The anthropogenic is definitely controllable. The large-scale natural changes cannot be controlled by man.
The assertion was made by Canadian ecologist Patrick Moore, a member of Greenpeace from 1971 to 1986, to U.S senators.
He told to (the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee): ‘There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.
I think global warming could well be a natural phenomenon. There is plenty of evidence that the planet has experienced extremes of climate in the distant past as well. This could not possibly have been caused by man. We don't fully understand what caused these previous climate changes so how can we be sure it is not for the same reason now?
Obviously this kind of debate is not appropriate for Research Gate! Anthropogenic climate Change is not a question of believe. It is a fact. Also, we do understand very well the causes of climatic changes in earth history, which allows to separate natural and human drivers. Scientists have Access to a plentitude of solid papers on this Topics. So if someone states that he does not understand climatic changes, he shows that he has no touch to science. In this case, it is better to be quiet!
And if someone takes an individual oral statement - such as done above - for disprove and ignores facts, data, and publications that ARE available, such remarks should be uncovered and called what they are: ignorant, desires, wishful dreaming or whatever, but not science or research! So please, please do this debate on conspirators blogs where you find some believers (not scientists) but not in a Research Forum where this kind of satements are just a nuissance! Here is NEITHER the place for ingorance NOR for the obvious economic and political strategies of deniers.
The above answers are enough to tell that the experts on the subject are still debating and discussing and there are differing observations. Though there is agreement to the extent that their exists Global Warming, the point of discussion is whether this is mainly due to natural or man made causes and also the extent of their respective contribution to Global warming. If everything was loud and clear, may be the mitigative measures would have been applied and reduced the effect of Global Warming. One thing is sure that whatever the causes for Global Warming, people are already taking preventive measures by reducing the emission of greenhouse gases; afforestation; fuel efficiency vehicles; etc. This is mainly due to the public awareness created by various agencies on the ill-effects of Global Warming.
The number 1 problem in this debate is the single minded bipolarity: with/against anthropogenic CO2 as THE source of global climate change (I conveniently switched change for warming). This debate shuts down any other rational attempt to point to the existence of other more important factors or to point the absurd political decisions. Examples: "Ethanol is green fuel" results in deforestation for sugar cane cultivation for ethanol to burn in the cars. Net effect: massive reduction in life mass for a net increase in atmospheric CO2 (YES ethanol combustion produces CO2 and water). Now everybody who pretend to adhere to science should keep in mind two numbers: the estimated carbon-mass of life is 4 Giga Tons of carbon. The current atmospheric CO2 contains about 0.7 Giga tons of carbon. A 10% increase of biomass reduces to less than half the atmospheric CO2! few hundred thousands square kilometers of forest could do the in one year (one may consider a growth rate of 15 cords/acre/year). Another example: the intensive agriculture around the Gulf of Mexico dumps millions of tons (sorry about the order of magnitude) of phosphates (spilled fertilizer) in the ocean. This accelerates the algae growth in the superficial layers that trap the solar energy thus increasing the surface temperature and... one gets Irma ! Of course, Irma's trigger was pulled by the atmospheric ionization produced by recent the solar flares. I am not sure as of the effect of Deep Horizon disaster. There are a lot of bacteria that thrive on oil spill. I wonder if Harvey's path hitting Huston was a simple coincidence. YES one doesn't need a Nobel price to do a simple arithmetic; Gore got a Nobel price for failing grade one arithmetic. We should stop thinking "correcting" the climate trends until we become smarter. We should rather focus on the obvious: stop destroying our Mother Earth. We should start with the agriculture. It's essential and has by far the most damaging effect. The current industrial agriculture paradigm wiped out for the debate better alternatives. The current agriculture is fertilizer-hungry, a very large source of CO2 due to the industrial processes involved. The excessive production of meat require large cultivated areas and large refuse areas (that emit large quantities of bio-methane in the atmosphere). Is it really that healthy to eat meat every single day ? And of course, the humans could be wiped out due to externally determined events, solar flares, meteorites, magnetism change (UV may significantly impact life). We may get suicidal too. But, since we self appropriated the title of Sapiens, we may try to avoid disappearing due to ignorance. Let's focus on loving life, not profit. Let's help life under threat of external events (for our sake else life would recover anyway), let's change our focus from technological "toys" to what we are part of not owners of: life.
the answer may not be as simple as the question asked. However, if you study history in more ways than one you will understand that there is a cycle for everything as well as many theories on whether it is getting warmer, can it be avoided or are we going into a second ice age. my recommendation is read through past earth history.
Dear Carl Beierkuhnlein, as regards this statement (Obviously this kind of debate is not appropriate for Research Gate! Anthropogenic Climate Change is not a question of belief. It is a fact. ) holds some high confidence with no practical proof as you know and I know that no one can measure the concentration of CO2 in the globe of Earth simultaneously ( by any means) to declare the value of CO2 and that it is increasing and it is the real reason for Global Warming. Right now it is (a theory), not (a fact). Thanks a lot dear collageous for your valuable comments.
Do you believe that (Global Warming) is a controllable phenomena? or not? why?
Based on to date evidence as shared by Kenneth above, the issue of global warming is out of control phenomena at the moment. This is due to all the people sharing the same globe but with different maturity / awareness on the impact of global warning in their own geographies (people don't feel the pain when they don't get hurt). Unless all of us in this world feel the urge & with a united heart to address the root cause of global warming, just like how we addressed global disease outbreak like SARS etc., then we can stand a chance to control global warming.
“There is plenty of evidence that the planet has experienced extremes of climate in the distant past as well.” Yes, the extreme super-greenhouse effect in the geological past was mostly caused by large-scale CO2 emissions due to volcanism cataclysm, as we know from catastrophic mass extinctions (volcanic summer model – see the included paper). The volcanic activity is relatively minimal todays but this is a “sleeping” hazard...
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309964380_On_the_causes_of_mass_extinctions
If we are living in an inter-glacial time, the climate trend can be reversed in indeterminate future… and its dominantly natural causation would be indeed proved. Of course, only anthropogenic component of the warming feedbacks is a controllable factor.
Article On the causes of mass extinctions
I want to suggest to prevent the Impact of Hurricanes due to correcting the Global Carbon dioxide. through reforestation:
Neeming sub-Saharan helps to reduce the hurricane impact on United States of America
Siva Somasundarama, Eve Ganzea, Ramesh Saxenab and Doudou D Fayec
a) Department of Biology, Salem University, Salem WV 26426 USA
b) Chairman, Neem Foundation India, Mumbai, 400 049, India
c) Founder, Africa Bound Corporation /Senegal Neem foundation, Cedar Creek, TX 78612. USA
The origin of hurricanes from sub-Saharan regions has already been demonstrated by NASA and other climate science technologies. The forecast of hurricanes birth, intensity, path and probable impact on US coastal region has already been established. However, no attempt has been made to reduce the reasons for the genesis of hurricanes. One of the hypotheses provides evidence that the deforestations in the sub-Saharan regions led to the high intensity of hurricane formation.
In this proposed study, we focused on the reforestation of the sub-Saharan regions by US University students through study abroad program. We propose to plant neem trees in 5 West African countries, including Senegal, Mauritania, Mali, Niger and Chad. For this endeavor, a 5-year project life span is planned with the cooperation of the respective five countries and the US government in order to achieve a set goal of planting and maintaining 3 million trees using 60 million US dollars.
This proposal not only introduces more biodiversities to the sub-Saharan West African regions but also provides socio-economic and environmental benefits the people living in these regions including the development of literacy and health care. University of Houston-Victoria will lead the program with other US and sub-Saharan university students. Thus this research will help to reduce the impact of hurricanes and not eradicate the genesis of hurricanes.
Please watch the video as well and support out initiatives.
Present Contact: [email protected]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6e8xnCq1DVs
Dear Somasundaram and Racki, is there any relation between Hurricanes and Global Warming? Our question was ( Do you believe that (Global Warming) is a controllable phenomenon? or not? why? ). Best regards
The link is in that high sea surface temperatures is the main factor that determines that tropical storms on the seas increase in strength to become hurricanes. The hotter the water the more energy there is to build strength of the hurricane. With increasing temperatures there will more frequently be sea temperatures that are high enough to drive hurricane formation and the higher temperatures also means there is more energy to boost the hurricanes strength and size.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_cyclone#Factors
Dear Henrink Rasmus Anderson, if this is the link then according to the GLOBAL WARMING the HURRICANES must occur in all the seas and oceans around the world, and this is not the case. So please review your comment.There are several reasons that cause HURRICANES including temperature rise and fall. Best regards
This is the link, global warming is occurring but hurricanes still only occur in the tropics.
If you read the short overview of the mechanism of forming hurricanes it should be obvious to you why.
After you read it you can review your reasoning. If you cannot see your error move on to explain why hurricanes should occur in temperate and arctic areas following global warming (which is neither expected, nor observed).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_cyclone#Factors
You see your link gives six factors neither of them is related to GLOBAL WARMING. Now I am listing these factors:-
Factors
The formation of tropical cyclones is the topic of extensive ongoing research and is still not fully understood.[55] While six factors appear to be generally necessary, tropical cyclones may occasionally form without meeting all of the following conditions. In most situations, water temperatures of at least 26.5 °C (79.7 °F) are needed down to a depth of at least 50 m (160 ft);[56] waters of this temperature cause the overlying atmosphere to be unstable enough to sustain convection and thunderstorms.[57] Another factor is rapid cooling with height, which allows the release of the heat of condensation that powers a tropical cyclone.[56] High humidity is needed, especially in the lower-to-mid troposphere; when there is a great deal of moisture in the atmosphere, conditions are more favorable for disturbances to develop.[56] Low amounts of wind shear are needed, as high shear is disruptive to the storm's circulation.[56] Tropical cyclones generally need to form more than 555 km (345 mi) or five degrees of latitude away from the equator, allowing the Coriolis effect to deflect winds blowing towards the low-pressure center and creating a circulation.[56] Lastly, a formative tropical cyclone needs a pre-existing system of disturbed weather. Tropical cyclones will not form spontaneously.[56] Low-latitude and low-level westerly wind bursts associated with the Madden-Julian oscillation can create favorable conditions for tropical cyclogenesis by initiating tropical disturbances.[58]
Let the audience read them carefully and tell us who should really review his comment ?
hello
I think it can be controlled by preserving the environment, reducing pollution and conserving natural resources
regards
If we stop using the air as a dump to get rid of our exhaust gases then it can be controlled no doubt.
However, who is going to start respecting our air, water and soil? Only if we educate our new generations from an early age it can be achieved. So, it will take time and in the meantime, the ice will keep melting, the storms, wind, hurricanes, etc will get worse by the day! Guaranteed!
Thanks a lot, dear colleagues Ghawi, Issigonis, and Towe for your powerful answers. Special thanks to Issigonis for your unique answer. Best regards
The question and discussion or debate (?) on the recent climate change or warming of earth surface are quite normal. The scientific community even the common people are highly inquisitive on global warming?
Why it is happening? Is it a natural phenomenon? Or Human activities are responsible? How it can be reduced? ...etc. ...etc.
We get some conclusions on the topic without definite scientific evidences.
Some people refer to the broad consensus (in the scientific community) in favour of the hypothesis that human activities are responsible for global warming. In science, the majority is not the evidence.
Of course, the human activities may have some role locally or region basis. But global warming is a very big issue – nature’s role cannot be neglected, as earth history tells.
The quantity of CO2 generation from natural changes or from human activities is not yet known. So, research and discussion will be active till conclusions based on scientific evidences are arrived.
Regards
Dear Kenneth, I agree that the non-human caused climate change cannot be managed (but can be influenced) by the human. The anthropogenic CO2 is manageable since man can manage his own CO2 emissions. He was able to do that from the beginning. Can you set a fire? Can you choose your energy source? Can you plan the population growth at least in your close family?
Yes, global warming as well as pollution load can be controlled.Biodiversity can also be conserved.
Can be controlled by scientific and state conventions in terms of emission of radiation
Well it certainly is to the extent the warming is happening due to human activities that can be reduced/reversed.
Article Global Warming Mitigation Through Carbon Sequestrations in t...