If we agree that global warming is gradually killing our planet, what can we do to change the situation?
Global warming is a consequence of the increase in greenhouse gases with carbon dioxide being the principle offender. This enrichment comes from our fossil fuel use presently and the way we generate electricity and transport ourselves mostly. Our transportation is a good place to start. Although we cannot stem global warming by reducing the emissions the combination of emission control and sequestration make it plausible to change the equation we currently have. I believe the ace in hole in this global game of poker is our ability to use sequestration and focusing on replacing the huge amounts of carbon we have lost from our depletive soil management. The best of this approach is carbon charged soils better feed crop plants preserve our environment and optimize scarce water use. The increase of our greenhouse gases is related to the greater respiration on our planet compared to photosynthesis. The increase of planetary photosynthesis and the minimization of respiration will change the current exponential increase of greenhouse gases and allow our soils to recharged and regenerated.
Great contribution Professor Paul Reed Hepperly . What can we do to enact policies and laws that will effect suggestions of experts like you?
Two important steps can be followed immediately. The first one is the awarness about the same throughout the whole populace of the world. The next is the proper utilization of the natural resources which in my opinion is far more than the one's requirement.
Hi dear
Power your home with renewable energy
and
Invest in energy-efficient appliances
The roof tops of the industrial world offers a large potential of distributive renewable energy will existing technology. Green rooftops can reduce the need for both airconditioning and heating. These are just a few of myriad of potentials related to the issues at hand.
Many of our renewable options do not necessitate any reduction in tillable acreage for food production. Wind can be employed while maintaining either cropping of pasturing. Wind can be employed on roof tops and in the ocean. Wind can be employed in desert areas. OTEC Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion can be associated with marine production of fish and algae. Biomass is at over 10 tons for each and every person. The conversion of biomass into biochar can give renewable clean energy and the residual char can be used to regenerate tropical oxisols and ultisols. The production fosters a renewable energy system and the sequestration from biochar remediates the worst of acid soil issues in the tropics.
Modify our own lifestyles to more sustainable ways for a beginning.
Invest in renewables
Even if you can’t install solar panels or a wind turbine, you can still be a part of the clean-energy economy. Search online for local renewable energy co-ops to join. By becoming a co-op member you will own a slice of its renewable energy projects and can get a return on your investment.
Global climate change has already had observable effects on the environment. Glaciers have shrunk, ice on rivers and lakes is breaking up earlier, plant and animal ranges have shifted and trees are flowering sooner.
Effects that scientists had predicted in the past would result from global climate change are now occurring: loss of sea ice, accelerated sea level rise and longer, more intense heat waves. To stop global warming avoid turbine, over use of wood fire, etc.and also plantation to go green on earth.
To reduce the effects of global warming on the planet, it is necessary to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, which are the main cause of this phenomenon. The most important solutions that contribute to reducing these include: rationalizing the use of fuel in transportation, increasing tree planting, rationalizing electricity consumption, reducing the use of air conditioning and heat, minimizing non-recyclable waste or using, avoiding the purchase of non-recyclable products, reduce the consumption of fossil fuels that produce greenhouse gases. The question remains whether we can do it, I do not think so.
From doing nothing to i guess everything. Simply putting a garbage item to its desirable destination to creating awareness through lectures and workshops, i feel this should be our NO ONE TOPIC as it relates to survival of our species and others in living with us.
Regards
Nations to declare NDC and try to effectively and in true spirit to implement them.
We have to do it no matter what or else the next generation will face extinction or worst case scenarios.
Everybody needs to be involved starting ME to government but seen people with the idea that this is the job of only sanitary workers.
Regards
Expand the use of renewable energy and transform our energy system to one that is cleaner and less dependent on coal and other fossil fuels.
dr Ademolawa Michael Adedipe ..How about if we plant a tree everyday?
Every year, 27 million tonnes of African dust drops out of the sky into the Amazon basin.
The African dust turns out to be the perfect fertiliser.
As the plants in the Amazon grow, they turn carbon dioxide into oxygen.
The Amazon produces 20 times more oxygen than people of the Earth can consume, but not one breathe of it leaves the Amazon.
There are so many animals living there that the life there uses it all up.
If you could look inside the trees of the Amazon, you would see water sucked up from the forest floor.
When the water reaches the top, the combination of Sun and wind turns it into a mighty river (cloud). If this were a normal river, it would be the largest on the planet.
This river of cloud flows across America obscuring everything beneath it until it runs into a brick wall – The Andes.
The clouds condense into raindrops, race down the slopes and flow into the Amazon basin again.
The water erodes the rock, turning it into sediment, until all the nutrients are dumped into the ocean.
Waiting there is an organism, four times thinner than a human hair, called a diatom.
These are the secret to our oxygen supply. They use silica from the rock to create new shells, which allow them to reproduce.
The diatoms have to get their nutrients in different ways, far away from the rain-forest, in the ice. As the ice melts, it releases a familiar sound. The sound is a sign the ice is about to crash.
The glaciers move fast, dumping nutrients into the sea, sparking a feeding frenzy - and that means a population explosion. Then, as fast as it began, it is over.
As the nutrients run out, the diatoms fade and die. The carcasses fall to the floor of the sea, carpeting it.
The seabed rises and the ocean levels falls and that floor becomes a salty desert. The desert we began with, the very one that ended up in the Amazon. It shows how everything is linked and comes full circle.
From the dust, to the River in the Sky, to diatoms and the ice - all so we can breathe.
The desert that blows all the way to the Amazon – that was once a seabed. The dust (fertiliser) that makes the rain forest grow – diatom shells.
What I am trying to illustrate here is that the Earth works interdependently and harmoniously. All living things are “of the Earth”. Whatever we do in research and industry from here on out, we should have cycles and processes like this in mind. We should imitate the Earth; the Earth should be our model.
One Strange Rock (2018): https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7651892/
Planetary (2015): https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3462896/
https://www.mirror.co.uk/science/worlds-largest-river-actually-sky-12260884
I don't think we can put an end to the negative impacts of global warming. We can decrease it to some extent or we can identify mitigation measures for adoption.
The very first measures is population control
Decrease dependency on non-renewable energy resources
Forestation
In my opinion all the solutions that we can put (according to our specialties, of course) will not be effective, because those who cause heat stress are often very large companies and have great influence
regards
Reducing carbon and emissions, as well as substituting them and using other energies, as well as increasing the cultivation of trees for their role of minimizing
Greetings
If we must put an end to the negative effects of global warming, we must first put an end to the causes of global warming. Putting an end to the causes of global warming, at the moment seems larger than life because of obvious reasons. Even when that is achieved, we should be prepared to live with the effects or consequences of global warming for quite some time. However, we can do something to reduce the causes of global warming and at the same time reduce its effects and consequences. At the centre of our efforts to achieving that is the control of the burgeoning human population and the excesses of humans including our consumption patterns.
The only possible solution, at least to me, is to set up an international campaign for making people of the world aware of the destructive consequences which global warming can potentially create and jeopardize the health and happiness of mankind. However, there is also a great need for modifying the educational systems for internalizing the ethical codes of conduct which can help the people of the world realize the importance and benefits of cooperation rather than competition.
Then negative effects of the very moderate global warming that has occurred since the end of the Little Ice Age about 100 years ago --- are mainly due to the fearmongering perpetrated by those who believe the projections of severe FUTURE warming based on models that can not even match observed recent climtate change.
I suggest that you read the following short article and possibly also read the background information and sciance references offered reading by clicking on the blue passages.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ EXCERPT: “Public choice” research by Gary Becker, James Buchanan, Ronald Coase, Elinor Ostrom and other Nobel Prize Laureates explains why legislators, regulators and interest groups repeatedly exaggerate ecological and other threats: the hyperbole and sensationalism advance their financial interests, fame, stature or ideological agendas. In all too many cases, costly government regulations are imposed that benefit the few, while reducing opportunity, health and welfare for millions."
https://townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2018/10/13/the-ipccs-latest-climate-hysteria-n2528023
Putting an end to the emission of large quantities of carbon dioxide may contribute to reduce the rates of global warming all over the world.
Best regards.
For starters -- Ademolawa Michael Adedi--- we do NOT aggree" that global warming is gradually killing our planet"
In fact if you are readiung current rsearch - you would find evidence that net primary productivity has markedly increased in recent decades as a result of the fertilizing effect of increased atmosspheric carbon dioxide concentratioins. Carbon dioxide is plant food and used in photosynthesis ---- not pollution.
During the last glacial maximum plant growth was severely constrained due to carboin dioxide starvation when atmospheric concentratioins were aslow as 150 PPMV. Plant life is doing much better now at over 400 PPMV but this concentration is still sub optimal.
To say lowering emissions does not have ability to influence carbon dioxide levels is somewhat erroneous. To reduce emissions is to slow the enrichment of the carbon dioxide which is currently occurring. In addition the negative emission or sequestration is the answer to deal with lowered emissions from conservation and improved technologies.
A mitigação dos efeitos causados pelos gases que aumentam o efeito estufa em nosso planeta, estará relacionado grandemente com a responsabilidade individual adotada e cumprida por cada governante, os incentivos as pesquisas e o desenvolvimento de novas técnicas que reduzam a emissão dos gases poluentes. No Brasil, país de clima tropical, com milhões de bovinos e de hectares de cultivo de soja, milho, algodão, cana-de-açúcar, etc. Tem com foco principal pesquisas para o aumento da produtividade ao invés de aumentar as áreas de produção com novos desmatamentos. Temos adotado o sistema lavoura-pecuária com adoção de reflorestamento de milhões de hectares de pastagens com densidade de árvores que possibilitam a não degradação destas pastagens, aumentando a produtividade animal pelo conforto animal ocasionado pela redução da intensidade solar e melhor microclima
Outros meios adotados tem sido o maior uso dos biocombustíveis em relação aos combustíveis fósseis nos caminhões e carros em geral.
O incentivo a agricultura sustentável, ecológica, tem sido um dos viés para este fim.
Estamos com equipes em estudos sobre o sequestro de carbono na região semiárida brasileira.
During 12 of the last 16 decades the global temperature was either flat (not increasing) OR cooling. Only during the 2 decades of the 1920s and 1930s AND the 2 decades of the 1980s and 1990s did the global temperature rise. The global warming of the 1920s and 1930s was at the same rate as the global warming of the 1980s and 1990s in spite of the fact that the atmospheric CO2 concentration was much lower in the 1920s and 1930s (about 300 PPMV) than the atmospheric concentration of CO2 in the 1980s and 1990s (335 rising to 365 PPMV). The so called "pause" in the rate of global warming during the last decade or so should more properly be referred to as a return to normal conditions. Obviously CO2 and other carbon containing greenhouse gases such as METHANE (whose atmospheric concentration changes mirror that of CO2) do not drive the global climate. Furthermore, because the main cause of increased atmospheric carbon containing greenhouse gases -- is the increase in global temperature caused by natural drivers .... then even if all human emissions ceased the atmospheric concentration would continue to increase because the global temperature is now at a point where absorption of greenhouse gases (by oceans and land ecosystems) lags somewhat behind the natural rate of emissions. The only avenue that would cause a decrease in atmospheric carbon containing greenhouse gas concentration --- would be a drastic decrease in the global temperature such as happens regularly during periods of glaciation.
BOTTOM LINE - The goal of attempting to decrease the atmospheric concentrations of carbon containing greenhouse gas by cutting human emissions in order to curb climate warming is --- futile and misguided.
The ability of CURRENT 'carbon' additions into the atmosphere to drive CURRENT global temperature decreases exponentially as atmospheric concentration goes up because it's ability to drive the global temperature becomes more and more saturated................. see:
-------the paper 'The Effect of a Doubling of the Concentration of CO2 in the Atmosphere as Depicted by Quantum Physics' at:
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/pdfz/abstracts/pdf/2014/90172cspg/abstracts/ndx_kalman.pdf.html
............to assess the the basic physics, which are also well explained in the following link....see:
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=681#Introduction
- in the Introduction to the FoS 'Science Essay' --- where the saturation of both the ability of CO2 and methane preclude any major effect on climate by further increases in the atmospheric concentration of these two greenhouse gases.
Dear Peter, I think that Micheal's assertion that 'global warming is gradually killing our planet' goes beyond the effect of global warming on net primary productivity. Yes, the net primary productivity may have increased due to increased carbon fertilization but what of other direct and indirect consequences of global warming that are imapcting negatively on the planet?
Yes, Mr.Kenneth, I totally agree with you. If you followed my earlier contribution on this question, I emphasized on the need to control the world's burgeoning global population and the unregulated consumption patterns. However, in my last contribution which you responded to, I was trying to question the rationale behind Peter's position that climate change is not killing our planet just because the net primary productivity is on the increase due to increased carbon fertilization. I was Just trying to emphasize that although the net primary productivity may have increased, global warming can still be killing our planet due other direct and indirect consequences which you have corroborated.
One key aspect i gather from this discussion; we ought to start focusing on adaptation rather than mitigation (hope am not triggering another discussion on these). I want to believe there are more opportunity costs to mitigation than adaptation. Otherwise we seem not to have control over the drastically increasing global population. The challenge ahead of us is how to ensure this population adapts to the changing climate- be it either global warming or global cooling.
Joel, I think you have a vilid point. There is great need to intensify efforts towards adaptation to the effects of climate change. One good reason for that is that the trend of events in our planet doesn't indicate that absolute mitigation is a possibility just like you observed with respect to the human population. Another good reason to intensify efforts towards adaptation is that even if we're to achieve total mitigation today, the effects of climate change already being experienced will linger for a considerable amount of time. That makes adaptation key but it doesn't mean that we should give up completely on mitigation.
Article Global Warming Mitigation Through Carbon Sequestrations in t...
The article offered below certainly puts emissions from fossil fuel burning in perspective and renders attempts to decrease atmospheric concentrations of CO2 --- futile.
EXCERPT FROM THE ARTICLE (URL) OFFERED IN THIS MESSAGE:
"The grand total produced by all living things is estimated to be 440 billion tons per year, or 13 times the amount of carbon dioxide currently being produced by fossil-fuel emissions. Fossil-fuel emissions are less than 10 percent of biological emissions. Are you laughing yet?"
The hype about carbon dioxide emissions has been referred to as the "Madness of Crowds" --- and this decades-long illusion has been responsible for unnecessary policy initiatives, regulations, massive taxpayer financed subsidies to encourage the adoption of unreliable solar and wind electrical generation that can not possibly run a modern energy intensive society, and the distraction of governments and environmentalists from the more important destruction of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem productive capacity that escalates with our constantly growing human population.
Read the article and weep.
Peter Salonius
https://www.westernjournal.com/global-warming-myth-debunked-humans-minimal-impact-atmospheres-carbon-dioxide-climate/
Why Renewables Can’t Save the Planet | Michael Shellenberger | TEDxDanubia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-yALPEpV4w
I think that the fundamental thing is to review the energy matrix based on fossil fuels. There are several levels of actions, such as changes in individual behavior through education, more efficient technological changes, political pacts, among others. Ademolawa Michael Adedipe
We can speak up, Power your home with renewable energy, Invest in energy-efficient appliances, reduce water waste.
- Badges
- Science topic