Much has been said and written about greenhouse gases that are emitted as a result of human activity and cause global warming and climate change, an important topic that deserves a detailed explanation:
In order to mitigate global warming and climate change, it is important to understand the impact of the flu greenhouse gas emissions. Although at the beginning of the epidemic period there was a (temporary) decrease in emissions, according to the UN's environmental plan the levels of emissions jumped and increased since then and the grim forecast is for a further increase.
The atmosphere absorbs about 25% of the sun's radiation, the sea and land areas absorb almost 50% of the radiation and the rest of the radiation is returned to space. The radiation that turns into heat energy in the atmosphere feeds climatic processes, while on the surface the energy feeds all life processes. These are natural mechanisms that ensure that the amount of energy absorbed will be balanced and the earth's temperature stable, the ones that prevent the "escape" of all energy into space are greenhouse gases.
Different gases that are naturally in the atmosphere are opaque to infra-red radiation, which makes them greenhouse gases, for example oxygen or nitrogen that are integrated into life cycles and their concentration is almost constant. When, due to human activity, the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increases, radiation/energy that should be emitted into space is captured by the greenhouse gases and returns to the surface, hence the accepted "blanket" explanation. When the natural balance between energy that is radiated into the space and the energy that is absorbed is disturbed, the temperatures rise until a new balance is created.
Greenhouse gases have always been created and exist in nature, but human activity has caused an increase in their concentration in the atmosphere, a negative and dangerous increase that causes global warming, which is also manifested The increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme climatic phenomena.
Among these were floods, periods of drought, huge fires, cold waves, hurricanes and other climatic phenomena that harm millions of people and cause enormous economic damages.
In the Paris Agreements in 2015, it was determined that warming must be stopped below 1.5 degrees compared to the pre-industrial period.
Except that according to the emissions report It was found that if emissions are not halved by 2030 it will be difficult to impossible to stop global warming below 1.5 degrees, According to the current situation, the world is on its way to a warming of 2.7 degrees by the end of the century.
If so, greenhouse gas emissions caused by human activity endanger the environment and the human population, and without preventive activity the damage will become more widespread and the damage will multiply and intensify.
So what are those greenhouse gases?
Although water vapor is the most common and warming factor, unlike other greenhouse gases, the origin of almost all water vapor in the atmosphere is natural and only a small amount is due to human activity. Compared to water vapor, since the industrial revolution, human activity has increased the concentration of the main common greenhouse gases: CO2, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) The DTP which is the most problematic and talked about remains in the atmosphere for about 1000 years. Although methane only remains in the atmosphere for about a decade, its power as a greenhouse gas is 80 times the DTP. Nitrous oxide is 280 times more powerful than MDD and remains in the atmosphere for about 120 years.
Coal, oil, and natural gas continue to power large parts of the world, where carbon is the main element in these minerals, so when they are burned, GHG is released into the atmosphere. The extraction of these minerals in combination with landfills causes 55% of methane emissions. https://www.unep.org/resources/report/global-methane-assessment-benefits-and-costs-mitigating-methane-emissions
And to that is added 32% methane emissions from cows and other ruminants, one of the products of food fermentation in their stomachs is the emitted methane. Other sources of methane are composting organic manure, agricultural crops in general and rice fields in particular. Nitric oxide is created mainly in agriculture when bacteria in the soil and water convert nitrogen into nitric oxide. Fertilizers used in agriculture contain a lot of nitrogen (which is the main reason for fertilization), and excess amounts of nitrogen are washed into the environment.
In addition to these three greenhouse gases, there are gases mainly based on fluorine (F) whose effect on warming is less, but their damage to the ozone layer led to the decision to stop using them https://ozone.unep.org/treaties/montreal-protocol At the Montreal Conference (1987).
The decision at the Montreal conference is largely upheld because substitutes have been found for the harmful gases, and it is clear that even in order to stop the use of fossil fuel it is necessary to find substitutes, and indeed the substitutes exist and it turns out that they are more worthwhile and more economical for humanity as a whole, but not for giant corporations that continue to operate offensive industries. From this emerges a clear need for a worldwide activity that will take the power out of the hands of the abusive corporations and enable a transition to green energy.
And after all this, it should be realized that the solution for humanity and the environment will come when instead of controlling the environment for the sake of the human population, there will be control of the human population for the sake of the environment.
More of the topic in Hayadan:
7 תגובות
Yosef
The human influence is far from negligible. The atmosphere balances the amount of water vapor - more humidity causes more precipitation. Adding a PADH does not balance.
Those who will be harmed by not addressing climate change are exactly the weak populations. It won't work for the rich...
Peace
raises several questions:
1. I read leisurely to the end and did not understand what the relative part of the water vapor that is not under human control is on the greenhouse effect? This point is ignored in all the articles. It could be that the effect of the water vapor is 99% and practically it doesn't matter what humanity will do? Or the water vapor effect is only 20% and then the human influence has great significance.
2. Second neglected subject. What is the price humanity will pay for renewable energies. If it was cheaper than gas, no one would use gas or coal. Assuming that green energies are more expensive, who will pay the price? Usually the price is paid by the weak. If food prices rise, how many millions will starve in Africa? How many people in the weak population will not be warm in the winter because they will not have money for expensive electricity?
3. The last sentence is really not successful. There is the extreme leftist trend of preventing families from starting families with children. The fundamental question of what is important, humanity or the world, is a value question that I answer in the exact opposite way from the author of the article.
Peace
raises several questions:
1. I read leisurely to the end and did not understand what the relative part of the water vapor that is not under human control is on the greenhouse effect? This point is ignored in all the articles. It could be that the effect of the water vapor is 99% and practically it doesn't matter what humanity will do? Or the water vapor effect is only 20% and then the human influence has great significance.
2. Second neglected subject. What is the price humanity will pay for renewable energies. If it was cheaper than gas, no one would use gas or coal. Assuming that green energies are more expensive, who will pay the price? Usually the price is paid by the weak. If food prices rise, how many millions will starve in Africa? How many people in the weak population will not be warm in the winter because they will not have money for expensive electricity?
3. The last sentence is really not successful. There is the extreme leftist trend of preventing families from starting families with children. The fundamental question of what is important, humanity or the world, is a value question that I answer in the exact opposite way from the author of the article.
Avi Cohen
The number itself is not important, because no one lives in the global average temperature. What is important is the change in sea level, more severe weather phenomena and the mass death of animals and plants.
These are things that are already seen today.
Man has a big influence - and in my understanding of man's influence, the overall proposed temperature should have decreased in the coming decades.
You should make a linguistic edit for the following before publishing an article, many sentences are completely incomprehensible.
"Fluorine-based gases" - precisely the chlorine atom in them is the main cause of damage to the ozone.
The penultimate paragraph is not clear - which corporations and industries are we talking about? How will a transition to green energies be possible without a suitable industry?
Regarding the last paragraph - it seems to be taken from some extreme totalitarian ideology. Why not control the environment for the benefit of humanity? Controlling humanity "for the good of the environment" sounds like a dictator's slogan.
"The extraction of these minerals in combination with landfills causes 55% of methane emissions"
This is a very strange way of presenting the data
Why not write separately how much methane is emitted in the production of state fuel and how much is emitted from landfills?
Until the end of the century there are 78 years, according to the forecasts the temperature will rise by 2.7, this means a warming of about 0.03 (three hundredths) degrees per year.
First question, is this the maximum or is it expected to continue the increase, and is there a peak? It is known that in previous eras all the carbon in the soil was CO2 gas and then life began, anaerobic at first but when the blue algae started to produce oxygen the temperature dropped to a state of freezing (the first ice age).
The question is whether humanity can even stop it. What is the contribution of humanity's emissions to the rise in temperature and if we stop all human-caused greenhouse emissions, what will be the effect on the 2.7 degrees? And how much it will reduce.