More and more research centers operating in different countries and investigating climate change state that the progressing greenhouse effect on Earth is already a fact. As a result, the risk of increasingly frequent and increasingly dramatic climate disasters is increasing. Man has less and less time to counteract these negative processes.
It is necessary to change the development strategy based on intensifying the exploitation of the Earth's resources on the sustainable development strategy. It is necessary to develop new energy technologies based on renewable energy sources to slow down the progressing greenhouse effect of the Earth in order to reduce the risk of dramatic natural cataclysms. It is necessary to develop ecological innovations, while it may not be too late. It is necessary to save the Earth through destruction for future generations.
In view of the above, I am asking you to answer the following question: Is the greenhouse effect on Earth already objectively recognized by the climate research centers as an irreversible process?
I invite you to the discussion
When we see a smoke coming from a forest; we say: there is a fire.
Did we see the fire? No only the smoke.... These are facts based on logic or previous experiences
We can say Yes and at the same time No. The most climate research centers have recognized the greenhouse effect on Earth, but as an irreversible process, I do not think so.
When we see a smoke coming from a forest; we say: there is a fire.
Did we see the fire? No only the smoke.... These are facts based on logic or previous experiences
The greenhouse effect has long been recognized by research centers and in the past, from the age of 60. Since the 1990s, many international researchers have come together under the auspices of the United Nations to work on this rapid and global climate change and its evolution. Regarding the cycle I totally agree with my colleague Kenneth M Towe
Is it possible that man with the help of modern RES energy technology would stop the greenhouse effect on Earth?
Unfortunately, more and more data and research centers scientifically confirms that progressively progressing global warming has become a fact. First and foremost, human activity influences this. The impact of natural factors is significant, however, the progress of civilization, industrial development, greenhouse gas emissions in the past few decades has increased significantly and continues to grow. The biggest problem may be the inability to reverse this process even if all of the industry, energy and transport are now switching to renewable energy sources.
In view of the above, the current question is: Is it possible that man with the help of modern RES energy technology would stop the greenhouse effect on Earth?
Please, answer, comments. I invite you to the discussion.
If it is no longer possible to reverse the global warming process, will we at least slow down the adverse climate change, the warming of the Earth's temperature, the progressive greenhouse effect on Earth? What actions should be taken now to make this possible in the 21st century? Please reply. I invite you to the discussion
" How plant-covered buildings improve urban life
A new report shows that greenery-lined structures combat both pollution and stress
By Barbara Eldredge@barbaraeldredge Sep 19, 2016,
"Living building facades do more than look good, they make the air good and they make urbanites feel good. At least, that’s the finding of a new report from global engineering firm Arup.
The company reported a series of studies exploring the impact of plant-covered building elements on air quality, acoustics, temperatures, energy use, and general quality of life.
Poor air quality is a growing concern for city-dwellers, where air pollution accounts for millions of premature deaths every year. Arup created a sophisticated computer model to calculate the flow of air through different types of cityscapes, examining how pollution might be impacted by green facades. Green façades can result in local reductions in concentrations of particulate matter, typically between 10 and 20%," wrote Martin Pauli, a senior architect at Arup. The study found that different plant species also created different affects, with pine and birch plants outperforming other species in combating air pollution during winter months (https://www.curbed.com/2016/9/19/12972332/green-sustainable-design-buildings-pollution-arup)".
The 2015 winning design for the Urban Habitat Award by Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat was the ParkRoyal on Pickering, a hotel in Singapore created by WOHA(https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/5-remarkable-buildings-that-use-trees-as-design-element)
Did you know, Professor, that this is a fact that is not only scientific, but also religious, for we Muslims, God said in the Holy Quran, Appeared corruption in the land and may have won the hands of people.
It should not be assumed that the global warming process has become irreversible. It does not have to be too late to develop ecological innovations, renewable energy sources, increase the efficiency of recyclables, reduce plastic production, etc. to implement the concept of pro-ecological sustainable zero development and the implementation of green economy. Perhaps it is not too late to attempt to implement environmentally sustainable development, we owe it to future generations, we owe it to our children and grandchildren. Such statements have repeatedly appeared during lectures and discussions during the UN Climate Summit, the so-called COP (Conference of the Parties), which was held in Katowice in December 2018.
I invite you to the discussion.
Dear Ammar A. Oglat, Thank you very much. Best regards, Have a nice day,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Climate change can be reversed (it was reversing many times during the last Ice Age). Now, it is man-made and man can also change it. Basically the gases in the air are the decision makers of the weather.
We can change the amounts of CO2 and water vapour in the air. But that needs cooperation of everyone on the planet (the educated politicians and the uneducated politicians, the latter being the hardest).
Dear Michael Issigonis,
Yes, you pointed to the heart of the problem, the essence of this topic. I fully agree with you. It is greenhouse gases emitted by man that are responsible for the global warming process which has been progressing faster and faster since the end of the 19th century. In order to avoid exceeding the critical point of this emission of CO2, methane and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, to avoid exceeding the critical pub for which it will no longer be possible to reverse the global warming process and then the climatic Armageddon of the beginning of the XXII century will become inevitable, it is necessary in the next decade, i.e. by around 2040, carry out a pro-ecological transformation of the traditional brown economy into a sustainable green economy / circular economy. As part of this green economy transformation, it is imperative implementation of the principles of sustainable development, social environmental (ecological) responsibility, pro-ecological reforms of implementing eco-innovations in economic processes, etc. I invite you to research cooperation in this area. I presented the concept of my research in the publication: Article IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY DEVE...
I am asking for a review and I invite you to continue the discussion on this important topic.Best regards,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Dear Dariusz Prokopowicz
Thank you for your invitation to cooperate on this important topic. I will study your publication.
The science of climate change has also produced evidence that the greenhouse gases that we know (CO2 and methane) are not solely responsible for climate change. The warming of the oceans has increased the production of water vapour (a greenhouse gas) which is probably more important to drive the temperature upwards.
Dear Michael Issigonis,
Yes, the oceans have a big influence on the climate. They occupy a much larger area of planet Earth than land surfaces. I fully agree with you on this point.
Best regards,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
The question is too vague.
The very issue of "irreversibility" presupposes something. What might that presumption be based upon? Would any particular organization actually define or disclose it? Are any of them on the same page?
To clarify my point
Irreversibility could be based on any or all of the following:
1) a political determination,
2) an economic one,
3) a rate of change of something,
4) an ecological carrying capacity,
5) geochemical/biological driving forces etc.
I believe a number of military organizations assume climate change to be a "destabilizing" force. Does it matter what the researchers say?
I suspect the political system does not need prodding with claims of pending catastrophe...it's already "poked". Such claims were politicized in the 1930's for example...some claims were overoptimistic and others were not. The claims led to terrible things, confiscation starvation, agricultural starvation, political conflict etc. Amazingly, the claims were wrong. Now the claims are so bad they are not even wrong!
i.e. No nuclear...some coal plants are OK, others are not, fracking is bad, photo/wind power is "green" but mining for copper, cobalt, lithium and rare earths is...?
I suspect the "carbonate compensation depth" is life.
I cede the floor.
(For what it's worth...the fossil is Ordovician streptelasma (?) Upper Mississippi Valley, the brown specks are sphalerite superposed by Permian hydrothermal activity.)
Dear Steve Johnson, Thank you for your participation in this discussion. You brought very interesting and inspiring considerations to our discussion. You're right. The problem is indeed multifaceted and not fully understood and defined. Thank you for the submitted materials.
Best regards,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Analysis of ice has in various part of the world revealed that in the past climatic changes have already taken place at different periods. We are probably facing one of those cycle amplified by anthropic activities. Should it be the case what we can do, somehow, is to slow down the process but not stopping it.
Agreed that some climatic changes took place in the past. The current cycle is NOT happening by itself. The gases in the air (all of them invisible) decide the weather and climate. We can analyze the air and find out which gases are present.
We have added lots of CO2 into the air by industrialization and engine emissions. Due to the global warming (ice melting, sea level rising, temperature rising, forest fires are getting out of hand) we find out the "greenhouse gases" (CO2, methane, water vapour) are on the rise.
If we keep on burning fossil fuels (this will keep on going for awhile), the global warming is, by definition, irreversible.
If we stop burning fossil fuels tomorrow (which is desirable, but impossible) the process of global warming will not get worse, but it will stay as is.
Therefore, no good news!
Dear Jean-Pierre Jost, Yes of course. In the past of the Cenozoic era, cycles of climate change lasting many thousands of years already existed for the distribution of continents on the globe shaped in a specific formula similar to the present formula. We may now be in a certain phase of another cycle of this type. However, the pace of climate change in the last 200 years is many times faster than in previous climate cycles lasting thousands of years. The growth rate of greenhouse gas emissions and global warming over the past 200 years shows a rapidly growing hyperbola on the graphs. If for min. the next 100 years, these trends will continue analogically, the life of our grandchildren in most of the terrestrial areas of the planet Earth may be either very difficult (e.g. lack of water, permanent droughts and fires, and other drastic effects of climate change and rapidly depleted natural ecosystems) or practically impossible. Therefore, the future depends on us. It is necessary and as soon as possible that humanity should act pro-ecologically to slow down the pace of climate change. Greetings, All the best, Stay healthy!
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Dear Michael Issigonis,
I agree with your view on this issue. Yes, climate change over the past 200 years has accelerated planet Earth towards global warming. Many of the effects of this process are also observed in our environment in various climatic zones. The scale of weather anomalies, climatic and natural disasters recorded every year is growing. However, there is something we can do to protect the biosphere of planet Earth, to protect the biodiversity of natural ecosystems, for the next generations of people. We can conduct a pro-ecological transformation of the energy sector through the development of renewable energy sources and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. This process is already underway. However, the pace of this process is too slow as most climate models indicate that the tipping point for the increase in greenhouse gas emissions will appear in the middle of the 21st century, so we are almost on the eve of that point. After it is exceeded, the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere of planet Earth will reach a level unprecedented for many thousands of years and will cause the global warming process to enter the irreversible phase and constantly accelerate in the perspective of subsequent mines. several dozen years. So the challenge for humanity in the 21st century is to prevent this from happening!
Best regards, All the best, Stay healthy!
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Dear Dariusz Prokopowicz: I agree with you. The question is how practically and how fast can we change and slow down the progression of climatic changes. It is not only a technical issue but also a political one. The worst scenario one could envisage is the progressive lack of water in many places in the world, permanent droughts and fires, destruction of ecosystem and a massive displacement of populations( and a steadily increasing world population) to better places on the planet that could initiate conflicts and possibly war. Best regards, jpj
Dear Jean-Pierre Jost, Yes, the problem is complex and difficult to solve. But one of the most important steps has already been taken. We know what to do. I mean researchers and scientists, the scientific world knows it. However, this knowledge should be transformed in such a way that it reaches business and political environments. Best wishes,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Dear Dariusz Prokopowicz.
True we know what should be done and scientists have many solutions to this complex problem. Politician are also aware of what should be done however for many of them the economic imperatives are more important that the climatic issue. In spite of so many meetings politician have not been able to come to a consensus and a real plan on international basis to get action to somehow protect our planet from “destruction”.
Dear Jean-Pierre Jost, That's right. The key issue is translating scientific knowledge into business reality. Greetings,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
The process is reversable. We may not be ableti do it though. We are all so fixed on one cause we don’t see there are others ftom very worthy perspectives who say “not so fast”.
Here: UVB, why? Ozone depletion. How? They explain.
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2015/pp/c4pp90034k
Dear Steve Johnson
Thank you. Very interesting information on the issue of ozone depletion. Thank you for the link to the interesting material provided.
Greetings,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
I tried to figure out if UVB plays a role in heating. There are some unexplainable volcanic and sunspot correspondences that seem likely to have played a role in reducing the ozone layer. How that works with Ozone I don't get. The UV contributions seem thermally insignificant. The role of small volcanic events...pinatubo etc and sulfur dioxide and or halogens show that santorini and ancient krakatoa probably reduced the Minoan, Roman and other civilization's world influence drastically through global cooling. The oligocene-miocene widespread ignimbrites of the Mexican Cordillera extending through Colorado must have played a big role. Same with opening the north atlantic did to cause the PETM. The role of volcanic activity has been considered minor with regard to man made effects. I suspect that human activity is approaching the impact of a Large Igneous Province. What else? Can we actually do anything or must we...like during the Carnian pluvial event (CPE) just adapt.
Article How Large Igneous Provinces affect global climate, sometimes...
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Energy
- Energy-Generating Resources
- Renewable Energy