|Is Human Activity the Reason for Climate Change05-03-2018 06:18|
|2017 witnessed the devastating effects of many different national disasters. In just 2017 the United States faced three hurricanes, multiple tornado outbreaks, flooding, wildfires, droughts and other severe weather conditions. All of these natural disasters caused 2017 to be the costliest year on record for the United States. The damages of the 2017 disasters cost the US at least $306 billion. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the record total came from 16 different events that had damages exceeding $1 billion. https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/12/28/16795490/natural-disasters-2017-hurricanes-wildfires-heat-climate-change-cost-deaths These natural disasters occurred as a result to climate change and global warming|
Human activity is the primary responsibility for climate change.
Most climate scientists agree that human activity is the main cause of global warming, specifically the human expansion of the "greenhouse effect". The greenhouse effect occurs when solar energy is absorbed into the Earth's surface and is radiated back into the atmosphere as heat. As Sun's energy reaches the Earth's atmosphere, some of the energy is reflected back to space while the rest is absorbed and re-radiated by greenhouse gases. https://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/greenhouse-effect Examples of greenhouse gases are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. An increase in the amount of these greenhouse gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping which causes the temperature to rise. Over the last century, an increase in the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil, by humans has caused the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to rise. The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 2.0 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere. https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ The clearing of land for agriculture, industry, and other human activities has also increased concentrations of greenhouse gases. https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/ According to multiple scientists from around the world that are a part of the World Meteorological Organization the United Nations Environmental Program "Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of green-house gases are the highest in history. Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia." An increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can lead to natural disasters like droughts, increased intensity of storms, tropical cyclones with higher wind speeds, and more storms. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/RisingCost/rising_cost5.php
According to NASA "The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia." https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ If we do not stop burning fossil fuels and try to find other methods of energy then the warming trend of the earth will continue to increase. The amount, intensity, and devastation of natural disasters will also increase if we do not change our ways.
|Tim the plumber★★★★☆
|If you cut and paste you will still have to put in the paragraphs. Generally tidy it up, or it looks exactly like you have cut a paste it.
Edited on 05-03-2018 09:47
|Into the Night★★★★★
|Let's just take this cut and paste argument and look at it, shall we?|
The cost is higher because the dollar is worth less than it was before, and because people are building closer to the coast than before.
Mads545 wrote:What a leap. Natural disasters have been around a lot longer than the United States.
Mads545 wrote:Define 'climate change'. Climate is typically defined as 'weather over a long time'. How do you describe a 'change'?
Climate scientists do not use or create any theory of science. They deny science.
There is no 'greenhouse' effect.
Solar energy being absorbed into the Earth IS heat.
Radiated energy back into space IS heat.
The atmosphere is just part of Earth.
That these gases absorb certain frequencies of infrared light does not stop energy from leaving the Earth.
You cannot block, slow, or trap heat. You cannot trap thermal energy either.
Mads545 wrote:Coal and oil are not fossils.
So what? CO2 does not have the capability to warm the Earth.
Mads545 wrote:It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. NASA is lying to you.
NASA is lying to you.
The WMO, the UN, and the IPCC are lying to you.
Mads545 wrote:There is no such thing as a 'climate system'.
What observed changes?
There is no increase in hurricane or storm activity that correlates to the relatively smooth increase in CO2 content as measured at Mauna Loa. Check out the National Hurricane Center.
Mads545 wrote:NASA is lying to you.
Mads545 wrote:Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuels.
Mads545 wrote:We already have sources of energy.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
They are not increasing.
The Parrot Killer
Edited on 05-03-2018 20:26
|Mads545 - why do you post things you don't know anything about? Weather extremes are caused by temperature differences between the poles and the tropics. IF the planet were warming weather extremes would be fewer and farther apart. But the actual numbers of hurricanes, typhoons and things like tornadoes are pretty much normal.|
Why do you read something, not actually investigate it and then run around like a chicken with it's head cut off squabbling "We're going to die, we're going to die"?
Man-made climate change is and ALWAYS HAS BEEN a hoax. It has been invented and directed by the environmentalist who think that there are too many people on this planet and the only fix is to let them freeze to death without heat, die of heat prostration without air-conditioning and starve to death without energy to use mechanized farming methods. Do you want to be a part of this?
The "greenest" energy sources are dams and hydro-electric power. Do you really think that is green? Less than 3% of fish can successfully climb fish ladders and in California we have resorted to trapping the fish downstream and breeding them in a laboratory and then releasing them below dams.
Does that sound green to you?
The United States doesn't have a lot of places where solar or wind power are particularly effect. The San Francisco bay area has the best locations for solar and wind farms. Pacific Gas and Electricity has constructs wind and solar farms that under ideal conditions will deliver 19% of the peak demand. Yet in the very best year - during a drought so that there were almost no clouds - they generated 3% of their NORMAL usage. Under these massively land intensive means of generating electricity the land is dead. Not one part of the original environment remains. Is that green?
The cleanest of the clean power sources is nuclear power. It requires relatively small land areas. It has virtually no environment impact. Newer methods of fuel usage have reactors that simply stop operating in case something breaks the encasement. The nuclear fuel can be reprocessed and reused.
But YOU have been taught that it is dirty and that millions of people would be killed by it rather than having low cost electric power from it. One mile from Takashima the radiation is twice normal background radiation. Yet we are having stories of massive radiation leaks that cover the entire west coast. These from the same people that tell us that 911 never happened. Japan is a country with a very high population and they use every bit of available land for farming. Therefore they tried to put the Takashima reactor on a piece of land that no one wanted - along a fault zone. To say that was bad planning is being nice.
Gas powered generators are actually often placed in the center of cities because they emit little if any smoke. But they do release pollution that is generally fine particulate matter. Around large cities it adds to the pollution levels and the visibility shrinks below 2,000 ft.
The point of this is that there is NO way that you can get power without damaging the environment. You do the least damage by using the least possible power but no one is about to do that.
Do YOU drive a car? Do you ride airplanes? After all, commercial aircraft are responsible for 40% of the pollution caused by transportation. In large cities they line entire buildings with lighting and they leave all the interior lights on 24 hours a day. Does that sound like being responsible? So don't use stupid AGW hoaxes when the very people pushing this idea are the same people causing all of the world's pollution.
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' stutterin' stutterin' filthy vile reprobate rootin(& rottin) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time(plus 1) threatener wake-me-up" wiffed: Pacific Gas and Electricity has constructs wind and solar farms that..... generated 3% of their NORMAL usage....Of course, the generated more. Stilted by major fossil fuel energy system contracts, California has to give wind & solar energy to other states, because the wind & solar systems are ahead of schedule. Even giving wind & solar energy to other states, they produce 3 times more energy than AGW denier liar whiners ever allowed that wind & solar would ever produce. With the wild advances in wind power & hard nut solar production economic gains, fossil fuel energy providers work hard to keep wind & solar at bay. But the science equations are on the board, that wind & solar will continue forward...... now ever more with fossil fuel energy production in decline.
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' stutterin' stutterin' filthy vile reprobate rootin(& rottin) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time(plus 1) threatener wake-me-up" continues to be an old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' stutterin' stutterin' filthy vile reprobate rootin(& rottin) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time(plus 1) threatener.
|This is one of the reasons why I am skeptical of human-induced global warming||56||08-10-2018 17:56|
|20 Reasons To Be Skeptical Of Human-Induced Global Warming||69||27-09-2018 18:50|
|When (if at all) did human co2 emissions begin to affect the climate?||9||15-05-2018 00:30|
|The Reason I Switched to the Republican Party||60||09-04-2018 15:13|
|How Much Is Trly Human Caused?||16||29-03-2018 10:52|