dear Asit
You will get your answer from this link. Please go to the link provided below
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Thanks
Some natural influences include milankovitch cycles and solar cycles.
I would search them up for more information.
However it is important to realize that this accelerated rate of climate change has been proven to be caused by advanced global warming through anthropogenic factors.
Amit, the graph on the link you provided shows CO2 content based on ice cores, that as we can see date 400,000 years ago. My question is how sure we are that dating process is ok, that ice is really old that much? From this point in time, we can really say that some layer of ice was created 345,045 years ago? Also, is there any other way to get the same graph but based on some other method, just to confirm that ice core results are correct?
Definitely. There is broad consensus in the scientific community for its anthropogenic causes. You may find interesting reading the file attached which is the report of the meeting between FAO and the IPPC ("FAO-IPCC Expert Meeting on Climate Change, Land Use and Food Security"), published in 2017.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/study-reveals-acceleration-of-sea-level-rise-20055
Technical Report FAO-IPCC Expert Meeting on Climate Change, Land Use and Food...
In last 50-55 years I can easily say there are so many developments like deforestation; construction of roads & buildings; reduction in water bodies through human encroachments; industrial pollution; increased number of motorized vehicles; etc, which are all having negative impact on the environment and in a way contributing to the increase in the atmospheric temperature. All these activities are nothing but the result of increased population and related anthropogenic activity. If these anthropogenic activities are quantified and related with the natural activities like volcanic eruptions; etc, (I don't know whether such quantification is already done) then conclusively one can tell the major contributor to the increased global temperature, even if it is less than 10C.
Dear Asit Kumar Batabyal
Earth's temperature fluctuates naturally over tens of thousands to millions of years. Scientists take these fluctuations into account when they assert that we are currently experiencing unique conditions in Earth's history. Scientists have found only one variable to explain the relatively recent rapidity of global warming: an increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to human activity. By burning fossil fuels, humans have increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by 40 percent since 1950.
In Earth’s history before the Industrial Revolution, Earth’s climate changed due to natural causes not related to human activity. Most often, global climate has changed because of variations in sunlight. Tiny wobbles in Earth’s orbit altered when and where sunlight falls on Earth’s surface. Variations in the Sun itself have alternately increased and decreased the amount of solar energy reaching Earth. Volcanic eruptions have generated particles that reflect sunlight, brightening the planet and cooling the climate. Volcanic activity has also, in the deep past, increased greenhouse gases over millions of years, contributing to episodes of global warming. It's true that life on Earth can generally cope well with gradual change. But the current warm up, and the speed at which it is happening is unprecedented. In a few decades scientists have noted a sharp rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide in correlation with a global temperature increase—changes that would normally occur over tens of thousands to millions of years. These accelerated changes challenge the ability to live things—plants, animals, and humans—to adapt and ultimately survive rapidly shifting environmental conditions.
Climate change and global warming is literally a hot topic and thus a lot of controversies is related to it. Please see the attached articles.
http://www.sintef.no/globalassets/upload/teknologi_og_samfunn/teknologiledelse/sintef-report-a24071-consensus-and-controversy.pdf
https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_society_Content/policy/publications/2007/8031.pdf
I feels it is resultant of both..
If we go against nature, definitely we need to face irreversible consequences..
"Consensus without evidence" !!?? Really great observation. It is similar to "Agree to Disagree". May be this is the reason why so many people comfortably participating everywhere in discussions and deliberations on the topic, as no body is questioning or demanding the EVIDENCE. Sorry if I am wrong.
Dear Asit,
In recent years scientists have gone through quite a lot of trouble to prove that climate change is real, and there is indeed a well-educated consensus about it. The evidence is so clear that many climate change deniers have had to change their tactics: The skeptics now agree the planet is warming up but disagree on the fact that we are to blame for rising temperatures. I am not saying the climate would not change due to natural causes as well, but we definitely have a hand in it: There is a clear correlation between growing emissions and temperature. Please refer to some of the links I have provided.
The problem today is that you can find all kinds of false information out there, and the trustworthiness of real science has decreased in the eyes of the public. But even if we, for a split second, ignore climate change altogether and just focus on aspects that we do see in our everyday lives, such as air pollution in big cities, we still have plenty of reasons to promote green energy! So why not support something that is clearly good for us directly, and might, on the off chance, help in mitigating a major climate catastrophe? Fossil fuels are so last century!
https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html
http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf
I fully agree that than debating on the topic of climate change (whether it is real or hoax), the activities which are happening leading to pollution of our atmosphere and hydrosphere need to be addressed with utmost importance & urgency. There are already some attempts towards the same in terms of application of alternate energy sources; reduction in fuel consumption by pooling of vehicles or using public transport; monitoring of industrial pollution & in-situ treatments; afforestation; etc., but these and many more mitigative measures need to be adopted, that too with full support and cooperation of Government & the Public, for achieving the larger goal of cleaner & safer environment.
Kenneth, I agree with all what you said about climate change and CO2, but the problem of the population growth is not directly related to the number of people but rather indirectly, in the way the people live.
Earth is capable to sustain at least 10 times more people than it is now. If you give to everybody on earth 0.1 ha of land (1,000 square meters, 10 m x 100 m), current 7.442 billion people would occupy space of 744,200,000 ha (note that this is a horizontal projection of the land!), or everybody on earth can live in Australia (area of 769,200,000 ha, have a house, animals, and land to grow crops (or organise life in any other way). So overpopulation or population growth is not a problem. Problem is our way of life. This is what we need to face in future: empty cities - homeless people; trillions of dollars on accounts of few people - live through a day with 1 dollar; use of fossil fuels - free sun and water energy; tans of waste food - hunger, millions for wars and weapons - change for culture and education; recycling - damping; politician salaries - teacher salaries; erosion, deforestation, and desertification - planting trees....and so on and on..stil thinking about overpopulation?
Ok, population growth is a problem, but tell me how can we deal with such problem?
Forbidding people to have babies, like Chinese government did? Is that attack on people freedom, or not?
Ok, a touch of sarcasm, I don't mind. However, let me ask you this; you say (quote) implementing a rigorous population policy is a good solution, perhaps, but for whom?
On the picture under (Capture), you can see fertility rate, total (births per woman) by countries, I took data from world bank site (in attachment). You have two tables, one with poor third world countries, countries in Africa and Arab countries where one woman gives birth from 4 to 7 children, and another table with developed countries where the fertility rate is less than 2. So, just by following what you said, whose is to blame for CO2 emissions, and climate change, poor countries of course. These countries are producing most of the people, by doing so contributing the population growth. In addition they have the lowest carrying capacity? Where rigorous population policy should be introduced? Third world countries, of course!
Based on the world fertility data I made a simple graph with a forecast for the period after 2015 (Capture 1). Based on this, we are already doing a great job! The number of children per woman is decreasing and if remains in current trend until 2060 we will have 2 children per woman. In other words stable population. Problem solved!?
Now a little bit of sarcasm. Meanwhile, somewhere in the West highly esteemed gentlemen are sitting in comfortable leather armchairs and while drinking 40-year-old whisky thinking of banning people in Afrika to have children all for the sake of humanity.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN/
dear
The global climate change that has caused and will cause many environmental disasters is due to the activities of the major industrialized nations that are destroying the planet because of its economic ambitions.
regards
Climate change or global warming is definitely due to anthropogenic activities like increase of population density, industrialization/ deforestation/ pollution of atmosphere due to emission of gases causing enhanced green house effect.
Kenneth....I believe that if is clear that it is CO2 excess that is causing global warming, and, on the other hand, man has in the last decades dramatically increased CO2 emissions, it is more than likely that human activity is causing the warm-up
Dear Asit,
The anthropogenic activities majorly contributing the GHGs in the atmosphere but, what about the natural sources like volcanic eruptions? What about the methane gas, released from wetlands? What about the CO2 which is released from the sedimentary basins? What about the continuous degassing of magma? Is there any organisation other than IPCC for regular monitoring of natural GHG emissions? your comments and suggestions are welcome.
Dear all,
The quarries of Mr. Muzzafar Ahmad Sheikh on the release of CO2, CH4 etc. from natural processes are really interesting. This indicates that the ‘nature’ is also contributing GHGs in the atmosphere.
But the most important questions are:
1) Quantity of emissions of GHGs from natural processes or anthropogenic activities. I don’t know whether any specific study on this topic has been carried out or not. Such type of studies only can throw some light on the proportions of release of GHGs in the atmosphere by nature and human activities.
It can be mentioned, that locally (at some highly industrial zones) a correlation is observed between CO2 emission and temperature increase.
2) Is the enrichment of CO2 in atmosphere (either by nature or human activities) ‘only responsible’ for warming earth’s surface globally?
OR
3) Is ‘warming earth surface’ a natural phenomenon?
The explanation may be the processes or changes in the earth’s interior! Because, if we see the history of earth from its origin (about 4.5 billion years) – earth has undergone with quite a lot of changes and with various climates, hot or cold.
The questions are highly relevant in the context of present climate changes (though temperature increase is only about 1oC). Earth is the only planet, where living creatures exist (so far known). Therefore, we have to save our beautiful world (though we have no control on the natural incidents).
Good discussion has been started on the topic. Thanks to the researchers who have already addressed the question.
There may be different hypothesis, opinions or beliefs in the explanations. The problem is related to a planet - direct evidence is really a problem; but there may be indirect evidences in favor of the opinions.
I hope we will get a comprehensive knowledge from the researchers on the raised question/s.
Regards
Dr. Kenneth,
Sir - I was expecting your comments.
I have used " though we have no control on the natural incidents" - to indicate the partial impacts on climate (from late 19th century) due to natural variations.
What is your opinion? The 'climate change (as observed from 19th century)' is totally a natural phenomenon?
If it is our opinion- then how to explain ? Again question of objective evidences!
- Regards
Dr. Kenneth,
Please provide a little bit of details - What you are trying to stop? The present endeavour to minimize the CO2 of atmosphere? Sorry, if I am wrong.
Please take it in soft way. In all discussions, the majority was in favour of anthropogenic activities. But, I am doubtful on the conclusions. For a worker (in earth science and related fields), this is very tough to believe. Because, the history says that the earth's climate as a whole was controlled by natural processes. This has inclined me to believe that the nature should have some contribution in the recent climate change.
- Regards
Combined Causes of Climate Change!. Urban climate change may be highly dominated to climate change due to so called greenhouse gases!!
I wanted to add something.
Climate Change is largely due to Natural Factors than due to anthropogenic factors. Even if there are no humans at all climate change continues to occour and so has been the case in the past. There is a cycle of climate change that has been gradually taking place in the past and usually it is hundreds of thousands of years long. Anthropogenic climate change, however, is a new concept which, on the basis of statistical evidence, that we Humans have significantly altered (accelerated) the process. However, from a physicist or statisticians perspective, the threats as shown by data aren't as severe as many other environmentalists believe it to be. They do believe that there is a possibility of anthropogenic climate change to have a devastating effect on earth but the data has to testify yet.
Climate change is not only the anthropogenic phenomenon but also a natural one. Due to change in natural activities like volcanic eruption, tectonics, change in topographic features sudden meteorite fall etc. It is well known that climate changed cyclically when human being was not existed.
Dr. Kenneth,
The documents (regarding geoengineering to counteract climate change and probable side effects) you provided are really educative.
This is the answer - "What you are trying to stop? "
I heartily thank you - Dr. Asit
Aleš Kralj - I appreciate your comments.
I hundred percent agree with this view - 'Natural fluctuation and climate change are highly correlated or in other words nature is responsible for climate change' .
Surface and subsurface signatures of the earth confirm this view. We have to only understand those signatures.
Still I will ask you the same question: The climate change (as observed from late 19th century)' is totally a natural phenomenon? No influence of anthropogenic activities even at regional scale?
Please specific reply - 'Both responsible' or 'only nature'.
Thanks and regards
Dear Sushant,
Very good reply. I support your view. Are you a earth science student? Or studied earth's history?
Keep it up.
I will ask you the same question. The climate change (as observed from late 19th century)' is totally a natural phenomenon? No influence of anthropogenic activities even at regional scale?
Please specific reply - 'Both responsible' or 'only nature'.
(Evidence in support of your view - I like to preserve).
Thanks and good wishes
Mr. Shukra Raj Paudel and Professor Dr. Md.Sultan-Ul- Islam - Thanks for your comments.
Additional question to all readers:
The climate change (as observed from late 19th century)' is totally a natural phenomenon? No influence of anthropogenic activities even at regional scale?
Please specific reply - 'Both responsible' or 'only nature'
(Scientific logic in favour of your view is requested)
Dr .Kenneth,
Sir - Highly impressive description. I will read tomorrow again for complete understanding. Regards
Dr.Kenneth
"And, don't forget all of our added urban heat ........................................................... ..............................................................................Thus, it’s not simple to sort out the effects of people on climate, other than to know that “we” can cause AGW and can affect local climate change by living bunched up together and even out in rural areas. We cannot create 'cooling' by reburying CO2."
Excellent !!!
I request all to read.
Thanks and regards
The question is do we have global warming or it is normal conditions. I am sure that our earth system try to keep the climate normal and what anomalies we record it just a way that our earth deal with upnormal human being behaviour. So nobody should even think about this topic at all. Earth will care and our life will continue.
I think the question shall first be segregated. The concept of Global Warming and Climate Change shouldn't be twingled. The quantifiable effect of anthropogenic and natural sources on global warming and climate change shall be distinctly studied.
For information and reading - Prof. Wyss W.-S. Yim has carried out a study on the climate of Hong Kong considering the climatic data from 1884-2016.
This is very interesting work and relevant to the present question.
The document is available in ResGate (link is given below)
- Regards
Presentation Hong Kong's climatic record 1884-2016: A new interpretation
Natural processes are an important factor in global warming, but this is a slow process, what happens with anthropogenic activities, is that they are acting something like a catalyst since it is accelerating global warming (in a relatively time carbon dioxide concentrations of more than 410 ppm have been achieved). One of the natural processes is the volcanic activities that affect not only global warming but also the thinning of the ozone layer.
Dear colleagues, what did happen in the 80s with climate; why the sudden change in temperature compared to the relatively stable period 1950 – 1980? What significantly changed compared to the period from the 1940s to 1980s? Is there suddenly more cars and factories, The Green Revolution, or suddenly the number of humans increased? Or, Earth had some kind of protection system that went off in the eighties?
As you all know, whether globally and locally (change is noticeable even on local stations such as Sarajevo) start to change drastically after 1980 (CO2 has a steady increase since the 1940s). If we can determine what happened (like we can assume that industrial revolution and even World War II cased global warming in the period from 1920 – 1940), we can understand who is to blame, nature or humans.
The only drastic change that happened in that period, as I can think of is a collapse of USSR and similar regimes.
Dear Sabrija Čadro,
Thanks for the valuable images, you attached. These are highly informative.; clearly show the details about rise of temperature and CO2.
The third one is the report from NASA. Where the first two figures were published?
Regards
First one I made (it is not published anywhere), based on average annual temperature for my hometown Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Eastern Europe (data source: B&H meteorological Institute). It clearly shows a drastic change in temperature in the 80s even in the local level. Same results I get from any other station in Bosnia, urban or rural (If you are interested I can add graphs).
Second one: http://www.globalchange.gov/browse/reports/climate-change-impacts-united-states-third-national-climate-assessment-0
Kenneth, compared to what they told in the 1990s, a highest annual average temperature in Sarajevo (same for the whole B&H) was in 2014, 11.65 degrees Celsius (taking in consideration the whole recorded period from 1890 until 2016).
Average annual temperature for different periods:
1930 - 1950 -> 9.69
1950 - 1980 -> 9.65
1980 - 2000 -> 9.84
2000 - 2016 -> 10.70
So, the change between the 30s and now is almost 1 oC!
In provided youtube link you can follow a monthly temperature difference compared to period 1901 - 1950.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5KMuzc52Mw
Dr.Kenneth,
The graph (attached image) shows an increasing trend of temperature from 1973 (59.31oF) to 1990 (59.81 oF) along with increase of CO2. A direct correlation of increase of temperature and CO2.
Is it not the the evidence of human activities for carbon emission and temperature increase?
- Regards
"......no confirmation of imminent threatening heat". Yes, it is right at least what we observed up to 2016.
But, if it is projected (considering the same rate of increase of temp) up to 2070 (another 50 years), the temp increase will be in the range of 1.5 to 2oC. Rise of about 2o temp may have major impacts on climate.
- Regards
Dear ResearchGate Colleagues,
The climate change or global warming is recently a hot topic of discussion. The scientific community even the common people are highly inquisitive on global warming?
Is it a natural phenomenon? or Human activities are responsible? How it can be reduced?
The "natural variations" like variations in sunlight/solar energy reaching Earth, alterations of tiny wobbles in Earth’s orbit, the jet streams, the ENSO, the NAO, volcanic activity etc. are controlling the Earth’s temperature since thousands/millions of years. Surface and subsurface signatures of the earth confirm this view. It is right that the global temperature fluctuations due to natural variations cannot be regulated; it is beyond our control.
The emission of CO2 due to anthropogenic activities which was started from 18th century (Industrial activities - first in Britain and then spread to others parts of the world) flourished from the late 19th century. The burning of fossil fuels, have increased CO2 in the atmosphere about 40% since1950 and the accelerated rate of climate change has been observed from the end of 20th century.
The nature may have also contribution in the recent warming. Though, the quantity of contribution is not yet known, but it may be presumed from some industrial zones that the human activities have played the major role in the recent climate change or warming at least region basis.
The warming due to human activities can be minimized or reduced. It depends on our true willingness.
The measures can be reduction in energy consumption, transition from fossil fuels to renewable sources for energy and environment friendly development (urbanization/industrialization).
What do you say?
Regards
Please why people are dealing on temperature raise? When we talk about Tsunamis, we remember climate variability. Weather coldness or hotness, we have already started to perceiving something unfavorable climate. Isn't this a sign of global change? Haven't global warming a direct impact on melting of polar ice and raise of sea level? Generally, climate is not as comfortable as before
Thanks to Birhanu Iticha and Aleš Kralj for their valuable comments. Hope to see more comments from Dr.Kenneth and other researchers on this topic.
Regards
Though global warming is predominantly caused by anthropogenic factors, natural factors may also cause global warming. Global warming is caused by greenhouse gases that includes methane (CH4). When natural disasters like volcanoes erupt, there is release of methane and other gases to the atmosphere. So, this CH4 is the most serious greenhouse gas.
Dear Dr. Kenneth, what about the following natural causes of global warming:
Ruminant digestion by domestic livestock, volcanic eruption discharging CO2, aerosols such as volcanic ash or dust, sulfur dioxide. In violent eruptions, volcanoes release ash particles and SO2 into the atmosphere. What about El Nino?
Dear Dr. Kenneth, ...smile.
In fact, it is very challenging to bring tangible evidence for such issue still under debate. Many scientists and organizations did not agree about natural or man-made cause of global warming. But I have to take one side that anthropogenic factors are the main causes. If we consider natural causes that I mentioned above, they are rare. Human factors like burning of fossil fuel, industries, automotives, cultivation of rice, deforestation, etc are very wide ranging and common. As a result, the amount of greenhouse gases emitted from man-made causes is high. Besides, scientists were also able to track CO2 in the atmosphere from carbon signature whether it is from natural or human source? Some scientists claim natural factor as the major causes referring the sun as the cause. Did the energy emitted by sun increase? Did the surface area of sun increases? I don't know. But we know one thing. There is more emission of carbon to atmosphere by anthropogenic factors.
Further information, let me here from you
Dear Dr. Kenneth,
Honest statements and vital questions ..... (from Mr. Birhanu Iticha).
What's your comment?
Regards
Dear Birhanu,
Probably, Dr. Kenneth is busy. Please read the previous comments of Dr. Kenneth and others concerning this question (Climate change ......... activities?).
You may get answers of some of your questions. For the rest, we have to wait for Dr. Kenneth's valuable comments.
Regards
Dear Dr. Sagar,
You have covered most important things in a comprehensive way. Global warming is becoming a real threat to life on the earth. I don't think why some scientists do not believe this issue while elder farmers are telling that they are perceiving change of earth's climate and dealing that earth is becoming uncomfortable from time to time comparing to the one they knew some 60-70 years back. Global warming is real. But the main question leting us to debate is the major causes. Dear Dr. Sagar, in your statement "Variations in the sun itself have alternatively increased or decreased the amount of solar energy reaching earth", what did you mean? Do you mean the solar energy emitted from the sun alternatively increase or decrease? If yes, I don't agree here. The intensity of sun energy did not increase or decrease, but fluctuation in sun energy reaching earth depends on the thickness of Ozone (O3), cloudiness, presence of aerosols in the atmosphere, and other dust particles. If these constituents were high in the atmosphere at a time, the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth decrease. Greenhouse gases protects the solar energy reflected back to atmosphere from the earth, absrb it and accumulate heat between earth-atmosphere interference raising earth's temperature.
Thanks.
Repeating talking points: who said what about the climate will never advance climate science beyond the current stale-mate.... there are vast amounts of data available today which can be accessed and analyzed by anyone who cares to understand the climate.
The climate system is not some simple mechanism that resembles a relay race: natural variability does not stop to hand the batton to anthropogenic forcing!
The reason some scientist and their multitude of echoers are stuck on one tiny component of the climate system (CO2) seems to be partly because of the immense complexity inherent of the climate system, of which minds unaccustomed with with complex systems and thinking, may not be able to fathom.
Another reason is this concept of 'science industrial complex' where some scientists adhere to popular positions because of the financial (research funds) and other benefits involved, rather than scientific integrity...
The climate machine is driven by the interaction between solar irradiance, ocean circulation and atmospheric feedbacks, predominant water vapour and clouds, and to a lesser extent, CO2 (positive and negative feedback loops). These drive changes to weather and climate daily, monthly, annually, and at decadal, multidecadal and centennial timescales.
For multivariate data sets, see
http://apdrc.soest.hawaii.edu/index.php
Cheers
Dear Dr.Kenneth, I will try to put evidences for what I post. That is is good comment.
Dear Dr.Kenneth,
The compilation of FAQs related to climate is attached. This is an extract from "Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2007) - Contribution of Working Group I"
The compendium is relatively good for general awareness on climate.
Do you have confidence on the explanations provided in the said report/compilation? I request your expert comments; others may also provide their valuable comments.
Regards
Dr.Kenneth,
As a passionate environment worker, I having interest to know climate though it is highly complicated subject. I saw that the reports (IPCC) are giving answers to many questions - I placed the same for your opinion.
Thanks for your comments and attachments.
Regards
Dear Dr. Ales Kralj,
Read a part of comment of Birhanu Itcha " .........elder farmers are telling that they are perceiving change of earth's climate and dealing that earth is becoming uncomfortable from time to time comparing to the one they knew some 60-70 years back".
I have also heard this type of comments in my City - Durgapur (An industrial City in Eastern India). Elders pass remarks that the climate of Durgapur was better in the past than the present. Sometimes, I also fell like that, because I have been brought up in this City.
On the contrary, your statement has also logic! " ..........dynamics of our numbers which are still growing. The moment climate will impose such change that there will be substantial discomfort on average, our numbers will decline".
So, specific scientific investigations are required.
Regards