What if climate change is more of a natural process than Athropogenic driven?

16 Answers

Relevance
  • 5 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    It would be only reasonable to sane people. I am 75 years old and have seen no climate change. And I am still waiting for someone to define Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change. They haven't even bothered all they have is a bunch of loud mouth Goebbels that are repeating the worthless unscientific crap and people, especially the young, believe it.

    So far we know that Climate Change has happened naturally in the past. No one has proven that man has done anything or even has the power to change a climate.

    Quote by Will Happer, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy: “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism....I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect....Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”

  • 5 years ago

    Even if what we've observed is natural (and there's no indication that it is) then we still have problems:

    1. We still produce CO2. The laws of physics tell us that adding CO2 to the atmosphere must trap additional energy, thereby warming the planet. What that means is that our CO2 emissions will make things worse. You can't get around the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. You can't just wish that away or claim that warming being natural somehow changes the properties of CO2.

    2. If the planet is warming due to some natural process, then what is that process? The fact that it is 'natural' does not mean it is nebulous. By definition, something natural is something we can potentially identify, measure, quantify, and model. In 40 years no one has managed to demonstrate what that process could be. Therefore the 'natural' argument is a speculative argument until identified.

    3. Even if the warming is natural, why does that mean it won't have impacts? Why does that mean that we don't have to plan for the future or mitigate against possible impacts. Tides are natural, but we still have to build flood defenses to deal with the impact. Why would natural warming somehow mean we have to do nothing?

  • 5 years ago

    Most climate change in the planet's history has been completely natural. The biggest climate swings have all been natural. Think of the changes between glacial and inter-glacial periods. All natural and orders of magnitude bigger than anything happening now.

    Even if all the current climate change is man-made then we still have a way to go to catch up with nature. The problem is that the same laws of physics apply now as applied before man arrived so it is safe to say that much of the current situation is entirely natural. What proportion is man-made remains unknown despite the billions of research dollars being spent.

    Whatever the right answer is we need to adapt. That is the only logical solution. If one group of people happen to be right about the cause then we may have another solution but if they are wrong then their solution will not work and we will have to adapt anyway.

    Where is the Precautionary Principle when you need it?

  • 5 years ago

    At this point, does it really matter? We humans are not going to get to the point of using zero fossil fuels in the next several hundred years. So if humans are the cause then we really can't stop it. If it is natural then we really can't stop it. So in the end, what can we do? We adapt. That is what humans are good at and why we have reached over 7 billion of us on the planet. We can adapt our environment to fit our needs. We have built cities below sea level, so there is no reason to worry about sea level rise. Air conditioning has already transformed our population to much warmer climates in the last century. Global warming will actually increase the number of arable acres of land. So in the end, what is the big picture? Will reducing our CO2 output by 25% do anything? Of course not. Is it possible for humans to go to a CO2 output less than were we were in 1900? Ok, maybe it is possible, but not really feasible in the next century or two.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • James
    Lv 5
    5 years ago

    Is this the start of a hypothetical novel like "How would the world be different if the Spanish Armada hadn't been destroyed by storms?" like in a Keith Laumer book or "What if gravity becomes variable?" like in Vonnegut's "Slapstick"? If so then it will just be about mankind coping with something that has happened at a relatively slow pace over the millennia.

    If you're suggesting that scientists have the current climate change wrong, don't bet on it. There is very strong theoretical and observational evidence that most of the current change is anthropogenic.

  • Noah
    Lv 6
    5 years ago

    'Natural' climate change plays out over geological time. Millions of years. This change tracks the rise of the rise of the Industrial Age, 'historical time', and massive burning of fossil fuels is what has made industry possible. From 1830 to now CO2 has risen from 286ppm to 400ppm...less than 200 years. NEVER has that happened since the current continental positions of the world's land masses were established. By mid century the CO2 load will be 450ppm and we can expect a runaway greenhouse effect to happen. I suppose you could say that the 'natural effect' of burning billions of tons of fossil fuels is to saturate the atmosphere with CO2, and what results flow from that are also 'natural'.

  • 5 years ago

    That would mean finding a natural process that's more powerful than the 30 billion tons of fossil CO2 we're putting into the atmosphere yearly, and another one that negates the known effects of that CO2.

  • 5 years ago

    In order for man to control the Climate, environment,etc., he'd have to get rid of nature & nature keeps the ozone where its at. Mike

    Source(s): Logic
  • 5 years ago

    I dont know if yahoo answers is the place to find a climate expert. However climate change is definitely real as a scientific fact.

  • Anonymous
    4 years ago

    That's a good question!

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.