Are there any reputable claims or consensus on the breakdown of climate change that identify both nature and man's influence?

The vast majority of studies just use vague words like "influences" "contributes to" "causes" etc. The original environmentalism had quantifiable metrics like animal population, habitat acreage, water/air purity, littering estimates, etc. Now we have this climate change religion with basically no quantifiable way to reliably measure man's contribution. Are we to believe nature recently became completely static? Those variables that caused ice ages and extinction events are no longer impacting climate?

If there are any credible calculations that have been made to show both nature and man, please share. Google isn't giving me much.....


This article says 100% man. So how did climate change before man?
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans/#:~:text=Humans%20emissions%20and%20activities%20have,(IPCC)%20fifth%20assessment%20report.

This article has the question in title, but doesn't answer the question. Just says 70% of severe weather events caused by man.
https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-how-much-of-climate-change-is-natural-how-much-is-man-made-123604

This article says 74%
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2011.9538
https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-how-much-of-climate-change-is-natural-how-much-is-man-made-123604

I suppose if there is consensus on a formula and % breakdown, then the problem could potentially be managed and improved. But if no way to measure, the alarm can be sounded indefinitely or until climate becomes completely static.

So in summary, climate change is like systematic racism. Both "problems", that if solved, would eliminate certain commercial industries and political parties.

The correct percentage:

100% political.

Science is settled..

The tell is that not only is the "science settled" as to Climate Change in general...any criticism of attendent policy prescription is also labeled denialism.

I have been asking this very thing for years.

"What % of this change is natural and what % of this is man made----?"

I have NEVER read to articles by any two scientists that agree on the %.


Why?


Because it's all BULL S***.......

the science is so settled that they changed the name from global warming to climate change. don't deny the science.

The only reputable numbers are 100% natural, 0% man made.

Assuming CO2 is most of what's causing whatever it is they claim to be measuring, then you could track the historical rate of change of CO2 levels over 100 year periods and compare to the last 100 years. That's fairly quantifiable.

If you exclude those comprised of or funded by political wealth, the results get more interesting and easier to explain. Science has long attributed much of climate to the Sun's activities and even shifts of the magnetic pole as well as the cycles of glacier advance and retreat associated with the Ice Ages. That pollution of the air might be able to `step it up' fractionally slightly seems reasonable enough.

Nothing to justify things like bans on fertilizer and the rich seeking to starve people around the world.

99.98% nature 0.02% man. We absolutely have an impact but to think that we can drastically alter the climate around us is laughable at best. The best example was May 2020, when India locked down, the smog cleared and they could see the mountains for the first time after like 5 days of no driving

That Tonga volcano back in January was a one time global warmer according to the scientific establishment. I doubt your Suburban can do anything close to it:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/tongas-volcanic-eruption-blasted-an-enormous-plume-of-water-vapor-into-the-atmosphere-180980538/

Clob94 said:

---

I have been asking this very thing for years.

"What % of this change is natural and what % of this is man made----?"

I have NEVER read to articles by any two scientists that agree on the %.


Why?


Because it's all BULL S***.......

---

Unfortunately you'll never get a straight answer because it is all politically driven. Years ago, I watched a show about environmental issues. One scientist pointed to lead in the atmosphere etc. Once the US changed from leaded fuel, regular gasoline, the ppm measured dropped significantly. His point is man has the ability to change things. He came from a straight science angle which was refreshing.

14,000 years ago the midwest was completely covered in glacial ice. Humans burning fossil fuels will never have that kind of impact on the landscape.

I can see how building subdivisions on cornfields can increase flooding. Or how pouring asphalt on a city can increase heat and storm intensity. But those aren't the rational discussions. You either have faith in an ambiguous global climate villain, or you are a "science denier".

The "experts" hired to rep climate change steer clear of these type of questions. They are paid to repeatedly demand it is irrefutable until society accepts it as such.

I'm just a medical doctor but I would estimate 90-95% natural.

Michael Crichton had some really interesting points about the "science" of climate change.

Michael Crichton Is Right! | Heartland Institute

UTExan said:

---

That Tonga volcano back in January was a one time global warmer according to the scientific establishment. I doubt your Suburban can do anything close to it:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/tongas-volcanic-eruption-blasted-an-enormous-plume-of-water-vapor-into-the-atmosphere-180980538/

---

It literally says the opposite- "This is just a temporary warming, and then it will go back to whatever it was supposed to go back to," Milln, the lead author on the study, tells the Washington Post's Kasha Patel. "It's not going to exacerbate climate change."

Manhattan said:

---

UTExan said:

---

That Tonga volcano back in January was a one time global warmer according to the scientific establishment. I doubt your Suburban can do anything close to it:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/tongas-volcanic-eruption-blasted-an-enormous-plume-of-water-vapor-into-the-atmosphere-180980538/

---

It literally says the opposite- "This is just a temporary warming, and then it will go back to whatever it was supposed to go back to," Milln, the lead author on the study, tells the Washington Post's Kasha Patel. "It's not going to exacerbate climate change."

---

Now try using logic and apply the same to any man made if truly applicable or measurable.

I'll help you. He has to defend natural occurring Co2 emissions because that would kill their narrative and nature, somehow, absorbs and rebalance the natural but doesn't man made? Co2 is Co2.

Crenshaw recently had a VERY good discussion about this on his Podcast. Again, I know he's not the most popular person on this board but his podcast is WELL worth the listen. He brings experts from a wide variety of subjects on and just has conversations with them about their area of expertise.

June 30th episode...

Quote:

---

Facts vs Alarmism: What's Climate Science Really Telling Us? | Steven Koonin
Theoretical physicist Steven Koonin covers what the latest climate science actually tells us versus what alarmists want us to believe about everything from melting ice caps to extreme weather events. We end the conversation with an overview of Steven's other domain of expertise: multiverses!

Steven Koonin is the author of Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What it Doesn't, and Why it Matters. From 2009 to 2011, he was Under Secretary for Science at the Department of Energy in the Obama administration.

---

We Hold These Truths With Dan Crenshaw -- June 30

Quote:

---

99.98% nature 0.02% man. We absolutely have an impact but to think that we can drastically alter the climate around us is laughable at best. The best example was May 2020, when India locked down, the smog cleared and they could see the mountains for the first time after like 5 days of no driving

---

'Member when the ozone layer was the most important environmental crisis?
I 'member.

Manhattan said:

---

UTExan said:

---

That Tonga volcano back in January was a one time global warmer according to the scientific establishment. I doubt your Suburban can do anything close to it:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/tongas-volcanic-eruption-blasted-an-enormous-plume-of-water-vapor-into-the-atmosphere-180980538/

---

It literally says the opposite- "This is just a temporary warming, and then it will go back to whatever it was supposed to go back to," Milln, the lead author on the study, tells the Washington Post's Kasha Patel. "It's not going to exacerbate climate change."

---

I will say this though, the weather people on my Twitter timeline have been spouting every other day about this being the hottest June/July on record and pumping up something has to be done about climate change. One of them even posted about the Tonga volcano having the opposite effect than what they thought it would.

If the Tonga volcano is a temporary warming and things will go back to whatever it was supposed to go back to, maybe that accounts for June/July. No weather person on the timeline would propose that line of thought though.

Also, if the Tonga volcano had the opposite effect than what they though it would, maybe we just don't know as much about how factors effect the Earth as we think we do.

That weather dude will be back shortly to educate us idiots. Although I never got my questions answered in the last thread I guess it has to be 99.78% man because he was so sure of it.

I've often thought it funny that they had to change the name from global warming to climate change because the globe wasn't quite warming like they thought and all of those Time magazine icecap melting predictions were off time after time, yet, they use climate change to talk about the globe getting warmer in almost all instances.

Some good marketing people working in the field of weather I guess.

Matters not. God is in control. Always has been, always will be.

You can see natural climate change by looking at pre industrial history and see human climate change by looking at the current climate and finding the difference of the 2. Obviously, human activity has accelerated climate change. There is no other plausible explanation.

titan said:

---

If you exclude those comprised of or funded by political wealth, the results get more interesting and easier to explain. Science has long attributed much of climate to the Sun's activities and even shifts of the magnetic pole as well as the cycles of glacier advance and retreat associated with the Ice Ages. That pollution of the air might be able to `step it up' fractionally slightly seems reasonable enough.

Nothing to justify things like bans on fertilizer and the rich seeking to starve people around the world.

---

Like when Exxon did a bunch of studies and found out they were destroying the environment, so they decided to cover it up?

DarkBrandon0111 said:

---

You can see natural climate change by looking at pre industrial history and see human climate change by looking at the current climate and finding the difference of the 2. Obviously, human activity has accelerated climate change. There is no other plausible explanation.

---

Couldn't be a combination of inaccurate measurements from before the industrial revolution and more accurate temperature reading apparatuses.

What should the temp of the Earth be?

Bet people near the Midwest were super concerned the earth would no longer exist when the ice covering the Midwest began melting.

100% God

0% man

Only a self important, narcissistic nut job believes that they can change the climate.

We know the temperature of the Earth back to 500 Million years ago using today's instruments. Read this article. There is not much of a problem with climate gradually changing over time. The problem comes when this change is accelerated by human activity. This is what is currently happening. The last mini ice age was right before the industrial revolution and the current global average temperature is rising ten times faster than what it naturally should when exiting an ice age.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

It's impossible to get exact numbers because climate is complex and controlled by a plethora of variables. But what we do know is that human activity DOES have a SIGNIFICANT effect on it.

Just because you can't count all of the raindrops doesn't mean it's not raining.

DarkBrandon0111 said:

---

titan said:

---

If you exclude those comprised of or funded by political wealth, the results get more interesting and easier to explain. Science has long attributed much of climate to the Sun's activities and even shifts of the magnetic pole as well as the cycles of glacier advance and retreat associated with the Ice Ages. That pollution of the air might be able to `step it up' fractionally slightly seems reasonable enough.

Nothing to justify things like bans on fertilizer and the rich seeking to starve people around the world.

---

Like when Exxon did a bunch of studies and found out they were destroying the environment, so they decided to cover it up?

---

That could be an example of politicized science results, yes. Need the wealth divested from the top if they are going to try to impose such cutbacks. Should drop to middle class level.

DarkBrandon0111 said:

---

titan said:

---

If you exclude those comprised of or funded by political wealth, the results get more interesting and easier to explain. Science has long attributed much of climate to the Sun's activities and even shifts of the magnetic pole as well as the cycles of glacier advance and retreat associated with the Ice Ages. That pollution of the air might be able to `step it up' fractionally slightly seems reasonable enough.

Nothing to justify things like bans on fertilizer and the rich seeking to starve people around the world.

---

Like when Exxon did a bunch of studies and found out they were destroying the environment, so they decided to cover it up?

---

I'm sure you have something to back up your asinine claim, right?

I'm sure you're going to feverishly search the internets right? Back in a few hours to produce your master piece?

100% Shakedown Hoax perpetrated by Leftists.

DarkBrandon0111 said:

---

It's impossible to get exact numbers because climate is complex and controlled by a plethora of variables. But what we do know is that human activity DOES have a SIGNIFICANT effect on it.

Just because you can't count all of the raindrops doesn't mean it's not raining.

---

Oh my god….you didn't just type that did you? Go crawl back into your safe place…..good grief.