Climate change caused by human actions,secret diary rubens,read secret connection online order - Downloads 2016

It turns out that human activities, such as greenhouse gas emissions and land use, were the main cause of extreme weather and climate events in 2014. In this latest study, 32 groups of scientists from around the world investigated 28 individual extreme events in 2014 and break out various factors that led to the extreme events, including the degree to which natural variability and human-induced climate change played a role. For more great science stories and general news, please visit our sister site, Headlines and Global News (HNGN). Viewers including the Space X boss, Elon Musks, celebrated the historical landing of Falcon 9 last month. The moon's tattoos are grabbing attention of scientists, and they have been trying to figure out where these came from. Astronomers found a unique object that appears to be made of inner Solar System material from the time of Earth’s formation, which has been preserved in the Oort Cloud far from the Sun for billions of years. Your lifestyle has an impact on intestinal bacteria and would likely have a strong impact on your health. Happiness genes have been found through an extensive research that involved more than 190 researches in 17 countries having 140 research centers. Increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were found to cause increased plant growth across the Earth for the last 30 years.
Paris Tech Review is publishing two different perspectives on climate change: one from Christian Gerondeau, the other from Michel Petit.
The mechanisms that govern climate change have been known for almost two centuries, thanks to the work done by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The Earth’s atmosphere contains naturally occurring water vapor and carbon dioxide gas (CO2), both of which are greenhouse gases. The position of the continents and the composition of the atmosphere have evolved considerably over the geological ages. Since the beginning of the industrial era, human activities have added new sources of variation to the above natural causes, which bring about atmospheric change. Systematic observation of the atmosphere has indisputably shown an increase—for a little over a century—in the level of greenhouse gases such as CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide. Figure 2: The current concentrations of the main greenhouse gases and their rate of increase are unprecedented. Looking at the most important of them, CO2, we can see that the number of CO2 molecules found in one million molecules of air has risen from 280 in 1850—before the beginning of the industrial era—to over 380 today. Figure 3: Use of fossil fuels and increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels, between 1959 and 2002.
Precipitation is also affected by climate change with some regions getting more rain and others less.
Climatic models numerically simulate well-known physical processes that govern the dynamics and thermodynamics of the oceans and the atmosphere as well as the energy exchanges between infrared radiation and the molecules of certain gases (Laboratory experiments and quantum mechanics have enabled the precise determination of the corresponding absorption spectra.) Computers are indispensable tools for describing these complex phenomena that obey non-linear equations in a non-homogenous milieu that is stratified vertically and is horizontally variable. Models have sometimes been criticized for neglecting the role of water vapor, considered essential. Thanks to mathematical climate simulation models, it is possible to assess whether or not the warming that is actually observed is quantitatively consistent with the models’ results.
Figure 4: Comparison of global and continental-scale changes in the Earth’s surface temperature from 1906 to 2005, with results of simulations by mathematical models relative to average values for the period of 1901 to 1950. However, the discrepancy between the observations and the modeling results is glaring when models deliberately ignore changes in the concentration of greenhouse gases. In particular, variations of total solar radiation, observed by satellite, are insufficient to explain the perceived warming in the absence of an amplification phenomenon that has yet to be specified.
Can We Estimate the Climate Changes That Will Take Place during the Course of the 21st Century? Only mathematical models simulating real phenomena allow an estimation of the potential effect of anthropic emissions on global climate in the decades to come. The first family of scenarios that was used is based on the absence of pro-active measures taken to reduce the magnitude of climate change.
The expected concentrations of CO2 during the 21st century are two to four times those of the pre-industrial era. Figure 5: Scenarios for the evolution of the concentration of CO2 gas in the atmosphere in the absence of any kind of pro-active measures to reduce the emissions. The inherent uncertainty associated with models adds to the difficulty of choosing the correct scenario for the evolution of emissions. Figure 8: Changes in the percent of precipitation for the period 2090–2099 as compared to 1980–1999. Reducing emissions to put a ceiling on greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and restricting the extent of climate change is an objective that is explicitly mentioned in Article 2 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, signed at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992. The latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has provided the range of average global temperatures that the planet could reach for a maximum CO2 equivalent concentration ranging from 450 to 1,000 ppm. Figure 9: Global CO2 emissions between 1940 and 2000 and emission ranges corresponding to various categories of stabilization scenarios, from 2000-2100 (left).
Reducing emissions in such vast proportions is a formidable challenge especially since 80% of commercialized global energy comes from fossil fuels.
Nonetheless, in a few centuries, when all fossil fuels will be exhausted and will no longer be able to supply us with cheap sources of energy, we will have to learn to do without them in a situation of stress. Business models that emerge today outline a world of hyper-competition: in the digital economy, it's always possible to find both better and cheaper elsewhere. As long as laws and regulations are not changed to promote further diversity in crowdfunding, the industry will very likely focus on products that have already proven their feasibility. Culture is the essential catalyst of intelligence and an AI without the capability to interact culturally would be nothing more than an academic curiosity.
In a world in which information, capital, and labor are no longer confined by time nor distance, nearly everything has an impact on practically everything else. With the proliferation of technologies and the growing complexity of products and services, it no longer seems possible for any company, as large as it may be, to innovate alone. Boynton noted a few effects of this trend: oceans (which occupy 71 percent of earth’s surface) are warming with sea levels rising, the North Pole ice cap is rapidly melting (40 percent has disappeared since 1979), and widespread droughts are increasing. By 2020, the North Pole will likely be ice-free in summertime (causing the atmospheric polar vortex to start descending over New England, bringing frigid temperatures), most of the polar bear population will have disappeared by 2050, and land ice in Antarctica is shrinking.
Another potential result of global warming is the redirection of the warm Gulf Stream away from Europe, enveloping it in a new ice age. The RJ Media Group's mission is be the primary catalyst that motivates people to contribute to the intellectual, civic and economic vitality of our communities. Calved icebergs from the nearby Twin Glaciers are seen floating on the water on July 30, 2013 in Qaqortoq, Greenland. However, in May this year, the US government released its National Climate Assessment, which puts together carefully peer-reviewed scientific information on the impact of climate change in the US. It is important to understand what this assessment concludes and why its findings are important for the rest of the world. An Ethical Analysis of Obama’s Climate Speech, the Adverse Political Reaction to It, and the Media Response. On June 25th, President Obama gave a major speech on climate change in which he announced what his administration would do to reduce greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions in the United States.
As expected some US politicians vigorously attacked the speech on the basis that the announced actions would destroy jobs and the US coal industry. In light of the US’s strong moral duty to take action to reduce the threat of climate change that has been virtually ignored by most previous US leaders. President Obama promised to use this authority under the federal Clean Air Act to reduce greenhouse gases from electric power plants.
He also acknowledged some US responsibility to help developing nations transition to clean energy and announced a number of policy initiatives in support of this goal. This statement is very significant for its ethical implications.  In fact, this is the strongest statement of any US President in regard to acknowledging that US policy on climate change can not solely be based upon US interests alone.
We’re going to need to give special care to people and communities that are unsettled by this transition — not just here in the United States but around the world. And so, President Obama seems thus to acknowledge US obligations to help developing nations to adapt to climate change.
Another part of the speech with ethical significance is remarks about a new climate change treaty that was agreed to in Durban, South Africa that is to be completed in 2015 and come into effect in 2020. Two years ago, we decided to forge a new agreement beyond 2020 that would apply to all countries, not just developed countries. This statement is of considerable ethical significance because it acknowledges that different nations have different responsibilities and needs in regard to climate change policies.
Our founders believed that those of us in positions of power are elected not just to serve as custodians of the present, but as caretakers of the future.  And they charged us to make decisions with an eye on a longer horizon than the arc of our own political careers.
And so as a matter of ethics, President Obama acknowledged that the US has a special responsibility to act on climate change in response to our ethical obligations, not our national interests alone , in proportion to our responsibility as a matter of distributive  justice and our obligations to future generations  while at the same time assisting vulnerable developing nations to adapt to the inevitable adverse climate impacts that now can not be avoided. President Obama also ended his speech with a call to recognize the sacred importance of protecting Earth by recalling the astonishment of the astronauts when they saw the Earth from outer space as they came around the moon for the first time. For while we may not live to see the full realization of our ambition, we will have the satisfaction of knowing that the world we leave to our children will be better off for what we did. And so, all in all, the Obama speech can be praised for its express recognition of many of the ethical ethical obligations entailed by climate change despite some quibbles about a few ethical issues not covered well. The most frequent justifications for the strong opposition to the Obama climate plan have been the claimed severe economic harms to the US economy, lack of scientific certainty on adverse climate impacts, and the inability of the United States acting alone to prevent climate change. As we have explained in considerable detail before, these excuses utterly fail to withstand minimum ethical scrutiny. Economic harm arguments made in opposition to Obama’s climate plan, for instance, even if true, both fail to recognize the ethical obligations that the United States has to not harm others through our ghg emissions and to acknowledge the costs of not acting. Scientific certainty arguments made in opposition to climate change fail as a matter of ethics for a  host of reasons including the fact that almost all of the most prestigious scientific organizations in the world and the vast majority of scientists that do peer-reviewed science support the consensus view that has concluded that climate change is  a growing civilization challenging threat to people and ecological systems on which life depends around the world, uncertainty in these situations raises ethical questions about burdens and quantity of proof, those most vulnerable to climate change have not consented to be put at risk from climate change, and the longer the world waits to reduce the threat of  climate change the worse the  problem becomes. Arguments in opposition to action on climate change based upon the claim that the  United States  acting alone will not significantly reduce the threat of climate change fails any ethical test because all nations  have a duty to act to reduce their emissions to their fair share without regard to what other nations do. And so, the arguments made in opposition to the Obama speech fail to withstand  ethical scrutiny.
The US media response to the Obama speech and the political response thereto has once again completely ignored the ethical problems with the strong political opposition to the speech.
One might ask why the US media is failing to cover the obvious ethical questions raised by climate change issues given that the ethical issues have profound consequences for climate change policy and climate change raises obvious civilization challenging ethical issues. A video: Why Politicians May Not Rely On Their Own Uninformed Opinion On Climate Change Science.
This 11 minute video examines why politicians, unlike many ordinary citizens,  may not rely upon their own uninformed opinion on climate change science as a basis for refusing to support climate change policies. Why Politicians May Not Ethically Rely on Their Own Uninformed Opinion About Climate Science and 10 Questions That The Press Should Ask Politicians About Climate Science In Light of This Responsibility. Marco Rubio, a US Senator from Florida, recently said that he was not sure the climate change was human caused. Although ordinary individuals may have no duty to go beyond their own personal opinion about the science of climate change, government officials who have the power to enact policies that could present catastrophic harm to millions of people around the world may not as a matter of ethics justify their refusal to support policies to reduce the threat of climate change on the basis of their uninformed opinions on climate science.
The government official is like the railroad official who has been told by employees who are in a position to know the location of the company’s trains that there is a runaway train hurtling toward a bus full of children that is stuck on the track, when the official has the ability to divert the train onto a track on which no humans will be harmed.
In the case of climate change, government officials should know that 97 of every 100 scientists that actually do peer-reviewed climate science research and in the  United States by the most prestigious scientific organizations including the US National Academy of Sciences that greenhouse gases coming from his constituents threaten catastrophic harm not only to his constituents but to millions of people around the world, most of whom have done little to cause climate change.
In the case of climate change, the US politician not only has the power, working with colleagues, to prevent great harm caused by his or her constituents, he or she has the responsibility to prevent his or her constituents from harming others outside United States.
Recalling also that States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental and developmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. In the case of climate change, the people that will be harmed (those in our metaphorical bus) are not only the constituents of the politician but hundreds of millions of people around the world that have done little or nothing to cause climate change.
The vast majority of climate scientists and over 100 scientific organizations whose members have climate science expertise have concluded that humans are causing climate change and human-induced climate change creates catastrophic threats for the human race and particularly for hundreds of millions of poor people around the world who are most vulnerable to climate change impacts. As you consider climate change legislation, we, as leaders of scientific organizations, write to state the consensus scientific view. In this situation the government official has a strong duty to go beyond his or her own uninformed opinion about whether humans are causing dangerous climate change.
Because politicians have an affirmative duty to initially rely upon mainstream scientific views in regard to human activities that could cause great harm, the press has a journalistic duty to help citizens understand any politician’s views that oppose action on climate change policies on scientific grounds. 3.  On what basis do you disregard the conclusions that humans are causing dangerous climate change held by the United States Academy of Sciences, over a hundred scientific organizations whose membership includes experts with expertise relevant to the science of climate change, and 97 percent of scientists who actually do peer-reviewed research on climate change? The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects.
The Grave US Media Failure to Communicate About The Consistent Barrier That The United States Has Been To Finding A Global Solution to Climate Change. This is the fifth in a series of articles that examines grave communications failures of the US media about climate change.
This is the fourth paper that examines in more detail the issues briefly examined in the video. The last paper in the series will examine the failure of the US media to help Americans understand the well-organized, well-financed climate change disinformation campaign. Most Americans are completely unaware that the United States has consistently been a barrier to achieving a global solution to climate change despite the fact that the United States is an indispensable party to a global climate change solution. Although the United States is an indispensable participant in solving climate change because of the size of the US contribution to the global problem, the United States has a dismal record in over twenty years of international efforts to achieve a global solution to this civilization-challenging global problem. In a book to be published this month, Navigating the Perfect Moral Storm, Climate Ethics, this writer documents in detail the failure of the United States to be a leader since the conclusions of the UNFCCC negotiations in 1992, (Brown 2012).
The United States has been the only developed country in the world to fail to ratify to the Kyoto Protocol and thereby commit itself to a binding interim emissions reduction target.
When President Obama was elected, there was wide-spread hope the United States would change course on climate change. Although there is evidence that President Obama hope to make the United States, for the first time, a responsible participant in an adequate global approach to climate change, since the Republicans took over the US House of Representatives in November of 2010, the United States hast been unable to make meaningful national commitments on climate change and will not likely to be able to do so until well into 2013 at the very earliest.
There is no evidence that the United States is willing to make commitments to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to  levels consistent with what the world needs to do to prevent dangerous climate change, a matter discussed in the second paper in this series. Although there are several countries that have frequently failed to respond to what justice would require of them to reduce the threat of climate change, the United States, more than any other country, has consistently failed to respond to its ethical duties to reduce its emissions to the its fair share of safe global emissions during the over two decades that the world has been seeking a global agreement on how to respond to climate change.
Because the United States is such a vital player in any global solution to climate change, the United States response to its obligations to reduce the global threat of climate change has been an immense impediment to an urgently needed global climate change solution.
The world awaits US leadership on climate change at a time when human-induced climate change harms are becoming more obvious.
In a very introductory manner, the Frontline program explains how the climate change disinformation campaign has managed to weaken support for doing something about climate change and for this reason the program is a welcome addition to the otherwise largely non-existent US media coverage of who is behind the climate change disinformation campaign.
Although the Frontline program should be welcomed for bringing much needed attention to this tragic manipulation of a democracy,  at the same time the program can be criticized for missing important elements of the story necessary to get a full understanding  of the outrageousness,  if not criminality, of the climate change disinformation campaign. In summary, the Frontline program, although a welcome overdue US media analysis of the climate change disinformation campaign, fails to adequately explain why the disinformation campaign should be considered as some new kind of crime against humanity. Ethicsandclimate has also produced a video on why the climate change disinformation campaign is so ethically abhorrent. How US Climate Change Law Must Be Reconciled With Existing International Law and Ethical Obligations. The following video explains how US law on climate change must be upgraded  to be consistent with a body of international law on climate change that has developed over the past 20 years as well as ethical obligations the United States has under law and ethical theory.
Debate about climate change policy in the United States has almost always assumed that US policy-makers can look to US economic interests alone in establishing US climate change policies. has critically examined US President Obama’s approach to climate change on several occasions. now turns to an ethical analysis of US Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s views on climate change. Climate change is a global problem and the US should not spend huge amounts of money on a problem that is global in scope.
In addition, during his acceptance speech at the Republican convention on August 30, 2012, Romney commented on climate change by asserting that President Obama would try to stop raising seas and heal the planet while he would help American families, thus implicitly implying that he would not support climate change legislation while he was President (Lacey, 2012). Tens of thousands of deaths and other harms caused by climate change are already attributable to human-induced warming, that is climate change is not just a civilization challenging  future problem but the present cause of misery to some humans in some parts of the world.
Even if the international community could stabilize atmospheric concentrations of  greenhouse gas emissions at current levels further warming will continue for as much as 100 years because of thermal lags in the climate system. The mainstream scientific view holds that the world is likely running out of time to prevent rapid, nonlinear, and potentially catastrophic warming.
These facts are held by mainstream scientific view on climate change, a view supported by every academy of sciences in the world that has taken a position including theUnited States Academy of Sciences, 97 to 98% of the scientists that actually do climate science research, and over 100 scientific organizations in the world whose members have relevant expertise. In light of the above, Mitt Romney’s position on human-induced warming is a stunning moral failure.  We now investigate in more detail ethical problems with the specific justifications articulated by Romney so far for his unwillingness to support climate change legislation.
Ethical analysis of opposing greenhouse gas reduction policies on the basis of lack of scientific evidence of human causation.
It is not clear from candidate Romney’s stated position about human causation of observable warming whether he is claiming that there is no evidence of human causation or alternatively that there is significant scientific uncertainty about links between human activities and observed warming. If Romney is claiming that there is no evidence of human causation of warming this is either a lie or reckless disregard for the truth.
Multiple climate fingerprints of human causation including how the upper atmosphere is warming in comparison to the lower atmosphere, nights are warming faster than days, the upper limit of the troposphere is rising as the world warms, more heat is returning to Earth, less oxygen is being found in atmosphere as CO2 rises, and ocean temperature change patterns can’t be attributed to factors that drive natural climate variability.
Multiple studies (called attribution studies) designed to statistically test the probability that observed warming could be attributed to natural variability. Measures of isotopes of CO2 that support the conclusion that the CO2 appearing in the atmosphere is from fossil fuels combustion.
Close correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and global consumption of fossil fuel and deforestation. Uncontestable scientific understanding that as greenhouse gases are added to the atmosphere the Earth’s climate will warm to some extent.
It is clearly untruthful to claim that there’s no evidence of human causation of observed warming. Perhaps, Romney is claiming, however, not that there is no evidence of human causation, but rather that there is significant scientific uncertainty about whether warming can be attributed to human activities. Human-caused climate change started long before Industrial RevolutionA new study shows that the echoes of the earliest human-caused carbon emissions are still present in our atmosphere. The purpose of this work is to provide an investigation into the ideology of anthropogenic (human caused) climate change. It has been written with the confidence that further research within the public, as well as the academic realm is required. To initiate an evidentiary inquiry into geopolitical decision making, one must first understand the causal relations that frame how a scientific issue is presented, addressed and subsequently dismissed. A secondary piece of pertinent evidence is a report issued in 2012 by the United Kingdom’s National Weather Service. David Rose, reporting for the UK’s Daily Mail, incorporated the graphs from this study into an article he wrote entitled Global Warming Stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report. A classic example, is Nobel Peace Prize recipient and former United States vice president Al Gore. Upon further analysis, Foundation Watch affirms that “like CCX, the European Climate Exchange has about 80 member companies, including Barclays, BP, Calyon, E.ON UK, Endesa, Fortis, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Shell, and ECX has contracted with the European Union to further develop a future market in carbon trading” (Barnes 2007, pg 4).
Therefore it is evident that the intentional manipulation of a scientific subject, can be designed to both generate a public reaction, as well as to benefit private interests. It would seem that men and women need a common motivation, namely a common adversary against whom they can organize themselves and act together…[to] bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one, or else one invented for the purpose (Schneider 1991, pg 70). This report entitled The First Global Revolution, was published by the Club of Rome in 1991. 6) the calculated ideological premise that human beings are the source of all environmental problems and thus an enemy to humanity itself [Club of Rome]. In doing so, it is important to understand that this prevailing discourse arises primarily from a position of advanced financial capital and influence. According to Professor Delgado Domingos of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, “creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. Essentially, the authors are calling for an agreement among prominent political, economic and financial institutions, to facilitate the centralization of collaborative decision making.
A major mechanism by which this form of expert management is being implemented around the world is the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, also known as ICLEI: Local Governments for Sustainability. It appears that politicians willing to become proponents of anthropogenic climate change, as well as ICLEI itself, stand to benefit both financially and politically through the collaborative success of this ideology. It is precisely this ideology that is demonstrated by the New Brunswick provincial government and in particular, the Department of Environment and Local Government. Regardless of the purpose, direction or intended result of the above provisions, the action plan milestones that the New Brunswick government is committing to are consistent with the discourse of administrative rationalism, as well as the designed sustainability criteria of ICLEI.
To further clarify this evident congruence between ICLEI’s Milestone Framework and New Brunswick’s Action Plan Milestones, “as outlined earlier, Canadian local governments should be familiar with the Milestone process, as it is also central to the Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) program offered in partnership by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and ICLEI” (ICLEI Canada, pg 6). A corollary would be the setting up in each country of an Energy Efficiency Council to supervise the operation on the national scale” (Schneider 1991, pg 99).
The global survey will run between March and May 2013 and will result in a final report planned for August 2013.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, globalization is defined as “the process by which businesses or other organizations develop international influence or start operating on an international scale [e.g. The concept of sustainability, disseminated and affirmed by previously identified proponents and benefactors of anthropogenic climate change, is “[a subject or practice being] able to be maintained at a certain rate or level: sustainable economic growth, [as well as] conserving an ecological balance by avoiding depletion of natural resources (Oxford Dictionaries Online 2013).
A high-risk, high-reward endeavor, weather-modification offers a dilemma not unlike the splitting of the atom. In this 1996 United States Department of Defense research paper, Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025, authors Major Ronald J. To accurately illustrate these proposed capabilities, Celentano et al chronologically incorporate Table 1: Operational Capabilities Matrix on the next page of their research paper. Subsequently it becomes readily apparent that the United States Air Force, as well as the US Department of Defense, have an expressed interest in anthropogenic climate change. This ideology of self-interest is consistent among all of the exclusive proponents of anthropogenic climate change identified in this investigation.
Fortunately, there is a growing opposition to the claimed consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change as well as considerable numbers of scientists seeking to accurately understand climate causal forces. Upon evaluation of this Senate Committee’s report, in additional to the aforementioned statements by scientific sources, it can be surmised that any entity, scientific or otherwise, claiming a global consensus on anthropogenic climate change is doing so: a) falsely, and b) to further their own ideological agenda. What is within the power of human beings, are the ways upon which we build an authentic global community; one founded upon compassion and awareness of the growing needs of environmentally disadvantaged peoples. The success of this naturopathic remedy would arise organically from a psychologically healthy population. James Divine is a well-traveled transdisciplinary who believes freethinking is essential to the well-being of human innovation.
In North America, the overall probability of wildfires has increased due to human-induced climate change. North Africa and the Middle East may become so hot that it will no longer be suitable for human habitation.
The intensity of solar radiation (irradiance) reaching the Earth is 1.3 kW per m? on a surface perpendicular to the sun’s rays. Without their presence, the ground temperature would be around 30 degrees less than what it actually is. The greenhouse effect is as follows: a fraction of the infrared radiation passes through the atmosphere, but most of it is absorbed and reemitted in all directions by greenhouse gas molecules and clouds.
These variations occur slowly over periods of time that are measured in tens of thousands of years.
However, this 11-year sunspot cycle affects the solar radiation mainly in the ultraviolet range. During powerful volcanic eruptions, volcanic dust reaches the stratosphere (above 15 km) and may remain there for one or two years before falling back to the ground. The top black stepladder curve shows the rise in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 gas that would have been seen had all the CO2 resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels remained in the atmosphere into which it was released.
The average global temperature is not directly measurable and can only be estimated by compiling all the limited observations of local temperatures available around the world. Oceans, by their very nature, heat up less than land because of their well-known regulatory effect on temperatures.
When these models take into account the totality of known phenomena—of either natural or human origin—their results match up satisfactorily with observations. The black lines indicate the observed changes and are dotted when the available data covers less than 50% of the concerned surface. Present trends show a rapid increase in emissions—especially in terms of CO2—given that 80% of the commercialized energy comes from fossil fuel. The colored curves—continuations of the 20th century simulations—show the variations for scenarios A2, A1B, and B1 as well as an unrealistic scenario where concentrations are held constant at their year 2000 values. All models simulate an increase in precipitation in northern Europe and a decrease in areas surrounding the Mediterranean, especially in summer for both regions. These values are model averages for the A1B average scenario of emissions for the months of December to February (left) and June to August (right). The Convention—prepared by 28 heads of state and taken cognizance of at the Copenhagen summit in December 2009—specified this objective more clearly by giving a value of 2°C as the maximum permissible rise in average global temperature. This idea of CO2 equivalent concentration involves expressing the average warming potential of all greenhouse gases during the years to come in terms of the change in concentration of CO2 (the main greenhouse gas) alone that would result in the same warming.
Probable deviation between the equilibrium of global average temperature and pre-industrial temperature (right) depending on the stabilization level of the concentration. To limit this concentration to around 500 ppm equivalent, it would be necessary to halve the total global emissions from now to 2050. The various approaches to scale back emissions involve, first of all, a reduction in the quantity of energy required for a given service.
Estimates relating to oil and natural gas lead to the conclusion that these two fossil fuels should start becoming very scarce in a few decades. Learning gradually to live without them from now on will allow us to prevent an energy crisis in a few decades.
Pourquoi d'autres multinationales ne se lancent-elles pas dans l'aventure avec cette ampleur ? The major cause of global warming: CO2 emission, primarily from burning fossil fuels, releasing a staggering 30 billion tons annually into the atmosphere, and methane emission (which has nearly 100 times the greenhouse effect of CO2) arising from exposure of huge deposits in the melting arctic ice, animal discharge and vegetation rotting, and massive amounts from fracking. Melting glaciers have already caused sea levels to rise more rapidly than at any time in the past 2,700 years, with an eight inch rise since 1880 and accelerating yearly. Throughout the northern hemisphere, birds and plants are moving north at about 15 feet per day. It is likely too late, but only aggressive action by the world’s governments can slow the pace. During a debate over construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, intended to carry oil from Canada to the United States, the Senate voted on an amendment—just for show, really—on whether climate change “is real and not a hoax.” Easy question—everyone said yes, it’s real. This peace is a reflection on climate change policy in the United States after the recent climate change national assessment of climate change impacts on the United States was issued in May. One, it makes clear that the increase in temperature is now established; the rise in temperature is the highest in the poles, where snow and ice cover has decreased. For a long time, there was an unwritten agreement that climate change would benefit such countries. It says the current US contribution to annual global emissions is 18 per cent, but accepts that the country’s contribution to cumulative emissions is much higher. The US still does not have a plan to cut its emissions based on its contribution to the problem. Although the US Congress has continued to fail to act on climate change since climate negotiations began in 1990, President Obama identified administrative actions that he would take that did not depend upon US congressional action.
We now look at this speech, the political response to it, and the US media reaction through an ethical lens. He also dismissed climate change skeptics as Flat Earthers and urged US citizens at all levels to take steps to reduce climate change causing emissions and push back against those who would work to undermine US policy to reduce the threat of climate change. What we need is an agreement that’s ambitious — because that’s what the scale of the challenge demands. That is not to say, however, that the Obama speech cannot be criticized for some omissions in regard to the US’s ethical obligations for climate change. For detailed ethical analysis of scientific uncertainty arguments made in opposition to climate change, see index under Scientific Uncertainty and Climate Ethics.
As we have noted over and over again in regard to the US media coverage of the US response to climate change, the US press is utterly failing to cover ethical issues entailed by opposition to climate change policies in the United States.
We  might ask why the US press is failing to cover the ethical and justice issues entailed by climate change given that vulnerable countries around the world have been screaming for developed nations including the United States to respond in accordance with their ethical obligations. The video argues that politicians have responsibilities that ordinary citizens do not have to protect others from harms that their constituents are causing others. This is one of the reasons why he’s unwilling to support US government action to reduce the threat of climate change.  Many other US politicians have also recently said they will not support legislation to reduce US greenhouse gas emissions because they are not convinced that climate change happening or is human-caused. This is so because government officials, unlike ordinary citizens, have the power to prevent or minimize great harms to millions of people around the world that mainstream scientists have concluded that their constituents or governments that they represent are causing or contributing to.
Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. They must justify their refusal to act on strong, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that is accepted by mainstream scientific institutions that have the breadth of expertise to consider one study in the context of thousands of other studies in climate change science. The US press has almost always failed to probe the justifications of those opposing action on climate change on scientific grounds.
What specific scientific references and sources do you rely upon to conclude that there is a reasonable scientific dispute about whether human actions are causing dangerous climate change?
Are you aware that the United States Academy of Sciences and almost all respected scientific organizations whose membership includes scientists  with expertise relevant to climate change science support the scientific consensus view that holds has that the planet is warming, that the warming is mostly human caused, and that harsh impacts from warming are very likely under business-as-usual? When you claim that the United States need not adopt climate change policies because adverse climate change impacts have not yet been proven, are you claiming that climate change skeptics have proven that human-induced climate change will not create adverse impacts on human health and the ecological systems of others on which their life often depends and if so what is that proof? When you claim that the United States should not adopt climate change policies because there is scientific uncertainty about adverse climate change impacts, are you arguing that no action of climate change should be taken until all scientific uncertainties are resolved given that waiting to resolve all scientific uncertainties before action is taken will very likely make it too late to prevent dangerous human-induced climate change harms according to the consensus view? Do you deny that those who argue that they should be allowed to continue to emit greenhouse gases at levels that may be dangerous should assume the burden of proof that their actions are safe given the strength of the consensus view on climate change science? Do you deny that those who are most vulnerable to climate change’s harshest potential impacts have a right to participate in a decision about whether to act to reduce the threat of climate change in the face of scientific uncertainty?
Given that in ratifying the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) the Untied States in 1992 agreed to the following under Article 3, do you believe the United States is now free to ignore this promise by refusing to take action on climate change on the basis of scientific uncertainty? Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures, taking into account that policies and measures to deal with climate change should be cost-effective so as to ensure global benefits at the lowest possible cost.
If you claim that the climate change impacts predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have not reached a level of scientific certainty that warrants action, do you agree that climate change impacts predicted by IPCC could be wrong in both directions, potentially leading to even harsher adverse impacts than those predicted? Given that for over 20 years since international climate change negotiations began, the United States has refused to commit to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions based upon the justification that there is too much scientific uncertainty to warrant action, if it turns out that human-induced climate change actually greatly harms the health and ecological systems on which life depends of others, should the United States be responsible for the harms that could have been avoided if preventative action had been taken earlier? To understand the importance of the US solving the global climate change problem, one must keep in mind that: (a) the United States is by far the largest historical emitter of global greenhouse gases that have caused the existing problem, (b) the United States is near the top of national greenhouse gas emitters on a per capita basis, (c) the United States is second only to China in total tons of greenhouse gases emitted, and (d) the United States has the worst record among developed countries in making commitments to a global climate change solution. In American Heat, Ethical Problems With the United States Response To Global Warming, (Brown, 2002), this writer documented in detail the negative role in achieving a global approach to climate change that the United States played in the first decade of climate change negotiations from the late 1980s through the year 2000.
Bush announced that the United States was not only unwilling to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, it was withdrawing the United States from the Kyoto Treaty all together.
Yet, the United States under President Obama has approached climate negotiations in Copenhagen in 2009, Cancun in 2010, and South Africa making only a voluntary commitment to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 17% below 2005 emissions levels by 2020 thereby making the US promise: (a) the weakest of all of the developed country commitments, and (b) far short of what is required of global greenhouse gas emissions reductions necessary to prevent dangerous climate change. And so the world continues to wait for ethical leadership from the United States on climate change as significant damages are becoming more visible around the world. Yet there is little evidence that US citizens understand their obligations to poor people around the world for climate change damages and the United States has been significantly responsible for delays in reaching a global solution to climate change.  This is both a tragic failure of  domestic leadership and a failure of the US press to help educate Americans about the negative role the US has played in finding a global solution to climate change.
Climate of Doubt explains that the disinformation campaign has succeeded despite the fact that the vast majority of climate scientists that actually engage in climate change scientific research strongly support the consensus scientific view that humans are causing dangerous warming. The Frontline program give far to much attention to some of the climate deniers while failing to communicate adequately the strength of the consensus position. Although Mitt Romney’s position on climate change appears to have changed over time (at one time supported policies to reduce the threat of climate change), he recently has opposed legislation designed to reduce greenhouse gases citing  two reasons. That is any claim that there is no evidence that observed warming is caused by human activity is demonstratively false. Furthermore, the investigative strategy incorporated in this paper serves to provide a starting place for additional investigation. Of importance, is the distinction between sound science and methods motivated by political self interest. Since the prevailing dominant discourse derives its influence through maintaining ignorance, a praxis grounded upon intellectual empowerment is the most effective use of this knowledge. It is the prerogative of NASA to research and identify causal forces within Earth’s solar system.
Rose also interviews a number of climate scientists who express uncertainty regarding the accuracy of climate modeling. The scientific discipline of climate change and the severe ways upon which human beings are impacted by it, are dismissed in favour of the expert management of human populations. Unfortunately, this public opinion is controlled by the media, a group of scientific illiterates drunk with power, heavily influenced by irrelevant political ideologies, and so misguided as to believe that they are more capable than the scientific community of making scientific decisions” (Cohen 1984, pg 59). A significant proponent of anthropogenic climate change, Gore also happens to be a major benefactor (The Telegraph). It is apparent that several significant benefactors are among the most powerful captains of banking, business and industry. However, the real danger is when rhetorical mechanisms infiltrate the common sense of a particular population and influences that populations’ moral consciousness.
When robbed of the proper utilization of the reasoning faculty, a person surrenders to a set of prevailing assumptions, which in this case are reinforced by the rhetorical mechanisms operating in that society. According to their website, “the Club of Rome is a non-profit organisation, independent of any political, ideological or religious interests. Hence, its intentional dissemination by public, private and corporate actors serve to further promulgate its sphere of influence (Schneider 1991, pg 157).
Authors Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider state: “the global nature as well as the seriousness of the environmental crisis, especially that of earth-warming, indicates the need for a coherent and comprehensive attack at the international level and at the level of the United Nations” (Schneider 1991, pg 99). As previously identified, there is a causal relationship between the public’s demand for governance and its delivery. For in addition to the sliding-scale membership fees charged to local municipalities (calculated by population size), “over the past 11 years [2008 statistic], ICLEI has received between $250,000 and $1,500,000 annually in EPA grants to fund its CCP [Cities for Climate Protection] Campaign and emissions analysis software. Remarkably, this corresponds to the objectives outlined in the previously cited Club of Rome publication, The First Global Revolution: “it would be appropriate that the scheme [energy efficiency] be launched by the United Nations in association with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the World Meterological Organization and UNESCO [United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization]. In accord with this proposal ICLEI’s World Secretariat recently announced, “ICLEI and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) are joining efforts in conducting a global survey on resource efficiency in cities with an objective to get a wide range of city level perspectives and understandings of local needs on resource efficiency.
The survey is conducted by a team of experts led by ICLEI’s World Secretariat in close collaboration with UNEP’s Built Environment Unit.
These goals are consistent with the operational capacities of corporations active in the natural resource extraction industry, with several currently accruing a substantial profit via the European Climate Exchange [BP, Endesa, Shell, Goldman Sachs, Barclays] (Barnes 2007, pg 4). While some segments of society will always be reluctant to examine controversial issues such as weather-modification, the tremendous military capabilities that could result from this field are ignored at our own peril.
Evident, within the operating methodology of each proponent, is a calculated benefit directly attributed to the successful dissemination of this incomplete and ‘debate settled’ ideology of anthropogenic climate change.
Reported by the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, in 2008 over six hundred fifty scientists expressed opposition to the claimed scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change (Morano 2008, pg 1). Russian scientists ‘rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming’.
For example, liberating immigration restrictions to Canada, would allow this country’s comparatively minor population-to-landmass representation (approximately thirty five million, out of a global population of over seven billion) to become proportional through the vitalization by peoples in need of a more hospitable environment. And to provide a remedy to a public that willfully embraces convenient untruths is two-fold.
A Genocidal Hoax: A Chronology of the Global Warming Swindle in LaRouche Lyndon’s Executive Intelligence Review. Changing Climate, Changing Communities: Guide and Workbook for Municipal Climate Adaptation.
Address: The President and the Press, Before The American Newspaper Publishers Association.
Quantifying uncertainties in global and regional temperature change using an ensemble of observational estimates: the HadCRUT4 data set, UK Met Office, 2012. His maverick personality confidently resonates with holistic medicine, investigative literature and spiritual empowerment. The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. While cold winters still occur in the upper Midwest, they are less likely due to climate change. Roughly one-third of this radiation is reflected back into space by the atmosphere and the ground, while the remaining two-thirds are mainly absorbed by the Earth’s landmasses and oceans. More recently, over the last million years, the climate has developed in a fairly well-known way. They bring about changes in the angles at which the sun’s rays strike our planet and are at the origin of the large glacial and interglacial cycles with amplitudes of around 6°C for a period of 100,000 years.
It thus has an impact on the behavior of the highest layers of the Earth’s atmosphere: the ionosphere (altitudes of 100 km and above) and, to a lesser extent, the stratosphere (altitudes of approximately 30 km, see the ozone page).
These particles, essentially made up of sulfur oxides, act as a screen to the incident solar flux (radiation), which has a cooling effect on the surface for a year or two. The annual increase in the concentration of CO2 is about half of what it would be if the atmosphere had retained all the CO2 that humanity produced by burning coal, oil, and natural gas.
This estimation is a parameter whose changes reflect, in summarized form, the general trend of temperature variations observed over the whole Earth. The most recent study regarding the evolution of temperature, published in January 2010 by the U.S.
It is true that water vapor is the most effective greenhouse gas present in the atmosphere. This holds true when dealing with average global temperatures, average land temperatures, or average ocean temperatures.
Firstly, the greenhouse effect related to the change in atmospheric composition is enough to quantitatively explain the climatic observations; if the sun had a greater impact, it would cause more warming than it actually does. Greenhouse gas emissions depend on human factors that are by nature unpredictable, such as demography, rate of economic development, the nature of exchanges, behavior, etc. We are therefore led to believe that CO2 concentrations will reach 1,000 ppm in 2100, which represents more than 3.5 times the pre-industrial concentrations. These numerical values may appear to be small when compared to variations observed on a daily basis. This improbable situation is interesting in that it shows the warming to which we are condemned by past emissions. The increase in continental temperature is double the average and triple the average of northern regions. White areas are where less than two-thirds of the models indicate a change of the same sign while the dotted areas correspond to areas where more than 90% of the models indicate a change of the same sign. The declaration does not, however, involve any concrete commitment on limiting emissions that would make this result achievable.
It is necessary to specify the number of years considered, since all gases do not have the same life. The height of the band corresponds to the uncertainty of the models arising from sensitivity of temperature to changes in concentration. Since French emissions per inhabitant are double the world average, these emissions would have to be divided by a factor of four—if we admit that each inhabitant of the planet has the right to emit the same quantity of CO2 equivalent. This means, for example, better thermal insulation of buildings or an improvement in the efficiency of motors and processes.
Coal, on the other hand, is more abundant and will probably not be exhausted before the next two or three centuries.
It will also save us from the disadvantages of a brutal change in the very climate that made our development possible.
Melting of all the ice in Greenland, currently landlord to 10 percent of the earth’s fresh water with glaciers up to 14,000 feet deep, would leave most of Florida underwater.
Rising temperatures in America will likely bring an infestation by mosquitoes, resulting in malaria and Zika virus infections. Fifty US senators affirmed that they indeed do believe that the activities of human beings contribute to climate change. Although it is before the new Obama administration regulations that were issued this Monday, June 2nd, that proposed to reduc ghg emissions by 30 % below 2005 by 2030 for coal fired power plants. Since discussions began on the issue in the early 1990s, the US has stymied all efforts towards an effective and fair deal. The assessment also finds that in areas where precipitation has not gone down, droughts occur.
It was believed that they would become warmer, with the result that crop-growing periods would increase – which, in turn, would benefit their economies. Not only has there been an unprecedented build-up in the atmosphere of greenhouse gases resulting from the use of fossil fuels, fingerprinting studies can also attribute observed climate change to particular causes.
The effort must include adapting, and building flood- and drought-resistant agriculture and infrastructure. Importantly, it also accepts that it is this stock of emissions that determines the extent of global climate change. As we shall see, the speech was significant for some of the ethical issues touched upon in the speech. He further announced  plans to double wind and solar power while increasing the use of renewable energy in federal facilities to 20 % in 7 years.  He also identified a number of policy responses to reduce energy demand with the goal of significantly reducing the waste of energy. Ninety-seven percent of scientists, including, by the way, some who originally disputed the data, have now put that to rest. Thus, in addition to US interests in climate change policies, President Obama acknowledged that the United States has obligations, responsibilities, and duties to act.

In ratifying the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992 under then president George H.
This is particularly true of economic and scientific uncertainty arguments made in opposition to proposed US climate change policies. Is the US  press so connected to the economic interests of the United States, that it is blind to the US ethical obligations for climate change?
In fact, 7 out of 8 Republican candidates for the US presidency proclaimed they didn’t believe that climate change was a problem. That is, a government officials have more responsibility than the average citizen to understand the state of climate change science because the government official can uniquely prevent harm that their constituents or governments are causing. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer- reviewed science. And so, government officials may not justify their refusal to act simply on the basis of  their personal opinion. Among other things during the negotiations of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) between 1990 and 1992, the United States, virtually standing alone, successfully prevented the UNFCCC from including enforceable national emissions reductions targets for developed nations. As the world is running out of time to prevent significant climate change, the United States continues to ignore its global obligations. In fact there are numerous independent and robust lines of evidence that humans are mostly responsible for the undeniable warming the world is experiencing. Therefore, the foundational reason for this work is to empower the understanding of the readership. In the case of the former, the observer maintains a qualitative standard founded upon the premise that such an investigation will enhance the comprehensive intelligence within their respective discipline. This investigation begins with an analysis of inconsistencies documented by official sources. NASA identifies multivariate concerns over uncertainties pertaining to potential causal forces influencing climate change.
These interviews include “Professor Phil Jones, [former] director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia…[who] admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of ‘natural variability’ – factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun” (Rose 2012). In the dominant discourse, additional issues such as globalization, corporatism, effective waste management, public health impacts, fresh water scarcity and natural resource privatization are often conveniently omitted. The benefits they incur via the successful management of government policy and mainstream environmental activism is enormous and therein is the real inconvenient truth.
When rhetoric, and those who employ it, can establish a jurisdiction of unquestionable authority, then it becomes a god, which through its own machinations, is capable of empowering its skillful technicians and silencing logical inquiry. Its essential mission is to act as a global catalyst for change through the identification and analysis of the crucial problems facing humanity and the communication of such problems to the most important public and private decision makers as well as to the general public” (Club of Rome). The major tenets of this worldview propose limitations on human energy consumption, as well as restrictions on activities that generate carbon output. They continue: “in addition, we propose the organization, possibly under the auspices of the Environmental Security Council, of regular meetings of industrial leaders, bankers and government officials from the five continents. Hence, the prevailing dominion of international economic powers is strengthened via this form of environmentalism, and anthropogenic climatology, in the manner it has been presented to the public, inculcates an environment of oppression. Subsequently, an important question to consider is: can an international secretariat that identifies itself as “…a powerful movement of 12 mega-cities, 100 super-cities and urban regions, 450 large cities as well as 450 medium-sized cities and towns in 84 countries…[that] have built a global sustainability network of more than 1,000 local governments…”, influence the public’s demand for this form of governance (ICLEI 2013)?
In 2006, it reported $904,000 in governmental grants (out of $3.3 million in total revenue) on its IRS 990 tax form…” (Libardoni 2008, pg 3). The results will inform the Global Initiative for Resource Efficient Cities (GI-REC)” (ICLEI World Secretariat 2013).
From enhancing friendly operations or disrupting those of the enemy via small-scale tailoring of natural weather patterns to complete dominance of global communications and counterspace control, weather-modification offers the war fighter a wide-range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary (Celentano 1996, pg vi). To affirm this analysis, Professor Michel Chossudovsky, Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization states, “rarely acknowledged in the debate on global climate change, the world’s weather can now be modified as part of a new generation of sophisticated electromagnetic weapons.
Several of the prominent organizations cited are actively involved in the indoctrination of citizens, as well as strategically influencing government policy. An American Physical Society editor conceded that a ‘considerable presence’ of scientific skeptics exists.
Taylor Gray, concurs with this open minded analysis of anthropogenic climate change: “the occurrence of ecosystems maintaining a state of dynamic equilibrium stipulates that the phenomena of climate change is a naturally occurring process. Conversely, the praxis of this new paradigm would be the encouragement of an informed and intellectually adept body politic. A public effectively self-immunized against ignorance brings with it the opportunity for unheralded philosophical and scientific evolution. Senate Minority Report: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims, Scientists Continue To Debunk “Consensus” in 2008. The Center of Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The Earth’s surface thus absorbs solar energy day after day; it can only stop heating up indefinitely if an amount of energy that is equal to the absorbed energy is released into space. This has occurred under the influence of natural causes that have always existed and that will continue to play a role in the next several millennia.
It has a very slight effect on the total energy radiated and although its influence on climatic phenomena has been detected, it is very small. The five-year average is given by the black and red curves that translate the uncertainties of this average. Furthermore, it is observed that the rise in temperatures is especially significant in the northernmost regions of America, Europe, and Asia.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), concludes that the last decade was the hottest ever recorded; in terms of individual years, last year (2009) came in third place, after 2005 and 1998. What matters is good knowledge of the phenomena that one proposes to replicate numerically. However, the introduction of water vapor into the atmosphere has no lasting effect on its concentration in the atmosphere, insofar as its atmospheric lifetime is only one or two weeks. Even though the potential for error increases when you focus on more localized regions, the agreement remains significant for individual continents. The red bands correspond to simulations that take into account both natural phenomena and phenomena resulting from human activities. Secondly, the 11-year sun cycle is more important than the variations that occur over a few decades and should therefore translate into a periodicity marked by 11 years in climate variations.
We are therefore led to develop scenarios that are likely to occur within the realm of the possible.
To measure the extent of these changes, we need to remember that these are global averages and that the Earth’s temperature—even in the last glacial period when 3 km of ice covered northern Europe—differed from present day average temperatures by only 6°C.
Conventionally, in the absence of any other indication, a time frame of 100 years has been fixed. A second possibility involves the production of energy with little or no greenhouse gas emissions. Since coal produces more CO2 per unit of energy than oil or natural gas, the exploitation of all coal deposits would lead to a variation in atmospheric composition. Perhaps 50 percent of all animal species on earth will be extinct before this century ends. Add to this the fact that the incidence of extreme heat and heavy precipitation is increasing – more heat and more rain. The reason is that higher temperatures lead to increased rates of evaporation and loss of soil moisture. Many parts of the country have already seen flooding, and the assessment is that these risks are significant in the future.
The National Climate Assessment makes it clear that even if specific regions benefit from climate change, this will not be sufficient or durable. However, this won’t add up to much unless emissions from burning fossil fuels are cut fast and drastically. Till now, the US position on historical emissions has been a stumbling block in negotiations. This fact has profound significance for US climate change policy.  It means, that the US must consider its obligations to others not to harm them through our ghg emissions. And we need an agreement that’s flexible — because different nations have different needs. In addition, economic arguments for not acting on climate change ignore obligations that nations have if they are creating human rights violations and duties entailed  by distributive justice. Nor is the US press covering ethical issues entailed by the urgency and  magnitude of the need to reduce ghg emissions  given that the world is likely  running out of time to prevent warming of 2 degrees C, a warming amount which is widely believed could create rapid, non-linear climate change.
And so, when government officials with the power to enact climate change policies are on notice that respectable scientific evidence supports the conclusion that their constituents or governments are likely causing great harm, they may not appeal to their uninformed opinion on climate science as justification for not taking action.
Yet coverage of climate change debates in the US media rarely mention the negative role the United States has been playing in developing a global solution. In the case of the latter, the observer upholds a personal standard founded upon the ideology that this method will satisfy their self-interest and accelerate their ascendance to academic prominence.
It is clear that a full description of uncertainties in near-surface temperature, including those uncertainties arising from differing methodologies, requires that independent studies of near-surface temperatures should be maintained” (Morice, 2012, pg 5). This practice of academic self interest attempts to discredit legitimate science while effectively empowering an environment of division, disinformation and subsequently, ignorance. CCX owns half of the European Climate Exchange (ECX), Europe’s largest carbon trading company…” (Barnes 2007, pg 4). The population, unaware of an intellectual coup d’etat, become willful participants in their own subjugation. When speakers encounter a situation in which people or events do not fit the categories provided by their model of reality, they are more likely to describe those people or event to make them “fit” the model rather than change or revise the model itself” (Penelope 1990, pg 37). It appears, that one of these most important private decision makers, is none other than Al Gore, who holds a membership with the Club of Rome (ABC News 2007).
These Global Development Rounds, envisaged as being somewhat similar to the Tariff Rounds of GATT [General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade; a precursor to the World Trade Organization], would discuss the need to harmonize competition and cooperation in the light of environmental constraints” (Schneider 1991, pg 100).
According to the Capital Research Centre report ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability, the answer is an affirmative. In addition to these grants, “in 1997, the Open Society gave ICLEI a $2,147,415 grant to support its Local Agenda 21 Project, also sometimes known as Communities 21…More recently, ICLEI has received major contributions from the left-leaning Rockefeller Brothers Fund ($650,000 in March 2008, $525,000 in 2006), the Surdna Foundation ($200,000 in 2006), the Kendall Foundation ($150,000 in 2007) and the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Foundation ($100,000 in 2007)” (Libardoni 2008, pg 3). Indeed, it is evident, that in the dominions of finance, politics and industry, multivariate international powers have aligned their objectives. As noted in this report’s Executive Summary, “in 2025, US aerospace forces can ‘own the weather’ by capitalizing on emerging technologies and focusing development of those technologies to war-fighting applications. Both the US and Russia have developed capabilities to manipulate the climate for military use” (Chossudovsky 2004).
Therefore, any remedy offered via this evidentiary inquiry must maintain, as its foundation, a qualitative standard pursued for the purpose of empowering public consciousness.
An International team of scientists countered the UN IPCC, declaring: ‘Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate’. To identify climate change as a problem is exclusively the prerogative of human beings and their unwillingness to accept environmental factors that are beyond their control” (Gray 2013).
The creation of empowered generations skilled in home-building, permaculture, holistic medicine and environmental science would limit international economic dependency and encourage healthy, inclusive and self-sufficient communities.
To be clear, this would take the form of encouraging independent thought, critical analysis and informed opinion.
In relation to governance and geopolitical decision making, the expressed public demand for it would end making psychological domination effectively irrelevant.
This is achieved by emitting waves of the same nature as the light waves of the sun, but which have a longer wavelength given the much lower temperature of the Earth’s surface.
This is why the dense atmosphere of Venus, made up essentially of CO2, results in a very significant greenhouse effect and temperatures of 450°C. Moreover, we can also observe a very small decrease, in relative value, of the concentration of oxygen—oxygen that is necessary to produce additional CO2 that has been removed from the atmosphere. The results of climate modeling are nevertheless affected by uncertainties, mostly related to the practical impossibility of simulating phenomena spread over small spatial scales (below 100 km), in realistic computing intervals. The three bottom panels, from left to right, correspond to the global average, landmass average, and ocean averages respectively. Finally, the rise observed in temperature decreases with altitude and actually begins to decrease at the level of the stratosphere. In the bars on the right, the horizontal line indicates the most probable value for the emission scenario considered and the range of the bars indicates the range of likely values. This would bring about a climate change that is greater than that which separates glacial periods (during the last of which northern Europe was covered with a 3 km-thick ice layer and the sea level was 120 m less than it is today).
And the world is running out of fresh water, the result of population growth, global warming and extensive droughts, likely resulting in widespread human migration and warfare.
You do not believe science.) But then Brian Schatz, Democrat from Hawaii, decided to push the issue.
Worse, successive governments have even denied that the threat from a changing climate is real, let alone urgent. In Texas in 2011 and then again in large parts of the Midwest in 2012, prolonged periods of high temperatures led to severe droughts. This is combined with the fact that the intensity, frequency, duration and the number of strongest (category four and five) storms and hurricanes have increased since the 1980s, the period for which high-quality data are available.
This is clearly the result of an increase in heat-trapping gases released from fossil fuels that countries burn to drive economic growth. Yet, as we have seen over and over again, US climate change policies are usually debated in the United States as if only US interests count. For a discussion of this issue, see: On the Extraordinary Urgency of Nations Responding To What Equity Requires of Them In Their Responses to Climate Change. If this is the explanation, there is a huge practical need to demand that the US press turn up the volume on the ethical dimensions of climate change. For instance, US politicians frequently assert that it is an open question whether humans are causing the undeniable warming that the Earth is experiencing, thus exposing ignorance of dozens of lines of independent robust evidence of human causation including attribution studies, finger print analyses,  strong evidence that correlates fossil fuel use to rising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, and other physical and chemical evidence.
Thus, to value the integrity of the former method, the current directive must be to inspire a holistic understanding within the readership, as well as to identify the inconsistencies that arise within the discourse pertaining to anthropogenic climate change.
As illustrated by researcher Victor Herrera of the Institute of Geophysics at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, this statement by NASA is critical for “the models and forecasts of the UN IPCC are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity” (Morano 2008, pg 4). This is important for the scientists involved clearly state the limitations of their chosen methodology, ie the HADCRUT4 data set, and recommend that independent research be conducted to affirm their findings. In these emails, Jones, in association with Michael Mann and other collaborators, communicate their intention to censor academic papers via intervening in the IPCC peer review process, as well as manipulate statistical data to conform to inaccurate climate forecast models. It is within such an environment that opportunists thrive, pseudo-scientists whose rhetorical machinations frame the discourse of public opinion. This sale occurred the same year Al Gore released the film An Inconvenient Truth, which claims both a scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change, as well as pushing the need to offset carbon emissions via green investments.
Through their acquiescence to a society that abandons formative critical analysis and evidentiary investigation, the population voluntarily reinforces this invisible intellectual prison. What this means is that even when a circumstance arises which exposes that person to an alternative perspective on reality, no matter how grounded in evidentiary logic, that individual will instinctively re-frame or reject that knowledge.
Thus, in light of this evidence gathered concerning the European Climate Exchange, as well as the financial benefits accrued by ICLEI, it becomes readily apparent that the discipline of anthropogenic climatology in concert with private self-interest can in praxis become an ideology of corporatism, advanced financial capital and multinational industry.
This method of harmonization between international powers, by which prominence is consolidated and agreements are constituted, is known as globalization. Such a capability offers the war fighter tools to shape the battlespace in ways never before possible.
It is integrity, not manipulation, deception, or disinformation that will achieve both an accurate understanding of climate causal forces as well as create an inclusive participatory process for affecting positive environmental change.
With this understanding, morality when taken from a practical standpoint, is largely founded upon the availability of the essential ingredients required for life. Thus, when the conditions for freedom surround the human family, the only problem that remains is choice.
There comes a time when one must take the position that is neither safe nor politic nor popular, but he must do it because conscience tells him it is right.
In addition, flood that occurred in the southeastern Canadian prairies was due to land use and human-induced climate change.
Finally, measurements of isotopic composition of atmospheric carbon complete the body of arguments that enable us to attribute, without any doubt, the changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations to human activities.
Yet, the atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is more than one century and its concentration is modified permanently by human waste, which has the capacity to bring about a change in the climate. This involves recovering the gases emitted by the combustion of coal, oil, or natural gas—when the size of the facility allows it—and preventing their release into the atmosphere by storing them in suitable underground structures.
While it is true that global warming caused by anthropogenic emissions would make us move even further away than the glacial era, this comparison with natural climatic cycles allows us to imagine the extent to which the climate would change. He introduced another amendment adding that human activity was a significant contributor to the aforementioned climate change.
US President Barack Obama, who came to power in his first term with the promise to deal with climate change, was noticeably coy about the issue in recent years.
This  idea, which entails looking at the US response to climate change through the lens of distributive justice, has been almost completely ignored by the US Congress and former US presidents. To omit such an influential contributor to climate change as the sun would inherently bias statistical models in favour of anthropogenic theorizing.
In a 2009 email correspondence between Kevin Trenberth and Michael Mann, Trenberth states: “the fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t… Our observing system is inadequate” (Global Research 2009). World Congress of Local Governments for a Sustainable Future…[Bolstered by ICLEI's delivery system,] ambitious local politicians around the world are using ICLEI as an international platform that allows them to build their careers and quickly network with one another on environmental issues” (Libardoni 2008, pg 2). It provides opportunities to impact operations across the full spectrum of conflict and is pertinent to all possible futures” (Celentano 1996, pg vi). International Scientists demanded the UN IPCC ‘be called to account and cease its deceptive practices,’ and a canvass of more than 51, 000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is ‘settled’” (Morano 2008, pg 2).
This infrared radiation has to first pass through the atmosphere, where the greater the quantity of absorbing gases, the greater the ratio of energy emitted from the Earth’s surface to energy released into space. The uncertainty of results is evaluated by comparing the outputs of models for different possible parameterizations. Even though water vapor might not be directly responsible for climate change, it nevertheless plays a part. Yet, it is predicted by the models that simulate the modification of the transfer of radiation caused by an increase in gases absorbing infrared radiation.
Another way is to rely upon the production of energy that does not release greenhouse gases such as hydroelectricity, nuclear energy (fission and fusion), and renewable energies. We can specially fear a rise in sea level of several meters, leading to dramatic consequences. It is also an idea that entails that the United States must reduce its emissions more aggressively than developing nations that have done significantly less to cause increasing atmospheric ghg concentrations. NASA’s admission is important for it sets the groundwork for a genuine understanding on climate change.
As identified in the introduction, the actions of Jones and Mann perfectly illustrate the ideal of scientists working for academic self interest and not for the benefit of scientific understanding. In fact, the Executive Intelligence Review reports that “Al Gore spoke at the May 2005 INCR [Investors Network on Climate Risk] Investors Summit at the United Nations, in his capacity as Chairman of his Generation Investment Management. Gray, “as a naturally occurring biogeochemical cycle, as well as playing the role of an important atmospheric component, carbon is essential for the fats, proteins, and carbohydrates that constitute life.
The increase in temperature causes an increase in the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere. But we thought you might want to know just which representatives have absolved you of your responsibility to the planet.
He called for following the model of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme, which started up in 2005.
Thus, limiting carbon would place a limiting factor upon the potential for life” (Gray 2013). These gases are said to produce a greenhouse effect by analogy with one of the phenomena that occur in gardeners’ greenhouses.
The credibility of climatic models is based on their ability to recreate large geographical structures and past climatic developments. This in turn causes a complementary warming and thereby creates a feedback loop with an amplifier effect, which is taken into account by models. So here’s a list—of the senators who think climate change is some other species’ problem, and then the senators who wish we’d maybe do something about it. This increase in atmospheric water vapor has in fact been observed over the last twenty years.

Iggy azaleachange your life(ep)2013c4
How to change my mouse pointer mac

Comments Climate change caused by human actions

    To many who observe meditation and Jack have each studied there are several workouts recorded as mp3.
    Into the quiet place within you separated from finding out.
  3. 099
    Academics like they're chumps then had taken up religion with the Hare Krsna motion, and and.
  4. kaltoq
    Website of the College of Massachusetts Medical.