The U.S. is a vast country and is home to almost every type of climate zones. The four types of climate zones generally are polar, temperate, tropical climates, and deserts (Rohli and Vega 180). All of their subtypes can be spotted in the U.S.: from arctic and subarctic in Alaska to tropical in the Hawaiian Islands, California, and Florida. In general, the majority of the territory belongs to a temperate (continental) climate, humid in the east and dry in the west, with hot summers and cold winters.
The tropical climate can be seen in Florida and Hawaii, the warmest regions of the U.S., winters here are warm, and summers are scorching. The desert climate is in Arizona and eastern California where the Death Valley and the Grand Canyon can be found as examples. The polar climate zone with freezing winters and cool summers is influencing the nature of the Northern Interior, Great Lakes, and New England. There are other climate subtypes such as Mediterranean (South Florida), temperate oceanic (Pacific Northwest).
Atmospheric currents
One of the fundamental factors determining the climate in the United States is the presence of atmospheric currents, which carry air masses and moisture from the North Pacific Ocean on the continent. The moist Pacific cyclones abundantly irrigate the northwestern coast of the country with rain or snow (Rohli and Vega 185). As for the southern regions of the U.S., in California, precipitation mainly falls in the fall and winter, so summer is dry and hot there. A barrier arises in the form of the Pacific mountains and the Rocky Mountains on the way the air masses move inland. Because of this, the region of the Intermontane Plateau and the western part of the Great Plains is almost always dry. Also, the climate of the United States of America is greatly influenced by the warm tropical air currents coming here from the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico.
Work Cited
Rohli, Robert V., and Anthony J. Vega. Climatology. Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2017.
This paper demonstrates how the ocean’s meridional overturning circulation brings about effects on the current change in climate by the use of computer models, which are computer-based mathematical models, simulating in three dimensions, how climate conduct its components and the interactions of all these factors. Contradicting the old truism which was used a long time ago to describe how global warming/increased atmospheric carbon dioxide started, the utilization of modern climate models has indicated that the warmer current atmospheric temperatures will in the future cause a decreased meridional overturning circulation of sea waters. These effects will enhance the development of reduced release of radio-carbon depleted carbon dioxide gas and thus the idea of the self-restoration mechanism of the earth to this global warming. Due to these increased atmospheric temperatures, there had been elevated rates of evaporation of surficial ocean waters and rainwater run-offs leading to a high degree of freshening these ocean waters. This further decreases the meridional overturning circulation as the strong hydrological cycle reduces the rate of exposure to deep-sea waters and hence corresponding declined levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Introduction
Since the beginning of the tardy nineteenth century global surface temperatures has increased by an average of about 0.740C (averagely 0.130C per decade), a trend that has doubled from the initial research. This has greatly differed from one area to another as other regions (e.g. Southeastern United States of America and parts of North Atlantic) have recorded a slight cooling in the last century. Higher levels of increased temperatures have been seen in Europe, Asia, and parts of North America at altitudes of between forty and seventy degrees north. The same trends have been shown by the temperatures changes in the adjacent lower and mid-troposphere on recent analyses by use of weather balloon and satellite imaging data (David Easterling, 2007). These observations have been revealed indirectly by indicators of atmospheric warming such as increased borehole temperatures, reduced snow cover areas, and glacier recession indicators, substantially coming into conformity with the more direct indicators of current warmth. This paper discusses the relationship between overturning oceanic circulation and climate warming currently witnessed in our atmospheres, using recent climate models instead of relying on the oceanic winds despite the greater contribution attributed by high human activities (Joellen Russell, 2008).
Would a warmer climate indicate more ocean circulation (Meridional Overturning Circulation) in the future?
About 21,000 years ago in the cold climate of Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), there was a research development on the idea that the cold climate was associated with stronger winds and thus high rate of air circulation in the immediate atmosphere. To some aspects this seemed to be true, for instance it was demonstrated that in winter there is stronger winds and greater thermal contrast within the atmosphere unlike summer. But this is becomingly fairly untrue as it’s now clear that if the winds drive oceanic circulation then stronger winds may have resulted more to a global warming kind of climate, as the rate of overturn of the ocean’s water is high and therefore rate of release of carbon dioxide gas into the atmosphere. The recent trends shows Global changes in temperature limits for instance there is decline in the number of abnormally cold days and nights where as the number of unusually warm days and nights are seemingly elevated. Other than these trends, experiences of notable changes have incorporated expansion of the growing period and decreased number of frost days (J.R. Toggweiler & Joellen Russell, 2008).
Warmer climate in this era of global warming have indicated that in the future there will be decreased meridional overturning circulation of sea waters, due to effects of global warming as depicted by the climate model research. For instance in the Atlantic Ocean, waters seemed to have a weaker overturning circulation at the ages of Last Glacial Maximum1 despite the strong winds recorded at this period (Toggweiler, 2008). Also water in the deep ocean was poorly ventilated and its radiocarbon content was low due to poor ventilation, contrasting to the case in the present times where there is continuously high rate of deep waters overturn in the ocean’s interior by surface waters from the poles.
This Meridional Overturning Circulation started to increase, a factor that highly contributed to the elevated earth’s atmospheric temperatures (what has been referred to as global warming) about eighteen thousand years ago. In the long run the increased overturning of the ocean waters, release a large amount of radiocarbon-depleted carbon dioxide gas (CO2) to the atmosphere leading to the foundation of circumstances causing global warming. Since the idea that Ocean waters mix through the rule of buoyancy (warming, freshening, cooling and Salinification) differences between the interior and external polar surface waters is inconsistent, therefore the overturning of the ocean waters rely on turbulent mixing generated by atmosphere winds and ocean tides.
Climate models being the best research tools on this Meridional Overturning Circulation, has given an implication that raised ocean water temperatures and polar oceanic water freshening play a very vital role in the influence of ocean overturning circulation to development of global warming. A stronger hydrological cycle has indicated that warmer temperatures have led to increased evaporation of tropical ocean waters, and the rains and run-offs which results thereafter in the polar region enhance a high degree of ocean water freshening at their waters (Toggweiler and Russell, 2008). There will be decreased green house gas levels with absorption of heat energy hence reduced effects on atmospheric temperatures & global warming.
What was observed during the Last Glacial Maximum to support or contradict your arguments?
Contrary to climate models and despite its agreement with the general view of winter being more windy than summer and atmospheric temperature differences between the tropics and polar regions, they vary ideas in a great deal. The stronger magnitudes of the winds in the Last Glacial maximum would have led to the intensification in the release of radiocarbon-depleted carbon dioxide gas (CO2) to the atmosphere. Due to the elevated levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere hence global warming, the climates at that particular period was expected to show more elevated atmospheric temperatures as compared to the present time, something which was not experienced (Toggweiler and Russell, 2008). This is because the rate of ventilation of the deep Ocean waters would have been high and thus a lot of carbon dioxide gas released by exposure of the deep aged waters, into the atmosphere. But there is a greater agreement that global warming has been caused by elevated levels of atmospheric radiocarbon depleted carbon dioxide gas, and this is what has basically caused disappearance of the ice age.
References
David Easterling and Tom Karl (2007). Global Warming, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, N.C. 28801. Web.
J.R. Toggweiler & Joellen Russell (2008), Ocean Circulation in a Warming Climate, Relative resource manager-feature (nature vol. 451),
Russian climate is comparable to North America’s climate since they fall within the same latitude; above 300N. While these regions exhibit similarities they do portray some differences within some other regions. With respect to similarities both regions share the same climatic conditions especially on areas falling above latitude 500.
For instance, both have regions that experience the same humid cold climate having short cool summers (Dfc). Moreover, the similarities in climate shared by both regions are also portrayed by regions which exhibit humid cold climate experiencing cool summers (Dfb).
With regards to the differences, North America’s climate is a varied type relative to Russia’s. To this end, it can be seen that almost the entire Russian region experiences humid cold climate contrary to North America’s. North America has pockets of humid temperate climates (Cf) as well as dry climates (Bsk) (Schaefer 235).
Most of the Russian population is skewed towards the Western region. A big expanse of land stretching towards the East is sparsely populated thanks to the harsh climatic condition.
The densely populated Western region is laden with an assortment of ethnic groups including the Russians, Turkic, Caucasians, and Buryat among others. To this effect it can be seen as illustrated in figure 2-7 that most of the Russian administrative units are concentrated in these regions to serve the high population. Vitally, these administrative units are sited on areas that are laden with non-Russians for political reasons.
This is probably meant to stump its authority in these areas vital in bolstering its control over the regions. These regions are represented by Perm, Kazan, and Samara among others (MacLeod and Jones 670).
Russia is a geographical region that is concentrated with oil and gas deposits but not on the entire land. Most of the explored deposits are seen on the Western part of Russia. These areas represent Transcaucasia, Volga-Urals, North Caspian and West Siberia. The list of the regions is not limited to the previously mentioned regions since there are still others that have already been explored or, they are yet to be explored.
These areas that have better communication channels that include railway lines are vital for speedy transportation of cargo. On focusing on the population density of this region it can be seen that the population mass is biased towards these regions; those that have railway transport lines, and those with oil and gas deposits.
While focusing on the maps of Russia and the United States with respect to expansion and growth some similarities can be drawn. For instance, to some extend both states owe their expansion, as John Borchert put it, to ‘The Iron Horse Epoch’ characterized by the discovery of rail transport.
To this end, Russia was able to extend its influence far east to cities like Vladivostok. Similarly, this was the fate of the current States in the US in the far West. However, the difference in their strategies of expansion stem from the origin of the ancient cities. While the US pioneering cities are borne from the sea ports, the Russian ones were borne due to their strategic locations; e.g. Moscow was easily defendable.
The idea of Russia to conquer some States in the Northern part (Alaska) of the US in the 19th century has been a source of strained ties between the two nations to date. As a result it led to a series of cold wars that is being witnessed to date.
Oil and gas are two important natural resources that enhance industrial growth of a given state. For instance, in this case Russian economic growth is built on manufacturing industries which enjoy success owing to the availability of oil and gas deposits littered on the Western part of the state.
On a closer observation of the maps (figures 2-11 and 2-12) it is evident that most manufacturing regions of Russia are located on the very regions where there are energy reserves. Vitally, the energy resources overlap the neighboring states which initially formed the USSR before disintegration (Kimble 450). These states include among others Ukraine, Belarus, Estonia, Uzbekistan, Armenia and Georgia.
The disintegration of USSR to the current state of Russia has been a big blow to the state because of the economic losses due to energy deposit losses. Russia can redeem this deficiency by exploring new energy resources from its vast expanse of land or, it can import from its neighbors.
Map construction
Russian physical geography
Political-cultural information
Key. Russia and its internal divisions
Russian People
Economic-urban information
Works Cited
Kimble, Hebert. “The Inadequacy of the Regional Concept” London Essays in Geography 2.17 (1951): 492-512. Print.
MacLeod, George, and Jones Mother. “Renewing The Geography of Regions.” Environment and Planning 16.9 (2001): 669-695. Print.
Schaefer, Frankline. “Exceptionalism in Geography: A Methodological Examination.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 43.3 (1953): 226-245. Print.
As one of the most developed and advanced countries around the globe, the United States of America has acknowledged that the global climate change is an actual problem that affects the entire world and requires immediate action in order to be minimized in the near future. The problem has been recognized for many decades, and accordingly, action has been undertaken for the purpose to explore the issue, search for effective solutions, and address it at local, state, as well as international level.
While the progress regarding policies addressing the global climate change is slow and complicated by a variety of factors, the success in developing solutions for this problem seems to be slightly easier to achieve on a domestic level rather than internationally. This impression may persist due to the involvement of a smaller variety of agents and a greater opportunity to control the domestic and local policies in contrast with those of the global nature. However, as multiple pieces of evidence from the US history show, over the last couple of decades, there has been a lot of effort to employ and implement different kinds of environmental legislation aiming at the minimization of emissions on the territory of the country and the success in regard to this undertaking has been rather uncertain.
The Climate Problem in the United States
When discussing the dynamics related to the state policies designed to address the impacts of climate change, it is important to mention the actual effects of the climate change that the country has experienced and witnessed over the last years. According to the information provided by the US Department of Energy, the measures of the temperature in the territory of the United States that have been accrued out for over a century, showed that since the beginning of the 1900s, the average temperature in the country has risen by one and a half degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degrees Celsius) (i).
This change, as slight and unnoticeable as it may seem, there came a set of other effects that had very serious outcomes; for instance, the US has seen multiple extreme heat waves, hurricanes, droughts, and floods that are linked to the change of climate. In turn, all of these outcomes are parts of a longer chain connecting the warming planet to physical damage to people and properties, businesses, systems, and infrastructure (US Department of Energy i-ii).
In particular, the US energy sector is one of the systems facing a series of problems due to the raising temperatures. First of all, climate change tends to produce a significant adverse impact on the mining of oil and gas (offshore and onshore), the maintenance of versatile sources of energy (hydropower, bioenergy, solar power), and the transportation of resources using maritime ways. In addition, the rapid change of temperatures in winter and summer causes extreme heat and cold waves that force the population to consume more electricity used for the heating or cooling of spaces and this tendency is very harmful to the environment and clashes with the principles of sustainable development (US Department of Energy ii).
In turn, in order to address the vulnerabilities of the energy sector, a set of response measures is required designed to make the aforementioned systems stronger and more resilient to spontaneous and sudden shifts and changes. It goes without saying that such measures take up a lot of funding and effort, which, ultimately upsets the systems due to frequent adjustments and renovation and weakens the state budget due to constant changes (US Department of Energy iii).
In other sectors the situation is similar. Boswell et al. reported that global warming is observed to produce extensive adverse effects on the human health, safety, national security, ecosystems, infrastructure, and economy (1). As a result, the state response to these effects has led to the creation of a wide range of policies directed at the minimization of emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) – the major factors that cause the aggravation of the warming.
Approaches Taken to Address Climate Change in the US
When it comes to the position of the USA as one of the world’s most active GHG emitters in regard to climate change policies, Kyoto protocol is often remembered. In particular, Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement organized by the United Nations and obliging the states participating in this agreement to tale active measures aimed at the reduction of GHG emissions based on the recognition of the fact that global warming is a problem and that it is caused by anthropogenic factors such as the release of GHG (United Nations 1-3).
Notable, the USA is not a member of this treaty as the Bill Clinton Administration faced the Senate’s objection to Kyoto Protocol in 1997; the Senate insisted that the protocol was flawed due to the exemption for the developing countries (Bodnar). However, this does not mean that the US does not attempt to minimize its emissions via the implementation of specialized policies. In fact, Barak Obama Administration made an active effort to address the Kyoto system and encourage its replacement with the Parise Agreement that aligns the carbon footprint of the emerging economies such as India and China with those of the developed countries (Bodnar).
In addition, under the Presidency of Barak Obama, the United States has advanced its success in combating climate change and managed to address a series of problems. Some of the most well-known changes undertaken in the US during that period included the minimization of emissions produced by motor vehicles, the interdiction of limitations and regulations of emissions caused by power plants, and the adjustments that resulted in a drastic increase of efficiency of many different appliances thus cutting the consumption of energy by households (Sunstein 1-2).
The Administration of Barak Obama made the issues related to and caused by climate change one of the main priorities and worked hard on addressing them without postponing the solutions and handling what is usually perceived as “more important” challenges such as those of the healthcare system and the state economy. The Obama Administration saw the connections between the challenges faced by various sectors and the problem of climate change and handled them as a bundle without disregarding the root cause and focusing only on the outcomes (Sunstein 2-3).
Separately, it is important to mention the success of the state of California in terms of battling the causes and effects of climate change. In particular, in 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger made a public statement recognizing the problem of global warming and called to action from the side of the state authorities. Prior to launching the first effective climate change initiatives, a substantial body of research was carried out for the purposes of establishing the exact consequences faced by California and the areas that required change (Farell and Hanemann 88).
Specifically, the policies targeting climate change included in the state of California included a solar energy initiative expanding the alternative sources of sustainable and renewable energy, GHG reduction regulations for businesses, the promotion of low-carbon fuel, and emission capping for larger production organizations, among others (Farell and Hanemann 88-89). A broad set of regulations were introduced to multiple sectors in order to provide the opportunities for sustainable development switching some of the infrastructure and business fields to a more efficient pattern of operation.
The Challenges in Developing Climate Policy at the State, Federal, and Municipal Levels in the United States
The role of the American government in the development and implementation of policies aimed at the issues linked to climate change has been evolving throughout the last couple of decades (Rabe 68). However, when it comes to the pace at which the evolution of environmental policies developed at the federal and state levels, it is important to note that while the federal policy faced stasis, the state regulations gained success and became more active (Rabe 68; “Climate Change Laws in the USA”).
In particular, by the end of 2008, the vast majority of the states were involved in the active implementation of versatile environmental policies eight of which were especially promising in regard to the reduction of GHG emissions; in addition, most states launched research programs directed at the exploration of remedies for climate change dynamics and effects; the engagement of some states was as intense as that of some European countries (Rabe 68). The challenges experienced in regard to adoption of climate change policies at the state levels were mainly driven by such issues as the lack of finding, the insufficient research that also required a substantial budget, and a rational plan of action allowing the implementation of the required change and its successful maintenance over a long period.
However, the overall level of involvement, as well as the activity in terms of environmental initiatives, in the United States was quite modest and could barely match the progress made by the other developed and advanced countries of the world; to be more precise, in contrast with the emission levels registered in the 1990s, the United States aimed at the achievement of a 5% reduction by 2020; this percentage is much less ambitious than the aims of the countries of Europe involved in the similar initiatives (“Climate Change Laws in the USA”). Also, it is important to mention that the current aim is to reduce the GHG emissions by a total of 17% by 2020 in comparison to the levels of the 1990s.
Many federal attempts to pass comprehensive and effective climate change bills failed. Namely, one of the most well-known bills of this nature was the ACES – the American Clean Energy and Security Bill; it was also referred to as Waxman-Markey bill; in 2009, this bill passed the House of Representatives but soon was rejected by the Senate, just like most all similar federal bills (“Climate Change Laws in the USA”).
Finally, when it comes to the climate change policies implemented at the municipal level, it is important to point out that by the end of the 2000s, most municipal governments in the USA were fully equipped to address the problems of carbon emissions and also has the tools to handle the sustainability and efficiency challenges; this was the case because the municipal governments carried out the role of service delivery and regulation (Bae and Feiock 2).
In that way, it was quite natural that the roles of municipal governments as the implementers of the climate change policies strengthened by the second wave of the environmental regulations while the role of the federal government gradually shrunk (Bae and Feiock 2). At the same time, the specific factors that are involved in the adoption rates of versatile sustainability programs; in that way, the challenges persisting on the local level of policy and initiative adoption and popularization are still in need of research.
Conclusion
Over the last couple of decades, the United States of America has shown a significant development in regard to the implementation and practice of policies aimed at the minimization of the causes and effects of climate change. Specifically, multiple initiatives designed to help reduce GHG emissions produced by power plants and motor vehicles, as well as many regulations directed at the increase in sustainable development and efficient use of energy and electricity.
This leap occurred mainly due to the persistent significance of the adverse effects the global warming had on diverse sectors of the United States economy, public health, infrastructure, security, and safety. However, the policy-making at the federal level was significantly slower than that at the state and municipal levels which have seen a great deal of success due to the adoption of effective long-term initiatives tackling the existing challenges and producing measurable results.
Works Cited
Bae, Jungah and Richard Feiock. “Forms of Government and Climate Change Policies in US Cities.” Urban Studies, vol. 1, no. 13, 2012, pp. 1-13.
Farrell, Alexander E. and Michael Hanemann. “Field Notes on the Political Economy of California Climate Policy.” Changing Climates in North American politics: Institutions, Policymaking, and Multilevel Governance, edited by Henrik Selin and Stacy D. VanDeveer. MIT Press, 2009, pp. 87-109.
Rabe, Barry G. “Second-Generation Climate Policies in the States: Proliferation, Diffusion, and Regionalization.” Changing Climates in North American Politics: Institutions, Policymaking, and Multilevel Governance, edited by Henrik Selin and Stacy D. VanDeveer. MIT Press, 2009, pp. 68-85.
Sunstein, Cass R. Changing Climate Change, 2009-2016.
US Department of Energy. US Energy Sector Vulnerabilities to Climate Change and Extreme Weather. 2013.
The climate change has been a long-standing issue not only for the environmentalists but also for global authorities and governments, as well as major global corporations. The negotiations on the protection of the environment, reduction of harmful emissions and dealing with greenhouse have been conducted numerous times over the past decades; however, the previous talks were held with varying degrees of success. Often, high hopes before talks were later turning into vast disappointment at the failure to reach an agreement on key topics. However, the latest climate conference in Paris, held on 5th of December, 2015, might become a proof that an agreement can, in fact, be achieved.
The draft of the agreement, as posted on the official website of the UN organization, emphasizes the need to reduce global carbon emissions and limit the global warming, as the negotiators from 195 countries, agreed to sign the document (Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action, Draft Paris Outcome, p. 1-48). Greg Botelho (2015), the CNN reporter claims that this step, although inconclusive, maybe a significant achievement in multinational efforts for keeping climate changes at bay (para. 1).
While the outcomes of these negotiations may look promising, the so-called issue of the corporations “going green” is still an acute topic, and this problem still awaits its solution. On one level, various corporations, who are willing to maintain their reputation are already acting responsibly, struggling to decrease the environmental impact and enhance their performance in compliance with the ecological regulations.
Still, besides the existence of their counterparts, the companies, which deny or even challenge the negative influence on the environment caused by their activities (Revkin 2009, para. 1-20), another type of business behaviour has been developed recently. The researcher Sharon Beder (2002) mentions them in her article on environmentalism and corporate reputations: “A company that is undertaking environmental measures in order to distract attention from more socially damaging aspects of its operations is clearly not embarking on the road to social responsibility, but rather engaging in a form of greenwashing” (p. 70).
While the first type of irresponsibility can be explained, for example, by inefficient company politics on accountability, or by being misinformed about the environmental impact, the other type of corporations may, in fact, pose a greater danger because of their actual malpractice that does not lead to long-term environmental sustainability.
In a key concept overview, “Managing in the Multicultural World of Energy” published by the University of Liverpool (2015), an approach for resolving the trouble with energy efficiency and reduction of emissions for various types of supply chains is proposed (p. 10), however, it remains a great press of work for the environmental protection organizations and ecologists to adopt such strategies and propose individual solutions to all companies willing to participate in the environmental movement.
While the lack of substantial penalties for violation of environmental regulations encourages the corporations not to take seriously even such major agreements as Kyoto protocol (Bond 2003, para. 13), establishing the harsher penalties may also lead to companies attempting to avoid responsibilities or resorting to half measures, as in an abovementioned example.
The issue of whether human activities threaten to change climate has stirred a fiery debate world all over. In this debate, there are people who support the idea while others reject it. The debate notwithstanding, the issue of climate change is real, as we have seen its effects in the recent past.
This reality must have hit the stakeholders hard leading to convergence of different summits to address the issue. The Copenhagen summit took place last month not to mention the signing of Kyoto Protocol.
Does it mean that these summits converge to come up with a solution to a problem that does not exist? Could it be we are trying to tame a natural disaster? This paper handles such issues exploring if human activities influence climate change, and if they do, then how and to what extent. This paper will also look into the possibility of climate change due to non-human or natural occurrence.
Human Activities Cause Global warming
After immense scientific studies on human involvement in climate change, it is clear that human activities greatly influence climate change (Easton, 2006, p. 9). To understand this better, it is good that we define global warming and its causes. According to Milbourn (2009), global warming is the projected and observable increase in the average temperature of Earth’s atmosphere and oceans.
The Earth’s average temperature rose by 0.6 degrees Celsius in the 20th Century (United Nations (UN) Public Inquiries Unit, 2002). The greatest known cause of global warming is the increase of green house gases like carbon dioxide, water vapor, ozone, sulfur hexafluoride, hydro fluorocarbons, and methane (UN Public Inquiries Unit, 2002). Science research has proved that burning of fossil fuels lead to emission of carbon dioxide.
How does global warming happen? As sunlight hits the Earth’s surface, a smaller amount of the light is absorbed to warm the Earth but the larger amount is radiated back to the atmosphere at a longer wavelength than the sun light (Milbourn, 2009). Study shows that, greenhouse gases absorb some of these longer wavelengths before they escape into the atmosphere.
After this absorption, these greenhouse gases reflect the heat energy generated back to the Earth. This reflection of heat energy back to the Earth by the atmosphere is known as “greenhouse effect” or global “warming” (Norma, 1993, p. 44).
With this knowledge, we can critically analyze activities that lead to emission of these gases into the atmosphere and determine whether they are human in nature or not. The human activities that leads to the emissions of these gases are such as; use of motor vehicles, which emit hazardous gases.
Carbon dioxide, which is the principle contributor of global warming, is produced when coal and fossil fuels are burned to produce energy in different applications. According to Milbourn (2009), use of fossil fuels accounts for 80-85% of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere currently.
Deforestation that is, cutting down of trees also contributes to increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. When man cut trees down and burns them, the carbon that is contained in trees is released into the air as carbon dioxide.
Other human activities include farming; the use of fertilizers and other chemicals in farming releases nitrous oxide, which is a hazardous gas that causes about 10% of air pollution (Cynthia & Daniel, 1995). Changes due to land use accounts for 15-20% of the current carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere (Milbourn, 2009).
Methane, the second largest important greenhouse gas comes from cattle rearing, rice cultivation, decaying materials in landfills and during oil drilling (Norma, 1993, p. 44). Studies show that if there were no human involvement, the natural methane levels in the atmosphere would be 145% less than the current levels (EPA, 2009).
Nitrous oxide results from various human activities like agricultural and industrial practices. Human activities have increased levels of nitrous oxide by 15% over the natural levels (Milbourn, 2009). People use chlorofluorocarbons in air conditioning, refrigeration and as solvents.
These gases as aforementioned still contribute to global warming. Finally, ozone; that is, the lower part of atmosphere also causes global warming. Even though this gas is produced naturally, studies have shown that different gases produced from human activities react to form ozone, a relatively important greenhouse gas.
Who causes the emission of these greenhouse gases? The answer is man. Because of these human activities, there has been increased global climate change in the past few years (Cunningham & Cunningham, 2004, p. 96). This is evident from the rate at which the ice caps are melting, the unpredictable change of patterns of weather, and the rise in levels of seawater.
Drought continues to be experienced in many parts of the world as shortage of water becomes more pronounced. High intensity cyclones and hurricanes continue to wreck havoc in various parts of the earth (Global Warming, 2010). Katrina and Tsunami are real examples of effects of human activities that have occurred in our times.
From the U.S Global Change Research Information Office, an article written by Cynthia and Daniel on the impacts of climate change on agriculture and food claims that, “the change in climate change that is being experienced today will automatically affect food supply in the world.
This is due to water supply drop on crops which may limit their growth, the rise in global temperature will also affect crop growth, and thus it will be very difficult for the world to predict on future food supply” (Cynthia & Daniel, 1995). Man will continue to suffer from pangs of hunger; actually, some parts of Africa are already grappling with reality of global warming as they try to face hunger that has become a normal phenomenon in most places.
In the wake of these events and revelations, it is clear that human activities are involved directly in climate change. The fact that even critics agree that greenhouse gases are the chief cause of global warming, man cannot be exempted from it. It is unfortunate that since time immemorial, man has come up with ways of putting the blame on someone else and the issue of global warming is not different. We are blaming everything else apart from the main culprit, human beings.
Human Activities Do Not Cause Global warming
May be global warming is not for real. In the last few years, different groups of scientists have come out strongly to refute the widely accepted theory that human beings are responsible for global warming. One of such people is Singer (1997) who said, “There does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide.
Instead, most scientists now accept the fact that, actual observations from Earth satellites show no climate warming whatsoever.” Many other people including over 17,000 scientists have thrown weight behind this issue.
This group of people including geophysicists, physicists, meteorologists, climatologists, and environmental scientists states that, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate” (Bast, 2001).
Apparently, science is not in a position to pin point the extent by which human activities have contributed to global warming. According to Mathews (2003), the earth did not start warming in the recent past; on contrary, the Earth was even warmer in the Middle Ages than it is today.
Scientists working on impacts of climate in the United Kingdom concluded that throughout 1990s, the Earth had been warmer than any particular point in the last millennium (Mathews, 2003). Many scientists and environmentalists bought this idea and called for immediate action to cut down emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. However, this does not mean that these researchers were right.
Another group of researchers from Harvard University conducted ‘temperate proxies’ research whereby, they used things like historical accounts, ice nubs, and tree hoops to determine prevalent temperatures at different sites around the globe. They established that the medieval temperatures were very hot before drastic cooling of the world in 1300 (Mathews, 2003).
Therefore, there is a possibility that scientists in contemporary world are in haste to draw conclusions from researches carried over a very short period of time say, 10 years. Theories are proved after looking closely to well-documented peer reviewed materials and this withstanding, there is a possibility that human activities have nothing to do with global warming.
Maybe, “what has been forgotten in all the discussions about global warming is a proper sense of history” (Mathews, 2003). An alarmist group of scientists is emerging trying to blow things out of proportion after compiling few segments of scientific data that is not supported by any core scientific literature.
For an idea to be accepted as a fact in science, it must go through rigorous sessions of study and reviews, a component that is conspicuously lacking in today’s scientific claims that human beings are contributors of global warming.
There is no concrete proof that human beings are involved in global warming. What we have is a sketchy ‘through the glass’ assumption drawn from few excerpts from recent studies. The point here is that, there are no clear-cut parameters to prove that human activities lead to global warming. Given the fact that all the greenhouse gases also occur naturally, how can scientist ‘scale up’ the amount that is dangerous in the atmosphere?
Conclusion
Global warming is the projected and observable increase in the average temperature of Earth’s atmosphere and oceans. Whether human activities contribute to global warming or not, remains a point of contention. The debate is immense and each group is holding tight to its claims. Climate reformers have continued to brand critics ‘business minded coterie’ while critics have always branded reformers findings’ ‘science consensus’. This turns out to be a game of finger pointing.
However, after a critical review of both sides, it is clear that global warming is real and it is here to stay unless stakeholders take immediate mitigation factors to alleviate the prevailing conditions. It is easier said that human activities do not contribute to global warming than grappling with the realities of global warming.
People are dying of hunger and related catastrophes under our very own eyes. Sitting back and watching as people perish form repercussions of what could have been prevented does not justify cowing away from criticism. Time for procrastination was yesterday; today it is time to act on the issue of climate change.
References List
Bast, J. (2001). Scientists Do Not Believe Human Activities Threaten To Disrupt the Earth’s Climate. Web.
Cunningham, M., & Cunningham, W. (2004) Principles of Environmental Science. McGraw Hill International. 2nd Ed.
Cynthia, R., & Daniel, H. (1995). Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Agriculture And Food Supply. Consequences, 1, 2-4.
Easton, T. (2006). Taking Sides Clashing Views on Environmental Issues. Guilford: Dushkin Pub Group. 12th Ed.
Mathews R. (2003). Middle Ages Were Warmer Than Today, Say Scientists. Web.
Milbourn, C. (2009). EPA: Greenhouse Gases Threaten Public Health And The Environment / Science Overwhelmingly Shows Greenhouse Gas Concentrations At Unprecedented Levels Due To Human Activity. News Releases issued by the Office of Air and Radiation. Web.
Norma K. (1993). Native perspective on climate change, in Impacts of Climate Change On Resource Management in the North. University of Waterloo: Ontario.
Singer, F. (1997). Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate Oakland, CA: The Independent Institute.
The United Nations Public Inquiries Unit. (2002). Global Climate Change. Retrieved From. Web.
A volcanic eruption is said to have occurred when magma, ash or dust found in the earth’s crust find their way to the earth’s surface through an opening. The eruption affects the world’s climate negatively. It has a cooling effect, warming effect and produces green house gasses, dusts and chemicals to the environment in turn affecting climate. This paper discusses the climatic effects of volcanic eruptions (Bush, 2006).
When an eruption occurs, it releases gasses, dust and magma to/on the earth’s surface and the atmosphere. Depending on how sunlight interacts with these exposed compounds, the result may be climate warming or cooling. The effect is both in the long term and short term.
For example the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, caused the world temperatures to drop by degree Fahrenheit for a period approximated to be two years. This resulted to slow growth of plans in Europe and other parts of the world. Tambora in 1815 caused a temperature drop in Europe and Northern America which was acute that crops failed and lead to drought in the countries affected (Morgan, Steven & Valdes, 2007).
Immediately after a volcano, dust released to the atmosphere causes a cooling effect; the level of cooling depends on the size of dust particles released and the amount. Tiny dusts have a higher cooling effect than large grain emissions. This is because they remain in the atmosphere for a long period. Gases from volcano contain sulphur oxide, carbon dioxide or sulphur dioxide among other gases. These gasses easily rise to stratosphere.
They then combine with water droplets found in the atmosphere and come back as rain acid. Since the stratosphere is dry, the droplets made take a long time before they are heavy enough to drop as rain. They are at this time interrupting the normal functioning of the atmosphere.
The result is a cooling effect. Pinatubo and Tambora eruptions 1991 and 1815 respectively are believed to have caused a massive sulphur haze eruption which resulted to cooling of the earth for about two years. On the other hand these gasses have green house effects which affect the normal operation of the atmosphere. The end result is global warming.
Global warming is the increase of world temperature which is caused by emission of green house gasses to the atmosphere. The frequency of volcanic eruption is not high and thus its effect on global warming is not much, however if huge eruptions like flood basalt volcanoes occur, then carbon emitted can cause a significant effect on global warming (Smith & Braile, 1994).
Volcanoes release large amount of Carbon dioxide and water vapour to the environment. These are in tiny particles which remain in the atmosphere where they reflect sunlight rays making the earth’s temperatures fall. A recent case was eruption which occurred in Europe; Iceland’s Eyjafjallajokull volcano. The eruption released a large amount of gases to the atmosphere. There was an increased pollution of climate and atmosphere to a level that planes were not allowed to fly to or from Europe.
The immediate effect was an increase in temperatures. When volcanoes erupt, they release a smoke of gas, dust, water vapour and magma. These components have a cooling effect on the earth’s temperature; when temperatures have been tampered with, worlds climatic patterns change. For example seasons change, rain composition change and there is global warming caused by particles release to the environment (Dvorak, Johnson & Tilling, 1992).
References
Bush, M.B. (2006). Ecology of changing Planet 3rd Edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall
Dvorak, J. J., Johnson, C., & Tilling, R.I. (1992, August). Dynamics of Kilauea Volcano. Scientific America, 46-53.
Morgan, T., Steven, J. and Valdes, p. (2007). The Climatic Impact of Super Volcanic Ash blanket. Springer
Smith, R .B. & Braile, L. W. (1994). The Yellowstone hotspot. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 61. 121-187.
Jon Gray, the co-founder of the Ghetto Gastro in the Bronx, challenges the public’s perception of his home. Being born during hard times, Gray could have easily become a victim of economic oppression and the lack of social policy. Despite the environment he was born in, Jon Gray created the Ghetto Gastro, which idea was to bring people to the Bronx. All of this was created because people should embrace and be proud of the place they were born in.
Sinéad Burke wants to give people a new perspective on the world they live in. Being born 105 and a half centimeters tall, she quickly noticed that the world was not designed for her. The design impacts all the simple things such as chairs, coffee shops, and bathrooms. Everything that seems ordinary to people inhibits her autonomy and independence. Sinéad Burke challenges the idea that the design is just a tool for function and beauty. Contrary, design affects people’s everyday lives and inhibits vulnerability in those whose needs are not considered.
Greta Thunberg explains why the world today is in high need of changes. Just at 16 years old, she noticed how much the world is in danger. Rich and developed countries have all the resources needed to change the world and prevent disaster. However, these same countries keep being ignorant and continue to invest in constructing roads or factories rather than developing environmental policies. The problem is that the climate crisis has already been solved, and the only thing left to do is to take action.
To change the world, people need to educate one another on the issue of climate change. Simple actions such as investing in education and developing climate science might positively impact the climate crisis. Various teaching methods such as debates, group projects, and field trips have already been proved effective (Monroe et al. 801). Children and teenagers are the future, and only they can influence the outcome of the issue. That is why the education and engagement of the children in the climate problem are so important.
Work Cited
Monroe, Martha C., et al. “Identifying Effective Climate Change Education Strategies: A Systematic Review of the Research.” Environmental Education Research, vol. 25, no. 6, 2019, pp. 791-812.
Climate science is a significant, long-term change in global climate concerns. These changes are caused by various factors on the planet: sun, rain, oceans, desert, and savanna. Scientists have innovated scientific models that predict climatic variation before the actual results from the fieldwork (United Nations, 2019). These changes occur each day around the globe, thus making scientists research scientifically and doing field research. Notably, it is imperative to focus on the effect of the scientific models on climate change.
Climate science has helped in reading the climate change over the years rather than hours, thus assisting the scientists in having scientific results before the actual data is generated (U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2019). The science computers cover a large number of documents quickly, reducing the time taken to go through information collected during the fieldwork (United States Army War College, 2019). Climate knowledge makes scientists understand the effect of human activities on climate change. The technology used is being improved every day to make it capable of running more records at once. Models operation has led to the understanding that prototypes provide more information than observation.
Information provided by the simulations is skillful hence doing the research wide. The statistics convinced people of the representations. Facts used in climate modeling use many variables that the scientists follow as the research protocol (Schmidt, 2015). These facsimiles run different kinds of tests in the atmosphere hence giving the final result. Natural factors are one of the replicas’ tests to determine the abrupt change of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Dr. Schmidt’s dialogue explained more about the operation of the approaches and the outcome (TED talk video, Schmidt, 2014). He expounded on the discourse on the importance of the models to climate change research over the years, comparing it to the observation made by the scientists.
Finally, after understanding Dr. Schmidt’s discussion on the explanation of the exemplars’ importance and their effects on climatic change research. The archetypes’ particulars are enormous, thus making the finding of a long time being reached in a short time. Climate science is essential in understanding the climate change of many years hence finding a solution in time. These recreations have proved to be reliable sources of research for scientists.
The climate change and its consequences are the topics for many arguments and discussions. Even a decade ago, it was not so burning and was frequently treated as “inconvenient truth” (Takeway). For a long time, the problem of climate change was denied (Washington 2). The role of science in supporting climate issues was doubted. At present, the problem became evident and cannot be denied. Climate change and its consequences were mainly environmental issues. However, in the recent years, it became a strong political concern. The new documentary, Climate of Doubt, presented by Frontline as a part of PBS Election 2012, discovers the institutions that confronted the science concerning the significance of climate change issues.
The Role of Expert Opinion in Climate Change Debate
In all spheres, the opinions of experts are traditionally valuable and respected. However, as a result of climate change debate, there appeared a coalition of skeptics who believe that the issue of global climate change caused by humanity is a myth (“Climate of Doubt”). They oppose themselves to the official science and politics that consider climate environmental issues to be of primary importance. Nevertheless, the greater part of population still supports the conclusions of experts when it comes to climate issues.
The role of scientists in the question of climate change is discussed equally with the environmental problem. There is a supposition that experts should play key roles in “mobilizing support for policy actions” (Nisbet). However, scientists are cautious about this idea because it can lead to deterioration of public trust and negatively influence objectivity and credibility of their work. Still, some experts believe that advocating for political actions does not contradict their scientific activity.
Scientists need to earn the public trust in the questions of climate change. Many scholars realize the necessity “to identify credible experts and account for expert opinion in technical (e.g., science-based) decision-making” (Anderegg et al. 12107). This credibility can be achieved after the time proves the significance and reliability of their claims.
On the whole, experts’ opinions supported by scientific research can become decisive in the climate change debate. However, experts should preserve their scientific principles and moral values not to become a tool in political games. Still, climate discussions on the whole and political debates in particular are probably the only ways to attract attention to climate problems.
Scientific Expert Knowledge in Fossil Fuel Industry
Fossil fuel industry is generally considered to be one of the causes of climate change. However, the recently revealed evidence prove that for more than half a century environmental studies concerning the climate change have been funded by the fossil fuel companies to support their interests. For example, a researcher from the Cato Institute acknowledged that 40 percent of the funding he received come from fossil fuel companies (“Climate of Doubt”).
The Center for International Environmental Law disclosed the documents that prove the facts that fossil fuel companies realized the possible risks of their activity and climate impacts earlier that they became a significant public concern (“New Evidence”). As of 1968, the documents of the American Petroleum Institute included the facts of accumulation of carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere that is considered one of the leading causes of global warming and climate change at present.
On the whole, the activities of fossil fuel companies have a vested interest in providing financial help to environmental research. They benefit from such disinformation because their work was out of the attention of environmental organizations. Moreover, they contributed to the erosion of confidence in expert opinions about climate change. Thus, it can be concluded that the fossil fuel industry succeeded in shifting the focus of the debate concerning climate from the fossil fuel impacts to authority and legitimacy of scientific expert knowledge. At present, fossil fuel companies should fund unprejudiced investigations and support objective policies concerning the impact of industry and further reduction of emissions that cause global warming.
Limits for Expert Claims
Experts in different spheres should be careful in their claims because they can be frequently used as guidelines for some activities. Consequently, experts should be conscious about the information they disclose. When environmental issues or the safety and health concerns of humanity are involved, the expert claims should be limited by the considerations of making no harm. Thus, experts should avoid disclosing false or biased information.
Conclusions
On the whole, the problem of climate change arouses many controversial disputes. On the one hand, it demands immediate actions to reduce and prevent negative impacts on the environment and people’s health. However, the intrusion of fossil fuel companies into research conditioned the lack of trust to expert opinion. It also caused skepticism in relation to the issue of climate change and made it a climate of doubt. However, the fact that fossil fuel companies invested in concealing the research findings concerning hazardous emissions, proves their danger and negative impacts on climate. In the future, climate and environment experts should conduct fair research and thus win back the trust of the population.
Works Cited
Anderegg, William, et al. “Expert Credibility in Climate Change.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 107, no, 27, 2012, pp. 12107-12109.
“Climate of Doubt.” YouTube, uploaded by Edward Grady. 2017. Web.