Home » Climate Change » Infographic: How Climate Change is Destroying the Earth

Infographic: How Climate Change is Destroying the Earth


The following is an infographic originally posted at: LearnStuff.com

How Climate Change is Destroying the Earth

Climate Change is Real

Thanks to extensive research and noticeable changes in weather and storm prevalence, it’s getting harder to turn a blind eye to the reality of climate change. Since the Industrial Age spurred the increasing usage of fossil fuels for energy production, the weather has been warming slowly. In fact, since 1880, the temperature of the earth has increased by 1 degree Celsius.

Although 72% of media outlets report on global warming with a skeptical air, the overwhelming majority of scientists believe that the extreme weather of the last decade is at least partially caused by global warming. Some examples of climate calamities caused partly by global warming include:

  • Hurricane Katrina
  • Drought in desert countries
  • Hurricane Sandy
  • Tornadoes in the Midwest

These storms, droughts, and floods are causing death and economic issues for people all over the world – many of whom cannot afford to rebuild their lives from the ground up after being wiped out by a tsunami or other disaster.

Evidence also indicates that the face of the Earth is changing because of warming trends. The ice caps of the Arctic are noticeably shrinking, the ice cap of Mt. Kilimanjaro alone has shrunk by 85% in the last hundred years, and the sea levels are rising at the rate of about 3 millimeters per year because of all the melting ice. Climate change is also affecting wildlife – for instance, Arctic polar bears are at risk of losing their environment; the Golden Toad has gone extinct; and the most adaptable species are evolving into new versions capable of withstanding warmer water.

Despite some naysayers with alternative theories about why global temperatures are rising – including the idea that the earth goes through natural temperature cycles every few millennia – the dramatic changes in the earth’s atmospheric makeup suggests humans are to blame. In fact, 97% of scientists agree humans are responsible for climate change. Since the Industrial Revolution, carbon dioxide levels increased 38% because of humans, methane levels have increased 148%, nitrous oxide is up 15% – and the list goes on and on, all because of human-instigated production, manufacturing, and organizations and individuals work hard to promote an Earth-friendly existence, resistance to change is rampant and actions are slow. For instance, while the US Environmental Protection Agency is still working on collecting data to support development of greenhouse gas reduction expectations for businesses, most of their efforts feel more like pre-research than actual change. Other countries have made efforts – such as signing to Kyoto Protocol to reduce their 1990 emission levels by 18% by 2020 – but the only solution will require the whole world band together.

Steps anyone can take to reduce global warming include:

  • Driving a car with good gas mileage, or investing in a hybrid or electric car
  • Switching from incandescent light bulbs to CFL or LED
  • Insulating your home and stocking it with energy efficient appliances
  • Recycling
  • Using green power available in your area

Check out the infographic below to see what else the changing climate is affecting.
Climate-Change

About these ads

26 Comments

  1. jesse_a_b says:

    The correlation between CO2 and temperature is well established, BUT the causality is not.

    So far we can only say that the Sun is responsible for the climate change, nothing else has been demonstrated with real science.

    This whole article fails to mention it and continue to perpetuate the lie.

  2. judycross says:

    It hasn’t warmed for 10-17 years, depending on who is talking and all that time, CO2 has risen. According to the CAGW hypothesis, it should have continued to warm. The hypothesis fails.
    BEST Temperature Record Proves Solar Activity Changes Better Explain Global Warming Than CO2
    The UN’s IPCC and its coterie of green-sharia “scientists” have long pursued a political agenda that requires all climate change and global warming to be a result of human CO2 emissions, and in addition, any solar impact on temperatures is absolutely minimal – yet, the empirical evidence does not support said political agenda, including the BEST maximum temperature dataset

    http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/03/best-temperature-record-proves-solar-activity-changes-better-explain-global-warming

    Andrew, I am so disappointed in your falling for the Climate Scam. Please educate yourself. CO2 causes neither warmer nor more erratic or severe weather. It is plant food! The more of it, the more the Earth flourishes.

    http://junkscience.com/2013/03/16/climategate-3-0-metoffice-rebukes-uea-for-claiming-global-warming-causes-extreme-weather/

  3. judycross says:

    It hasn’t warmed for 10-17 years, depending on who is talking and all that time, CO2 has risen. According to the CAGW hypothesis, it should have continued to warm. The hypothesis fails.
    BEST Temperature Record Proves Solar Activity Changes Better Explain Global Warming Than CO2
    The UN’s IPCC and its coterie of green-sharia “scientists” have long pursued a political agenda that requires all climate change and global warming to be a result of human CO2 emissions, and in addition, any solar impact on temperatures is absolutely minimal – yet, the empirical evidence does not support said political agenda, including the BEST maximum temperature dataset

    http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/03/best-temperature-record-proves-solar-activity-changes-better-explain-global-warming

    Andrew, I am so disappointed in your falling for the Climate Scam. Please educate yourself. CO2 causes neither warmer nor more erratic or severe weather. It is plant food! The more of it, the more the Earth flourishes.

    http://junkscience.com/2013/03/16/climategate-3-0-metoffice-rebukes-uea-for-claiming-global-warming-causes-extreme-weather/

  4. Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope. The sun hypothesis has been debunked time and again, Jesse & Judy. Sorry, I’m going to take NASA over a “c3headlines” link (that doesn’t even work, by the way) and what appears to an … email (?) also sourced with a broken link. If this is the best you’ve got, I’m deeply sorry.

    http://www.livescience.com/18255-solar-cycle-climate-change-warming.html

  5. judycross says:

    ” Although the final Copenhagen agreement was largely dismissed as a failure by both the mainstream media and climate skeptics, it established the framework for a global government which will control climate finances via taxes on CO2 emissions.”

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/imf-head-calls-for-huge-global-warming-slush-fund.html

    ” The majority of climate scientists worldwide believe that climate change exists”. So? It is what’s causing it that is in question. The climate changes in cycles and those cycles are determined by what happens in the Solar System.
    Mars warmed the same time Earth did and so did distant Pluto.

    http://www.dailytech.com/Global+Warming+on+Mars++and+Jupiter+Pluto+Neptune/article6544.htm

    Try leaving the reservation:

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/riding-the-train-of-climate-change.html

    As the late Reid Bryson said, ” CO2 has all the effect of warm spit in a hurricane.”

    • Jesse, I’ve seen that 1997 v. 2012 figure and it seems like the worst kind of cherry-picking from climate change disbelievers. I’m going to probably believe the LSE (http://www2.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/Media/Commentary/2012/February/anthropogenic-global-warming-1997.aspx) and Discover (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/01/30/while-temperatures-rise-denialists-reach-lower/#.UUi-zHzwJ-g), first, at least.

      Also, “Fancy computer models are not built on reality, you can make a computer model to get any result you wish.” This is not how a properly constructed scientific model works. I cannot speak to the methodology of climate scientists in question, however. It’s certainly possible to create a false model. I won’t deny that.

      Judy, you still haven’t explained to me your qualifications for interpreting this data. “Try leaving the reservation” smacks of a “wake up, sheeple!” level of radical self-satisfaction. My only desire is to look at the data as dispassionately as possible and decide which sources are the most sensible to trust from a lay perspective.

      What’s interesting to me about this discussion is that clearly both of you are angered and mistrustful of global government controlling and capitalizing climate change; what’s odd is the undercurrent that this is somehow causally related to man-made climate change not existing. Isn’t it just as possible — hell, even likely — that climate change could be used to leverage more profit and power even if it is 100 percent verifiably man-made phenomena? It’s not like cravenness and greed in the face of predictable catastrophe is historically unprecedented. I live in New Orleans — believe me, I know.

  6. judycross says:

    And you haven’t explained to me why you continue to believe people who have been shown to be not only wrong, but venal cheats starting with Al Gore.

    Ben Santer threw out 5 different Committee statements saying there was no human cause of the slight warming experienced after 1979. After closing time he substituted his own statement saying human activity is responsible.
    When question about the questionability of his peremptory act, he said there was no rule that said he couldn’t.do what he did. Then he gets a $1Million research grant with a Mac Arthur prize! Oh, yeah!

    Hansen has also received numerous “prizes”. Hansen feels so secure he told the head of NASA to shut up when the man said he though climate change was probably natural. Can you imagine any other employee at NASA getting away with that?

    Here is an explanation of what is going on by:
    “Dr. David M.W. Evans consulted full time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products.”Climate Change in 12 Minutes – The Skeptic’s Case
    .www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc&feature=player_embedded

    It should be warming and it isn’t! The hypothesis fails! It should be simple thing,, but there is an agenda…Agenda 21 and lucrative jobs and grants which would disappear. So the Gravy Train just keeps chuggin’ along with people defending a fraud because they are paid by it!

  7. dr brown says:

    how many ice ages in the last million years? are you on the payroll, author?
    carbon tax and all…you must have ulterior motive, too, eh?
    if those who desire to see the earth in shambles will stop chemtrailing-spraying all of us like bugs/weeds, un-wanted weeds, uneducated folk like you could stop stammerin’ ’bout ‘climate change’, eh?

  8. Buz says:

    Andrew,
    It’s not April 1st yet. Are you checking to see if people are paying attention?

  9. stephanie says:

    It’s sad there still are many people who turn a blind eye to the reality of climate change. I’m worried a lot when I hear such predictions and I think it’s high time we took appropriate action to stop the current development. Living in a city whose inhabitants care about the protection of the environment and participating in a project called Greenest City 2020 Action Plan I realize the seriousness of the current situation. In my opinion if all of the points mentioned in the plan were immediately put into practice we could see the desired effect even in the short term.

    • judycross says:

      Stop worrying and prepare instead because it is shaping up to be a mini Little Ice Age and that is what cities should be preparing for.

      http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=11321&linkbox=true&position=8

      The amount of CO2 generated by all human activity is somewhere between 5-8% of the total in the atmosphere. The total in the atmosphere is 395 parts per million or less than 0.04%. Even without a science degree a rational person could conclude that we are being scammed, because otherwise CO2 would have to have unaccounted for magical properties. There is just too little of it to cause the climate to change.

      The Sun’s activity has everything to do with climate change.

      • Arthur says:

        “CO2 generated by all human activity is somewhere between 5-8% of the total in the atmosphere”
        Ah, thnx…have looked for this number, this IMO should be the start point and pivotal of any equation, or opinion on subject. The plant factor as well, which does not bode well if truth in theory~deforestation AND ramped up industialization? Obvious self destructive ideas regardless.

  10. Arthur says:

    Fake, real, or… Without opinion, how do we determine what is what, considering planes are constantly spraying something(?) in our sky. Claims of sulphur come from climate change crowd as possible solution? Seems quite absurd, and if done, would acid rain would be the result?

  11. “Much of the Climategate furor was over the use of the word “trick,” specially when Phil Jones of the CRU wrote: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” While the denialists see this as some sort of conspiracy,[6] it is a mathematical way of dealing with a problem (a mathematical “trick”) and reflects scientists interacting with each other (the “decline” also refers to tree ring density, not global temperatures).”

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Climategate#Trick_or_treat.3F

    This is an example of taking quotes out of context, which does not work. In the office, we use the same word for everything computer-related: such as using keyboard shortcuts to bypass clumsy clicking mechanisms. They are called “tricks” because it works like magic! Wow! It’s so easy to use that shortcut! And the tree ring density decline is also related to climate change: as CO2 increases in the atmosphere, the worlds forests and algae have already been showing to be growing faster. This is because organisms use carbon to build their bodies and get energy for moving (hence the term “carb” in “carbohydrates”). So the more CO2 in the air, the faster plants can grow. Unfortunately, not fast enough to keep up with human production, though, so CO2 is still rising.

    As far as this is supposed to be a conspiracy: I am entirely not against the idea of the existence of conspiracies: the light bulb conspiracy is a notable example of companies worldwide coming together to increase consumer spending by making our products break faster. They do it all the time. And there are countless examples of governments turning a blind eye to industries which pollute in areas where people live and are poisoned because of it, only because members of government have a financial interest in that industry. This, in fancy terms, is often called “conflict of interests” and “lack of political will” in the regulatory world.

    When you want to consider the possibility of a conspiracy, you must keep in mind what the interests are of those accused to be standing behind it. In the case of governments being in cahoots with polluting industries, this is obvious, as governments may get financial backing from, say, the oil industry. Now let us look at the “climategate” scandal. Here we accuse scientists of selling us a fake scientific argument. Why would they do this? What would be their final agenda? Supposedly it is because they get grants? But the opposite is true: climate scientists and environmental scientists are the least popular to give grants to by governments. In fact, most industries work tirelessly to disprove them, such as in the case of oil industries. Because if climate change is real, the oil industry is doomed, and so are all those in government who have financial interest in them.

    My brother and I once said to each other as we investigated the conspiracy theory phenomenon: with all these conspiracies supposedly working against each other, could the conspiracy theories themselves be a conspiracy? One of people with interest in keeping us battling over unimportant issues, such as whether the world is run by aliens? It would seem so, since if the masses are kept busy fighting over whether the world’s climate is actually changing or not, the oil companies and other industries have free rein to keep lining their pockets while people suffocate.

    Think about it. Keep an eye on the agenda of the theory you look at. Any which one. Be it the accused or the accuser.

    • Judy Cross says:

      It’s not a conspiracy….it’s an Agenda, as in the UN’s Agenda 21. It is out in the open and government funded, .

      http://whatisagenda21.net/agenda21.htm

      Between 1989/ 2009, the US government had spent over $79 Billion on “climate science”..Climate Money, a study by Joanne Nova reveals that the federal Government has a near-monopoly on climate science funding.

      http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climate_money.html

      They bought and funded the junk science that is still trying to warp economies by banning low cost energy from coal.

      CO2 has no effect on climate, but the Globalists have to keep up the pretense that it does. Preston Manning is on board too, which should tell you something::

      http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/earthmatters/preston-manning-and-jeffrey-simpson-concur-carbon-should-have-price#comment-248575

      But not only economies are being warped by a wrongly based idea of “sustainability”, i.e. based on CO2 generation, so is land planning.

      http://www.sustainable.org/creating-community/community-visioning/725-the-local-agenda-21-planning-guide-an-introduction-to-sustainable-development-planning

      • You have that number about the climate science funding: have you yet compared it to other expenditures? Just citing any number out of the blue is completely meaningless unless it has context. It is like quoting “trick” out of context.

        Currently in Canada, the government is slashing all environmental funding, and at the same time funding major polluting industries. If your theory is true, that this is a science conspiracy, then the scientists would be getting more money from governments than big oil. I dont even need to quote anybody to know that polluting industries get much more funding from the government than climate science. And climate science is completely at odds with big industry. So the conspiracy theory is incoherent.

        Also, mentioning a single name is also meaningless. Climate science is a huge endeavour, as complicated as medical research, if not more so. You could easily quote a single doctor who has poisoned his patients to claim that the entire medical system is bogus. It is meaningless within the context of the entire system that has multiple players with different agenda’s.

        Then there is agenda 21: also a single document in the entire structure of climate policy which is so complicated I could go to law school and get a PhD on the subject of environmental regulations. I am from a country/community which has seen the oil industry cause countless deaths per year, including my own uncle, all of whom were not protected by Agenda21 or with environmental regulations, which are in place but are simply not followed because corrupt government officials are more in line with lining their own pockets.

        Until you can show me a climate scientist that does not oppose such blatant pollution and disrespect of human rights, that is all for reducing pollution regulation, I have no reason to believe the climategate theory and its all just wasting my time while people are dying, sort of like the polemics of the united states. I have better things to do. Good luck with your crusade.

      • Arthur says:

        Thought those who fund climate change, are indeed the pollutors/big oil/major mega corps. Like the guru oil barron of the UN who drafted AG 21 Marice Strong. IMO his little guru encampment in Colorado was to observe the mindset of new age movement. (my theory)
        Oh, yes until he was in trouble with the real environmentalists.

      • Judy Cross says:

        Actually, he got in trouble for his handling of the funds from the UN Food For Oil program before the attack on Iraq. It is why he is living in China now, where he is still pushing the Climate Scam.

        http://www.insideview.com/directory/cleantech-group-llc

      • Arthur says:

        AG Marshall’s and he has likely looked much deeper than I. To reverse~100% with your comments AG 21, which is the process of seeing through much BS yet, not thoroughly investigating GW.
        AG 21 one needs to pay attention to local happenings~ infiltrates like a fungus. It is a eye opener once you catch on to the tactics…ppl are so easy and others, souless and greedy.

  12. Arthur says:

    Ooops snipped part-The writer being more knowlegable on the subject, I have assumed much w/o proper investigation.

  13. PS Judy, you want cheap coal? Air pollution is the number one cause of death from environmental pollution worldwide. Feel free to inhale the toxicity yourself, but the rest of us should have a say in what is in the air we breathe as well. Freedom should also include the freedom from other’s harmful decisions.

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/12/1701361/if-only-there-was-an-energy-source-that-wouldnt-kill-thousands-in-india-and-cost-billions/

    You can live in a bubble, and that is your choice, but it is wrong to drag the rest of us into that. I for one, won’t be supporting such a cause. Ever.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/world/asia/air-pollution-linked-to-1-2-million-deaths-in-china.html?_r=0

    You want a cheap coal economy, go to China and live in that smog and see what you say then.

  14. Judy Cross says:

    Climate changes by itself, always has always will, so using the words “climate change’ to mean only and exclusively that which is supposedly caused by human generated CO2 is a very dodgy practice in and of itself.

    I brought up the massive amount of US government funding involved in keeping the scam going because the Climatte Crazies keep pointing to the pittance oil companies gave to skeptics….$22 million over 20 years.

    Using Think Progress or the NYTimes as references is rather like using
    Jimmy Saville as a character reference.

    There is no reason for China to have the pollution it does, since there is technology to burn coal safely and cleanly. I guess they just don’t want to pay the cost of installation or the patent royalties.

    As for “Global Warming” there hasn’t been any for over 16 years in spite of CO2 rising. No correlation=no causation. It is that simple.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,347 other followers

%d bloggers like this: