What is really the role of man in climate change and what is the role of nature itself in this dynamic? - Upmewhale contest
This is my entry to the Upmewhale Writing Contest! Global Warming and Climate Change, What Can Be Done, which is organized by @upmewhale.
Thankful for the opportunity.
I think it is logical to start by giving a brief concept of what climate change means in current terms.
Why do I make this exception to current terms?
I answer "the changes are the only ones that remain constant"... since the world is world it has evolved thanks to the great changes that have occurred in the matter of organisms and these in turn have been promoted by specific climatic conditions. This is why I say that the term climate changes as it is used today, is related to other things, which are the ones I will mention next.
Something important needs to be clarified, global warming and climate change are closely related but they are not the same. The first is the cause, the second the effect.
In other words, warming is what has produced all the changes that are considered a serious evolving climate problem. It is in turn caused by a phenomenon called the greenhouse effect, which is the accumulation of gases (produced by humans) in the atmosphere. These gases retain heat and produce the warming that is causing so many problems today.
Leaving this clear, or at least hoping it is so, I begin with the development of what I have wanted to call the opposite vision around this climate problem.
The most frequent thing when we hear about climate change is that we think about negative things, because for a few decades now there has been talk about these events, which are thought to be the ones that have caused a large part of the natural disasters that have occurred in recent years at a global level.
However, I want to start this publication by talking and emphasizing that the changes are permanent in nature, they are not bad - in general - since the earth has been changing practically since it originated in this universe. Of course, it should be noted that these changes that have occurred in a natural way have occurred in thousands and even millions of years.
"In the last 150 years CO2 on earth has increased by at least 40%. "Source
While it is true that many changes are most likely related to the catastrophic natural events that have occurred in recent years, it is also true that they have allowed the vegetation in the world to increase, to increase the amount of green areas per square kilometer. I am not saying that it is best that the CO2 levels in the world continue to rise, I just wanted to highlight this point.
The above is explained to make it understand (increase in the amount of vegetation) I must limit that the human being needs oxygen to live, same that is produced by plants and when exhaling we vote CO2, this allows the plant to regenerate much faster in its process of photosynthesis. That in theory is good, it also allows a more efficient use of water 'by plants because they need less for their development. So, this is a positive point in the face of increasing carbon dioxide concentrations worldwide
Of course I do not mean by this that we should increase the production of CO2 to populate the planet with vegetation. Because if this is true, so is the fact that the felling of forests has increased considerably.
I would like to present two positions in relation to the role of man in climate change *(without being partial). Trying to answer the following question:
What is really the role of man in climate change and what is the role of nature itself in this dynamic?
The scientific community is divided on this question.
A) Another group of the scientific community (and they are the majority) states that the emissions of water vapor, CO2, methane, nitrous oxide and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are the cause of the increase in temperature, since these gases are trapped in the atmosphere, do not penetrate the ozone layer and are capable of trapping and retaining the heat coming from the sun. And that is why all natural disasters occur. Add to that the melting of the poles, rising sea levels, acidification of the seas (with all the alteration that this produces).
B) On the other hand, there are those who say that these gases that are presumed to be the cause of climate change have a minimal percentage of the total gases found in the atmosphere and who do not believe that they are really responsible for what global warming and climate change imply. In addition, some argue that the world, long before the industrial revolution, went through major processes of change and natural disasters.
• Some of these scientists also claim that it is more decisive in these climate changes, factors that are rarely mentioned as the stellar radiation and even consider that really the main promoter of global warming is the sun, main source of energy of the earth and this is determined by the tilt of the earth in terms of its rotation and translation movements, a slight change in the tilt of the earth and changes the entire dynamics.
In these found positions is this issue of Climate Change, however it should be noted that most of the world claims that it is the same human being that has caused such changes, and they have been more noticeable since the Industrial Revolution.
Globally, the countries that are most involved in these increases in the levels of all these gases that were named above are, in that order:
China, United States, Russia, Germany and India.
The first two countries (China and the United States) have a negative participation percentage in these results of approximately 70% and it should be noted that neither of these two countries are complying with the Paris Treaty.
So does this treaty really have a beneficial impact on the world?
As long as it's only on paper, it's not much use. As long as there is no concrete action by the first perpetrators of this, little is actually being done, unfortunately.
As it is something that affects in a global way, in the same way it must be assumed in a coordinated way by all the countries of the world.
To what extent are there economic interests behind all of this affectation of nature?
For now I have concluded this publication, hoping to have made clear my approach from the beginning and the opposite position on the part of the world's scientific community.
You post has been manually curated by BDvoter Team! To know more about us please visit our website or join our Discord.
Are you a Splinterlands player? If Yes, then checkout MonsterMarket.io. Get instant 3% cashback on every card purchase, and 2% cashback on every booster pack purchase on MonsterMarket.io. MonsterMarket has the highest revenue sharing in the space - 60% for cards and 40% for packs, no minimum spending is required. Join MonsterMarket Discord.
BDvoter Team
Thanks for using eSteem!
Your post has been voted as a part of eSteem encouragement program. Keep up the good work!
Dear reader, Install Android, iOS Mobile app or Windows, Mac, Linux Surfer app, if you haven't already!
Learn more: https://esteem.app
Join our discord: https://discord.me/esteem
Dear @josevas217
What an interesting contest. Seriously great topic to discuss. At least in current days we still can discuss it. I wouldn't be surprissed if in the nearest future talking about climat change would be as risky as talking openly about politics, religion or immigration.
Very well said buddy. It's very easy to mix up those 2 terms. Just like many people still don't see difference between steem and steemit :P
Solid read. Upvote on the way. We're definetly living in strange and "interesting" times. I wonder how politicians will use global warming/climat change for their own benefits.
Yours, Piotr
Hello @josevas217 very good explanation of all the terms, I agree with you in many aspects but I observe that you are in a neutral point on the subject.
That is to say you are with God and with the devil hehehe I joke, I like very much all the points of view that you expose and explain, very well argued.
I liked your post as always and I was a little scared when I started reading it because I thought we had written almost the same thing.