Almost once with Karl.The word climate disexpert has become just such an abused word as ‘ populist ‘. I prefer to call it ‘ climate sceptic ‘ or even better: ‘ Climate realist ‘.
The biggest discussion, which climate hystericians are always passing on, is not whether the climate changes, but what the actual contribution is of the measures they take.Do you really want to take care of this planet? Then tackle the manageable problems.
- Livestock (linked to meat food and dairy products).
I love a lapie meat, but can’t deny that there is a huge impact to fixed.
Grab those 3 things and you have a really big blow to tackle.
Storms and irregular weather conditions?Mwah… Vroegâh stormed it too.
When I read the look of the boy (seventies), there were regular stories about super storms and other unin due to climate change.In February 1990 there was a series of very heavy storms in the Netherlands. Again it was read everywhere that this was going to be much worse. You ain’t seen nothing yet.
Well, little more learned from it and I think it is much less harsh today than it was.
Would also like to take Belgium, and perhaps also the other countries where I lived.What I find of the current weather conditions, as a climate-defences, yes, that’s me, though: whether you believe me or not, little has changed, I can say because I’m no longer like young-green, but have also experienced the same states in my life. In fact, little changes and there it is in, if you are young, and those things have only happened once, then it is waw, while if you are a little older, and for the second or third time, you will not turn around. Look, thunderstorms are mostly local, but you may have years, many years, that it almost does not go unwads, no lightenings etc, and then comes a year that it is almost every day in the summer price. And then the rest comes back. Quiet. Wait until it is over.
We do not deny that, what we do say is that climate change is a natural phenomenon in which the influence of man causes an acceleration of change.Where in the past a warming stretched over a much larger period and nature adjusted itself the term is now shorter.
The Netherlands has nothing to do with the rise of the sea level, but with the bottom pockets.In fact, not everywhere rises sea level.
I do not want to call myself a climate-disexpert, I only doubt, like most of those who have responded to this topic, the causes that are indicated (CO2 in particular).
That we always have more again seems to have a completely natural cause: possibly shifting the magnetic North Pole.This creates other currents in the Arctic, resulting in more ‘ pockets ‘ with or hot or cold currents that go far further southwards than before.
Because palm trees have ever lived on Greenland, it is likely that this type of fluctuations has already occurred in the billions of years that the Earth has existed.The problem is that 7 billion people have never lived on that earth before and have built permanent houses and cities. Even 20,000 years ago, when just about the last major fluctuations occurred, people already lived on the earth, but they simply left for more liveable areas when such a fluctuation took place.
In addition, the large number of people work negatively on the environment and in any way affect those 7 billion people the climate: if the sun does not give off the heat on the earth but on roofs of houses, then the climate of the soil and all those countless We have an influence on the larger whole.Solar energy allows for microclimate changes, and wind and water energy do so as well. By definition. And I am not talking yet about the industrial agriculture that is needed to feed those 7 billion people and, by water stretching from the ground, makes a lot of micro-climates change.
Either: If you really want the climate to change as small as possible, then you have to make sure that people can no longer reproduce.Then, a large part of the problem will occur, and in addition, if there were only 1 billion people, the impact of the change that would eventually come, would at least be a lot less.
Storms: Storms are caused by temperature differences.If you warms up by putting the heat source higher (the Sun) you will get more and more violent storms. If you heat up by insulation (greenhouse effect) there will be less and weaker. What you refer to are the claims that there may be more or stronger hurricanes coming through the warmer seawater. An increase in the number of hurricanes was never confirmed in measurements and would knock the water to warm up more strongly than the air. I doubt it, but have no data about it.
irregular weather conditions: The Arctic gets hot faster than the equator.(Better insulation) This temperature difference creates a jet stream above our head. In places with no jet stream, like around the Mediterranean, you get the same thing every day. So to be more correct: we get more regular weather conditions. For example, heat waves will persist for longer, as the jet stream has less power to blow them away. The weather will become more regular. What you probably mean is the amount of precipitation that will increase globally because warm air retains more moisture and the greater evaporation of water. This can cause certain deserts to disappear and others to come. Most studies confirm that the number of deserts does not increase (and also does not decrease) due to climate change.