In comparison of man to the amount of energy and unpredictability of nature, there is no comparison.  However, although no match for nature in size comparison, man has been a busy agent of change.  Pound for pound, man is a tough competitor as an agent of change.  The problem is small changes if sustained over time and trending toward exponential increase, major adjustments may eventually occur if not checked.  If the ocean current engine falters or sputters due to too much freshwater from glacial melt, we may get more change than we bargained for.  

One problen is for many believing the ant (man) may be altering the earth in temperature change faster than historical and geological temperature trends suggest possible, and there is some expectation that a damage control cycle is ready to save earth, offset the change and make things right.  Some just will not believe science.  

Somewhere in the Researchgate questions is one on climate change.  It has an amazing number of responses that is worthwhile for climate change enthusiasts. 

Hello Ijaz, 

People have made a mistake by using fossil (remains of our ancestors, like digging up our old relatives) fuels as a source of energy. The majority of the gases produced by burning are contributing to the greenhouse effect, which give TREMENDOUS power to the air making weather phenomena extreme. If you don't like a 100 km/hour wind, be happy before you see a 150 km/hr one and so on. There are NO upper limits.

The trouble starts at the ocean that gets warmer and evaporates more. When water vapour turns into a cloud it releases an awful amount of energy into the air. One cannot stop that. The weather phenomena are themselves telling us enough is enough, but people do not understand weather phenomena, it is a puzzle to them. So, they keep "polluting" the air with greenhouse gases.

The solution is easy, educate children at school and you see the changes in human perception soon enough.

Nature has been doing its job over last millions of years and nobody judged whether that was good or bad. When we came upon Earth, we not only started exploiting the nature (without cohabiting with it) but also we began manipulating it, passing out judgements of good and bad, with scant regard to the rest who shares the Earth. Now we know that the man hasn't even worried about the rest of the mankind, or those who would follow him, just him. So, your question is too open: how you judge the change. If I am to judge, I would not judge the nature since it does not live off the Earth. It is an impartial player. With respect to the man, he had done some good changes, but that is now overwhelmed with so many horrible changes, that he himself is under threat of extinction.

In comparison of man to the amount of energy and unpredictability of nature, there is no comparison.  However, although no match for nature in size comparison, man has been a busy agent of change.  Pound for pound, man is a tough competitor as an agent of change.  The problem is small changes if sustained over time and trending toward exponential increase, major adjustments may eventually occur if not checked.  If the ocean current engine falters or sputters due to too much freshwater from glacial melt, we may get more change than we bargained for.  

One problen is for many believing the ant (man) may be altering the earth in temperature change faster than historical and geological temperature trends suggest possible, and there is some expectation that a damage control cycle is ready to save earth, offset the change and make things right.  Some just will not believe science.  

Somewhere in the Researchgate questions is one on climate change.  It has an amazing number of responses that is worthwhile for climate change enthusiasts. 

 Dear Mr. Ijaz,

There are several factors which considered to be responsible of climatic change or global warming , many of them are detectable which are: increase of CO2 emitted by artificial human activities, Methan gas emitted from oceans,  gases emitted from burning the fossil fuel and its different types, nuclear power projects disposals to ecological system.

Some of factor which I expect to be hidden like: weakening Ozone layer of atmosphere due to changes in  earths magnetic shield according to the geomagnetic dynamo theory, where magnetic shield starts to get weaker and permits cosmic and UV rays to pass more through this shield to increase the planet atmospheric temperature., the heat and transmitted gases from oceanic and continental volcanoes. and Astronomic interpretations related to Sun explosions and changes in its magnetic field.

I hope these information would be helpful for you.

Best Regards.

Dr. wadhah M. Shakir 

Dear Ijaz,

I think Humans-Vs-Nature Climate Change is a great classic debate. Neigther IPCC deals with this issue, given the accent on human impact versus natural oscillation. As a geomorphologist, I cannot assign ONE responsible for CLIMATE, ENVIRONMENT and LANDSCAPE change over (ONLY) the last century. In my opinion, climate reacts slower to human forcings than landscape (engineering works, barriers, river corrections, urbanisation, mining, wars...) or environment (pollution, soil contamination, deforestation, nuclear tests, ...) do and definetly with different magnitudes

As William wrote, the ants are, pound by pound, altering the global cycles impacting the Earth systems. I personally find it difficult to believe that climate change, wether due to humans or nature, affects landscape and environment with the same pace as humans do to them (with the exception of low-lying atolls and sea level rise). I may be wrong.

However, in my opinion, there is no doubt that no bigger force than Humans exists in impacting landscape and environmental change, especially from industrialisation on. In the other hand, I left open the debate on wether nature or humans are driving climate change, which in the LONG TERM (not in 100 years) will certainly lead to landscape and environmental change.

Nic

Mankind, for sure.