World’s Future Climate shall be influenced by People not Governments

December 25, 2014 By Cliff Jenkins Scott 52 Comments

The world at large is all set to go ahead and sign pledges of global climate treaty in Paris over the coming year but none can ignore the fact that 2014 was the hottest year on record and if the aforementioned pledges are not fulfilled or the world leaders do not cut their carbon emissions by a significant amount then the world would indeed be moving towards an abyss and we would suffer catastrophic effects as well.

Although the entire world would be affected if they remained silent over the issue of Global Warming yet it is highly likely that the most affected due to this issue would be the poor countries. These places would be the first to see impacts of Global Warming. Low-lying states such as the Marshall Islands of the South Pacific would drown because of the rising level of water in the seas and the Kiribati Island also located in the South Pacific has already started preparing for a full scale evacuation of its citizens due to the effects of Global Warming.

Researchers have also warned that a hotter world would have severe effects on the Global Agricultural yield.

Scientists have said that in order to save the world, we would have to leave almost 85% of the world’s recoverable fossil fuel reserves in the ground. If we don’t do that than a temperature rise of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit as compared to the pre-industrial era temperatures would be inevitable. And these figures could severely affect the climatic make up of our world. Severe storms would be much more common due to these.

People have started to notice these climate changes and have showed that they want to curb the global greenhouse gas emissions as well by a number of activities ahead of the Lima Climate talks.

These events have shown that public concern over climate change is far more serious then global leaders as was evident during the Lima climate talks. Although U.S. and China have both agreed to severely cut carbon emissions by 2030 during the talks yet the negotiations were largely stalled over questions of responsibility for Global Warming. Due to these facts it is becoming increasingly clear that in 2015 saving the world will depend on the people.

About the Author

About Cliff Jenkins Scott

Cliff likes to describe himself as made for the hard road. Freelancing is taking off across the world. And yet, valuable opportunities are hard to find he thinks, particularly when it comes to writing. After graduating with an MA degree in Communication as a major and Technology and Writing as minors, Cliff decided to give his own website hosting creative writing a boost and engage in an overwhelming number of projects, all of them focused on writing. He didn’t look for a quick burnout, but his eagerness to learn as much as possible as rapidly as possible kept him going.

MJC

These “global climate treaty” pledges mean nothing to anyone except those who seek to restrain American power. Fortunately, the majority of Americans now understand that man-made global warming/climate change is a hoax.
- frishy
  
  Yeah, those gullible analysts at the Pentagon are in on the hoax…
  And that icey comet that splashed down is causing the ocean level rise…
  oh, no comet?
  Take off the tin foil hat and see what’s happening with HUNDREDS of indications that climate change is accelerating.
  - MJC
    
    Tell it to the people of Buffalo, NY. Mighty cold and snowy start to winter there.
    - bill shockley
      
      Buffalo is not going to become a desert overnight. First you will have changing weather patterns, persistent conditions among these. That storm dropped record snow because it stayed in place for several days—longer than usual. See youtube videos by Jennifer Francis.
      
      Over the last several decades the northeast of the United States has actually gotten slightly cooler while most of the rest of the world warmed. There are some subtleties to climate change.
      - MJC
        
        Yes, chief among these “subtleties” are the fluctuating output of the sun and the effect of water vapor in the earth’s atmosphere, both of which dwarf human activities.
      - bill shockley
        
        water vapor in the atmosphere has increased by 5% due to global warming. Warm air holds more water.
        
        Fluctuations in the output of the sun are small compared to forcing caused by CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
        
        http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig8-15.jpg
      - MJC
        
        Incorrect.
        
        Impact of solar output variation >> impact of water vapor > impact of methane > impact of CO2
        
        In addition, increase in CO2 lags historical temperature increase by 800 years. Therefore, CO2 is not a cause of “global warming.” At most, it is a trailing indicator. Certainly not something that should be a target of taxation by the elites and demagogues.
      - bill shockley
        
        MJC wrote:
        
        “Impact of solar output variation >> impact of water vapor > impact of methane > impact of CO2”
        
        You have your arrows backwards. Can you read a chart?
        
        MJC wrote:
        
        “In addition, increase in CO2 lags historical temperature increase by 800 years. Therefore, CO2 is not a cause of ‘global warming.’ ”
        
        During previous glacial periods, going back 800,000 years by ice core records, temperature change was initiated by changes in solar irradiance. Google:
        
        “As can be seen, there is close correspondence in the timing and relative magnitude of the two variables. Although not clear from this chart there is general agreement that temperature changes precede CO2 changes during the rising phase and CO2 lags temperature by a larger amount during the falling phase.”
        
        Now, CO2 is the driver of global warming. The impact is immediate, but the TOTAL impact lags by several decades. So, if we stop emitting CO2 today, there is still much warming “in the pipeline”. The amount is controversial, but some say it could carry us all the way to +2C by 2100.
      - MJC
        
        No, you have your logic reversed. There has been no significant temperature increase in 18 years. Are you going to believe your heroes’ models or “your lying eyes?”
      - bill shockley
        
        90% of the heat is going into the ocean. Does that not count? When ocean currents change patterns, as with the El Nino – Southern Oscillation, the direction of heat transfer reverses and you will get a faster rise in surface temperatures. But even ignoring that, temperatures are rising. 2014 was the hottest year on record and there haven’t been two successive months showing a decline in year-over-year average temperature IN DECADES.
        
        Here’s a graphic of where the heat’s going. Do you see a slow-down or leveling off?
        
        https://c479107.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/20580/area14mp/gvzj8y37-1361767576.jpg
      - MJC
        
        The hottest year on record, eh? Over how many millenia?
        
        Go take a look at the latest OCO-2 images from NASA. They debunk the entire CO2 hypothesis of the global warming alarmists.
      - bill shockley
        
        MJC wrote:
        “The hottest year on record, eh? Over how many millenia?”
        
        The modern instrumental record. Since 1850.
        
        MJC wrote:
        “Go take a look at the latest OCO-2 images from NASA. They debunk the entire CO2 hypothesis of the global warming alarmists.”
        
        I’ve seen some of the videos. People are making all sorts of claims as to what it shows. I guess debunking the greenhouse theory was bound to come up. Clue: If it was true it would have made headlines.
      - MJC
        
        Big deal, only 150 years. During most of which our ability to accurately and precisely measure temperature wasn’t very good.
        
        The reason that the lame stream media and the global warming scamsters haven’t said anything about the OCO-2 CO2 distribution maps is obvious: the results don’t support their crooked agenda.
      - bill shockley
        
        The Watts Up guy already had his fun with the temp record and he was proven wrong.
        
        As far as the paleo record, it’s been way hotter if you go far enough back. But in the last 800,000 years, it’s only been about 1C warmer than what we have now.
        
        This graph is Antarctic temps, which swing more widely than global temps:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record#mediaviewer/File:EPICA_temperature_plot.svg
        
        More importantly, in the last 10-12000 years, the global temperature has been very stable, and that has made sea level consistent and allowed for civilizations to spring up near water. That will change this century unless we do something quick. Some call sea level the global thermometer.
        
        MJC wrote:
        “The reason that the lame stream media and the global warming scamsters haven’t said anything about the OCO-2 CO2 distribution maps is obvious: the results don’t support their crooked agenda.”
        
        Scientists on the whole, I would not say are the scamming, lying type. There are some weak ones who won’t speak out, or government scientists who love their job and security more than truth. But, generally, I think business men are more the aggressive, cut-throat, lying types, who will do what they have to for money and for the corporation. The corporations own the government. The media pay lip-service to the government, not the scientists. They need access to the government to get their stories.
        
        Why was James Hansen silenced by the government? To the point that he quit his job and now is suing the government to force it to do its duty towards the population it represents? You won’t find a more honest, capable, experienced climate scientist. He has facts. You have lies.
        
        Youtube:
        
        Meeting the Renewable Energy Challenge: James Hansen Keynote
      - MJC
        
        Lies, eh? I cite objective data without massaging it. You on the other hand are allied with the lying academics who live off of high tech welfare. They massage data and curve fit to suit the needs of the power hungry leftists and their media friends.
        
        Are you old enough to remember the media driven frenzie in the 1970s about the impending ice age?
      - bill shockley
        
        Tell me again which objective data you have cited. I seem to have missed that.
      - MJC
        
        You are tiresome and/or stupid……
        
        October and November OCO-2 CO2 maps from NASA. Read them and weep.
      - bill shockley
        
        I’ll be happy to read them if you first tell me what it is I am supposed to see. Otherwise, I’m not wasting my time.
        
        Or don’t you know what point you are trying to make?
        
        LOL
      - MJC
        
        Evidently, you are the product of our fine government school system. You can’t seem to follow your own thread here. One last try:
        
        The NASA OCO-2 maps clearly show that the lion’s share of CO2 emissions are coming from largely uninhabited southern hemisphere rain forests, not the industrialized northern hemisphere’s land masses. This demonstrates that the anthropogenic “global warming” CO2 hypothesis is wrong.
        
        QED
      - bill shockley
        
        Plants absorb CO2 for photosynthesis and breath out oxygen. So, during their lifetimes they are carbon sinks, not carbon sources. When they die, by burning (quick oxidation) or after they die, (by rotting) they become carbon sources. It’s a cycle. It’s part of what is called the carbon cycle. When man is not around, it is largely a zero-sum game. When man enters the picture, you can get periods of land-clearing when the scale is tipped to plant death by clearing and burning. This can then, for a while, become a net source of CO2. This is what is being observed by your OCO-2 satellite.
        
        “‘Preliminary analysis shows these signals are largely driven by the seasonal burning of savannas and forests,’ said OCO-2 Deputy Project Scientist Annmarie Eldering, of JPL. The team is comparing these measurements with data from other satellites to clarify how much of the observed concentration is likely due to biomass burning.
        
        The time period covered by the new maps is spring in the Southern Hemisphere, when agricultural fires and land clearing are widespread. The impact of these activities on global carbon dioxide has not been well quantified. As OCO-2 acquires more data, Eldering said, its Southern Hemisphere measurements could lead to an improved understanding of the relative importance in these regions of photosynthesis in tropical plants, which removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and biomass burning, which releases carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.”
        http://www.nasa.gov/jpl/oco2/nasas-spaceborne-carbon-counter-maps-new-details/#.VJ5y4V4AQ
        
        So, no, OCO-2 maps don’t support your thesis, but rather, the exact opposite: a seasonal, anthropogenic source of CO2, that will only last until the last tree has been murdered for short-term, ignorant “gain”. LOL
Dibble

Agricultural productivity could well improve due to global warming. An increase of two degrees centigrade would make available vast areas of Asia to agriculture. Increasing levels of CO2 would act as a kind of airborne fertiliser, improving crop yields. There have been dramatic increases in agricultural productivity in the last few decades – this is partly due to the increases in CO2 gas already observed. Higher temperatures would increase evaporation, leading to higher levels of rainfall in drier areas, further increasing crop yields. It could restore the Sahara desert to the lush savannah which existed in this region during the African humid period 5-10,000 years ago.
- bill shockley
  
  Dibble you are confused. Dry areas will become drier. Wet areas will become wetter. The desert areas of the world will expand. How is California doing these last few years? That’s a once in 1200 years drought. How about England? Once in 50 years, now every other year. Sandy, once in 700 years. What will India and Pakistan do for water when the Himalayan glaciers dry up that supply most of their needs now? How many people will have to leave south Florida when sea level rises more than a meter this century? Guess who insures these homes—not the insurance companies because they know risk. It’s the Florida government. What will happen when the Florida government becomes insolvent? Check youtube for videos by Jeremy Jackson, a famous Ocean scientist, or Sylvia Earle.
  - Dibble
    
    Studies of satellite data have shown that the world is actually getting greener – probably due to increased CO2 and increased evaporation. California has always been prone to drought – nothing to do with global warming. The English climate is the same as it has always been – fickle.
    and what is the science behind dry areas getting drier and wet areas getting wetter – it’s not science, it’s scaremongering.
    - bill shockley
      
      “Studies of satellite data have shown that the world is actually getting greener – probably due to increased CO2 and increased evaporation.”
      
      Published by who—Shell Corp? LOL
      
      “California has always been prone to drought – nothing to do with global warming.”
      
      How often does California get a once in 1200 year drought?
      
      “The English climate is the same as it has always been – fickle.”
      
      No. It’s changing. Every other year is not the same as once in 50 years.
      
      “and what is the science behind dry areas getting drier and wet areas getting wetter – it’s not science, it’s scaremongering.”
      
      It’s science. Educate yourself. For example google this:
      
      NOAA GFDL Climate Research Highlights Image Gallery
      Will the Wet Get Wetter and the Dry Drier?
      
      That’s your government talking. It’s a standard climate change fact.
      - Dibble
        
        The last ‘1200’ year drought in California was in the 70s. The IPCC forecast that Himalayan glaciers would melt in 30 years – this rash forecast has been revised to several hundred or even thousands of years – by which time we’ll be in the next Ice age. As for dry areas getting drier and wet areas getting wetter – ordinary common sense can tell this is daft – global warming can never be that clever.
      - bill shockley
        
        Dibble wrote:
        “The last ‘1200’ year drought in California was in the 70s.”
        
        No. Actually, it was 1200 years ago. Google:
        
        Once-In-1200-Year California Drought Bears Signature Of Climate Change
        
        Dibble wrote:
        “The IPCC forecast that Himalayan glaciers would melt in 30 years – this rash forecast has been revised to several hundred or even thousands of years – by which time we’ll be in the next Ice age.”
        
        Thanks for that—I was unaware of that episode. But an update is that the process will still become irreversible within the same time frame if CO2 emissions are not curtailed. And that was just one (badly chosen) example of many situations around the world with grim forecasts.
        
        Dibble wrote:
        “this rash forecast has been revised to several hundred or even thousands of years – by which time we’ll be in the next Ice age.”
        
        If we are wise and fortunate enough to curtail emissions quickly, we may avoid uncontrollable feedbacks, but if we don’t the next ice age may be millions of years away.
        
        Dibble wrote:
        “As for dry areas getting drier and wet areas getting wetter – ordinary common sense can tell this is daft – global warming can never be that clever.”
        
        Well, England is getting wetter, while California, Texas and Syria are getting drier, so go figure. Mother Nature may be a step or two ahead of you. Best to stay humble and keep an open mind.
        
        The way this works is, weather patterns that make places dry, like the southwest, or wet, like England, are becoming more stubborn, because of the weakening jet stream. So patterns stay in place longer and produce more pronounced effects. A rainy period lasts longer. A drought lasts longer. Wet places get wetter, dry places get drier. Look up Jennifer Francis on Youtube. This is the most significant development in climate science in the last several years.
- stan0301
  
  During the Eocene it was about 9 degrees warmer than today–and plant and animal life flourished so abundantly that, in the literature, it is commonly referred to as “The Eocene Optimum”
  Stan
scotttx

MJC oh how wrong you are, it is not a hoax but a fact, you must be a republican, only dim witted people or just plain stupid people believe there is no such thing as Global Warming, 90% of the world understand Global Warming is happening, The government can only do so much, but it all depend on the people to hopefully reduce the effect we can’t stop it but we can lesson the effects and give us a little bit more time for the adjustment that will need to be made over time, MJC give us a break stay off line we do need less stupid people.
- stan0301
  
  Of course the Earth is getting warmer–for nearly (but not all) of its existence it has been warmer that the Earth we have historically known–at the start of the Middle Ages Vikings were living by farming in Greenland–then it got colder–the last communication to reach Europe from Greenland was a wedding announcement in 1408 (Google it)–Washington nearly froze his butt off in Valley Forge–since then it has been getting warmer–But–it is still to cold to live by farming in Greenland–even with modern equipment, much less ox drawn plows. That fact is inescapable and should make you question most of what you say. The Earth certainly has been warming–just as Mars has, as well as Jupiter–and Humans aren’t causing it. The puny “less than 3%” of all annually occurring CO2 that is produced by humans each year even if reduced by 10% would be 10% of less than 3%–and water vapor is exerting 470 times the warming effect as CO2 anyway.
  Stan
FTOP_T

Scotttx, it is far from a fact. As a matter of fact, the entire premise is flawed. A cold atmosphere cannot heat a warm planet. A trace gas, less than .04% of the air cannot drive climate change. Termites release more CO2 than man, and CO2 is critical for photosynthesis.

It is worse than a hoax, it is an orchestrated swindle supported by the dim witted media that have failed to challenge the false premise. If we allow the government to tax the air we breathe (out), we as a people are truly stupid.
Nick John

We are coming out of an ice age…. that everyone can agree upon… there was the Jurassic period before.. we weren’t there for that… are you blaming the volcanic activity during that period to us…. ps check out the emissions that volcanos release… compare that to a city… there’d be your answer… science requires facts and testing not guessing and profiteering… people make money with such scare tactics… it’s funny that everyone is too blind to see that ( I mean with the 1% getting richer and richer as you liberals would say ). I think that liberals are just squirmier about it
- 99rider
  
  Wow a lot comments here from this guy. Starting to look kind of like a weirdo here.
Nick John

check this out : http://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Climate-Model-Comparison-1024×921.png
explains everything
- bill shockley
  
  looks like your hair in the morning.
Nick John

john stewart is an idiot too ice is less dense than water… do any models compensate for this or sediment in the ice… no! to be honest with you im more worried about the frack mining leaving us as a huge sinkhole….. maybe we could make a filtration tube from the atlantic to the north American water table and even out the so called “deluge” that is to come… sounds like a commie hoax to me… ahhh liberals
Nick John

don’t they say you can see less than half of an ice berg… more under water… if that melts I bet it would offset the above water mass… cause ice is far less dense than water… watch those ice cubes freeze above the level they started at… there is a science experiment for you
- bill shockley
  
  Have you ever heard of land ice?
Nick John

at least im not being as hyperbolic as the crazy liberals…. still the water wouldn’t rise as much as their so-called “science” predicts
Nick John

maybe a lil… but not alot
AugustineThomas

You guys never get tired of telling these lies in your vain quest for more power.
Nick John

yeah lets shut down the whole power grid… lets all starve to save the earth… anyone have a problem with rolling over and dieing? why don’t you kill yourself and cut down the carbon footprint… save a tree… suicide!
- 99rider
  
  If we don’t do anything that will happen anyway in about 100 years anyway. Of coarse you and will be dead by then so I suppose that is a big reason you could not care less.
Nick John

and green cars… hmmm where does the power really come from … a coal plant.. and they are just connecting this now… wow! saw that one coming
- stan0301
  
  Interestingly–coal does convert to CO2–but natural gas converts to about equal amounts of CO2 and water vapor, as water vapor is ten times as powerful a greenhouse gas as CO2, for a given amount of energy produced, burring natural gas will produce about five times as much warming affect as coal–and, sure, some of that water vapor is going to fall as rain, but it would be unusual for the atmosphere to be so saturated that there wouldn’t be room for a little more water vapor–and just how much actually lingers is utterly unstudied.
  Stan
Nick John

its okay everyone can be wrong from time to time… at least you didn’t insult me with your flexible facts…
Nick John

… that could have been bad…. for you
stan0301

What you might not know is that the Earth is a huge producer of CO2–in fact the fraction of the yearly total that is produced by humans is “less than 3%”–Google it. This “less than 3%” is all our efforts to reduce CO2 can affect–so–were we to (somehow) reduce CO2 production by, say, 10% that would be 10% of “less than 3%”–an amount far to small to measure–much less have the slightest effect on anything. Now, another fact (Google it) that I bet you didn’t know–CO2 is a minor player in warming. It happens that water vapor is ten times as powerful as CO2–but, because there is so much more of it, it actually exerts 470 times the affect that CO2 does–stop and ponder–why is it that the talking heads never mention that fact?–there is a lot of money and many reputations that have tied their future on CO2–and you simply never hear that warming is also happening on Mars–not to mention Jupiter–Check it all on Google, which is something the talking heads certainly hope you won’t. Also–developing countries couldn’t care less.
Stan
- bill shockley
  
  Where did you get your information — pullitoutofyourass U?
  - FTOP_T
    
    Bill, the information cited above is correct. This is the problem with AGW. It is not based on science and skeptical peer review. CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere (.04%), and man’s portion is .0012%. If an air conditioning repair technician told you your house was too warm because of a vial of paprika in the cupboard, would you sign up for a million dollar paprika reduction contract?
    
    We risk extinction if CO2 levels drop too low. It is vital for plant growth. These articles are scares based on lies devoid of science.
    - bill shockley
      
      Yes, I know, down is up and up is down. Proven in the peer-review literature. LOL
KU37

For one thing, it’s good to see that there’s a lively discussion on these pressing topics.

But am I the only one that is bothered by the obvious fact that this article was written (or compiled) by someone (or something) who does not have English as its native language? This discussion — in the United States — of the climate is too important to leave to non-US websites that pick and choose which comments to remove.

Google, please stop linking to flaky articles like these from your main page. Your brand is further tarnished every time this happens. Fix your algorithms and hire some humans to filter this out. It can’t be that hard to find a proper article on this topic to feature prominently.
Chris Bartholomew

95% of climatologists are in basic agreement on the causes and effects of global warming vs. stan0301 and NickJohn who tell us that it is a hoax. ….hmmmmm, who should I believe?