Convincing the Climate Change Skeptics

Almost any scientist looking at a new idea views it with deep skepticism and doubts it, and that skepticism is only overcome by a consistent preponderance of evidence that keeps supporting the idea that that might be important – that global climate change driven by humans might actually be occurring. As that evidence has been accumulated, skeptic after skeptic among the scientists have decided, "Well, I'd better pay more attention to this." The physics of this is much more well understood. The models that incorporate all of our known aspects of physics and atmospheric chemistry and and climatology and so on, all predict that what we're doing is going to lead to climate change. All these bits of evidence keep falling into place. They all keep saying, "Gee, we'd better pay more attention to this global climate change idea," because when we look at some data that maybe would have rejected it, it doesn't. It supports that idea. I guess what I would say is that the idea is so real now.

There have been so many attempts to test it, so many attempts to reject the idea that we might be causing climate change which have not been successful, which keep supporting that hypothesis. I think it is now incumbent upon us to take it seriously and to do things to help slow the rate of climate change and hopefully stop it. If we find out in the long-term that climate change is not going to happen, we won't have done much to harm ourselves. But if we don't act now, we could have a runaway climate change that could basically greatly decrease the livability of the earth. The science is now solid enough that any reasonable person examining the scientific evidence would decide, "We have to pay attention to it. It's time to have some action.".

Climate Change Info-graphic Video | Abhineetam Chaurasia | Ace Alchemy

CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL! Climate is defined as the general weather pattern over a region for a long period of tim A notable change in climate, is very slow, but when it is observed for a long period of time, we get some interesting results. Now if you look at the temperature increase over the last 13 decades, you will find that earth has warmed approx. 0.85 degree Celsius. With that kept in mind, our last few decades have be warmer than average consecutively. Most of us are generally aware of changes in geographical conditions due to climate change like melting of polar ice caps, leading to rise in water level and shrinking coastlines. But today! We are going to focus on something less talked about: HUMAN HEALTH. Rise in temperature contributes directly to diseases from cardiovascular and respiratory diseases “According to French Institute of Health: more than 70 000 excess deaths were recorded during the heat-wave of summer 2003 in Europe”.

Variation in temperatures also leads to variable rainfall patterns. At some places it leads to water scarcity and in other, floods. Both in the end lead to poor hygiene and multiple health related illnesses. WHO assesses that climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year between 2030 and 2050. All populations will be affected by climate change. People living in small islands, Children and Elderly people in developing nations and Polar Regions are particularly vulnerable. To counter these problems, many policies and individual choices have to be made in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.In 2015, the WHO Executive Board endorsed a new work plan on climate change and health. This includes: Partnerships, awareness raising and support for implementation of the public health response to climate change. We need to promote cleaner energy systems, and safe use of public transportation and active movement – such as cycling or walking as alternatives to using private vehicles, etc.

So let us reduce our carbon footprint. Thank you..

Trump Dismantles U.S. Climate Rules, Virtually Ensuring U.S. Will Break Paris Accord Promises

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman. President Trump signed an executive order Tuesday to dismantle a slew of climate rules established by President Obama. If carried out, the executive order will virtually guarantee that the United States will fail to meet its 2015 Paris Agreement pledge to reduce emissions in order to curb the effects of climate change. The executive order marks the first step to undo Obama’s Clean Power Plan to limit emissions and replace coal-fired power plants with new solar and wind farms. Trump signed the executive order at a ceremony at the Environmental Protection Agency while being surrounded by a group of coal miners, as well as EPA head Scott Pruitt, who himself denies the human impact on climate change. PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Today I’m taking bold action to follow through on that promise. My administration is putting an end to the war on coal. Gonna have clean coal, really clean coal.

With today’s executive action, I am taking historic steps to lift the restrictions on American energy, to reverse government intrusion and to cancel job-killing regulations. AMY GOODMAN: The executive order also ends President Obama’s 2013 Climate Action Plan, which outlined the federal government’s approach to curbing climate change. Trump never mentioned climate change or global warming during his remarks, even though 2016 was the warmest year on record, breaking the record set in 2015. He also only mentioned the EPA’s mission to protect the environment once. PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We’re going to continue to expand energy production, and we will also create more jobs in infrastructure, trucking and manufacturing. This will allow the EPA to focus on its primary mission of protecting our air and protecting our water. Together, we are going to start a new energy revolution, one that celebrates American production on American soil.

AMY GOODMAN: For more, we’re joined by Jacqueline Patterson, director of the NAACP Environmental and Climate Justice Program, joining us from New Orleans. Welcome to Democracy Now!, Jacqueline. Talk about the effect of this executive order, its significance. JACQUELINE PATTERSON: Yes, it is so significant. Thanks for having me. So, there are so many far-reaching implications for this rule, if the actions go forward as presented. Certainly—certainly, fortunately, labor experts and market experts say that regardless of this rule, which seeks to release the restriction on leasing of federal lands for coal, they’re saying that it’s not necessarily going to bring back the coal industry. But if it did, the coal industry is so harmful not only to the communities that are host to coal-fired power plants, but also to the very workers whose jobs that President Trump purports to save, including the fact that 76,000 coal miners have died of black lung disease since 1968, while the industry has fought against the regulations to protect them from coal mine dust. So we have those implications. We have implications like the communities that are host to coal-fired power plants are choking down sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury, arsenic, lead, not to mention that coal is the number—coal-based energy production is the number one contributor to greenhouse—to carbon dioxide emissions, which is the number one greenhouse gas emission that drives climate change.

So, those implications are significant. AMY GOODMAN: And can you talk about how, in particular, it will affect communities of color? JACQUELINE PATTERSON: Yeah, so, for example, African American—68 percent of African Americans live within 30 miles of a coal-fired power plant. And we know that with the emissions, such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, they’re known to have a link to exacerbating respiratory conditions such as asthma. We also know that African Americans—71 percent of African Americans live in counties in violation of air pollution standards. And we know that the African-American children are three to five times more likely to enter into the hospital from asthma attacks and two to three times more likely to die of asthma attacks. When we connect the dots in terms of exposure and in terms of the health conditions of African-American children and people, we start to see the ties in terms of the impact, the disproportionate impact, of the coal industry, in particular, on communities of color.

We know that African-American adults are more likely to die from lung disease, but far less likely to smoke. When we put out our report, "Coal Blooded: Putting Profits Before People," back in 2012, we went around, and we visited with communities that were host to coal-fired power plants. And we heard time and time again from folks who had—half the kids in their school were on inhalers. Half the people in their church were on respirators. I spoke to a fellow in Indiana whose wife had died of lung disease. They lived within seeing distance of a coal-fired power plant. She had never smoked a day in her life. I spoke to a woman whose father worked in a coal plant and who died of lung cancer, but had never smoked a day in his life. So we see these stories—we hear these stories, and we see the statistics. And the disproportionate exposure and the differential impact are clear.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to Earthjustice Policy Vice President Martin Hayden, who questioned whether President Trump’s executive order will have a significant effect on the coal industry. MARTIN HAYDEN: [We] are a net exporter of coal, by a long shot. So, producing more coal isn’t going to make us more energy independent. And the other piece of producing more coal—and you saw many of the coal company executives say this last night—that while it may raise coal production some, it’s not going to create many more jobs, because they are more automated today, that the—that the trend has been fewer and fewer jobs in the coal fields, irrespective of how much coal is mined, because they’re using more mechanized approaches and less people approaches. AMY GOODMAN: So, that issue, Jacqueline Patterson, of what the president keeps pushing, the issue of coal jobs? JACQUELINE PATTERSON: Yes, so—yes, so, as I was saying at the very beginning, both the labor industry and the market say that it’s not necessarily going to bring back coal.

I was saying what the implications would be if it did, in any way, increase—increase coal production—coal-based energy production in the United States. But then there’s the other side of the fact, that even if we’re exporting coal, and other countries are using coal, as we know, any use of coal burning to produce energy affects climate change overall. And we know that communities of color and low-income communities are more likely to feel the impacts from climate change. And so, whether it’s communities that have poor housing stock, communities that are underinsured, communities that are—whose homes are located in the floodplains, we see that these communities are disproportionately vulnerable to climate change and more likely to be impacted by climate change. We know that these communities are often the ones that are—don’t have access to healthy and nutritious foods.

They have food insecurity. And we know that shifts in agricultural yields is another impact of climate change and that—and that this might make food insecurity even greater in these communities. So the far-reaching implications of any type of increase in coal-based energy production are felt no matter where it happens, are felt globally, and particularly in vulnerable communities and vulnerable countries. AMY GOODMAN: We’ve been talking about coal plants, but let’s talk about coal-fired plants. Jacqueline, talk by your own growing up in Chicago. JACQUELINE PATTERSON: Yeah, so I grew up on the South Side of Chicago, where there were three coal-fired power plants within a 15-mile radius of where I lived, the Fisk and Crawford plants on the South Side of Chicago and the State Line plant on the northwest side of Indiana. So, unbeknownst to me, really, because, you know, these things are there, and you often just don’t know the impacts of these—of these facilities in your community, I was living in this toxic corridor. And fast-forward to today, when I was doing the work on the "Coal Blooded" report, I visited with the Little Village Environmental Justice Organization, PERRO and others in Chicago who were doing work on the Fisk and Crawford plants.

And they had done a partnership with the Harvard School of Public Health. And through the community-campus partnership, they found that 40 asthma deaths and a thousand hospitalizations were attributed to the Fisk and Crawford coal plants, which gave them what the—the fuel that they needed to be able to inform the community, which eventually resulted in the City Council passing an ordinance around clean air and Mayor Rahm Emanuel giving a ultimatum to either clean these coal plants up or shut them down, which eventually did happen. And so, again, I was growing up in harm’s way. My father—my father passed away a few years ago of lung disease. And his doctor specifically cited that it was due to environmental exposures. And now I wonder what the cumulative impact might have been of living on the South Side of Chicago in that toxic corridor with those three coal plants and other toxins in the air. AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Jacqueline Patterson, just the overall broader issue of cuts to the EPA and the whole direction the Trump administration is going? And, I mean, he signed this executive order at the Environmental Protection Agency, which he said he is going to slash by almost a third.

This is with the acquiescence of the head of the EPA—right?—the former Oklahoma attorney general, Scott Pruitt, who sued the EPA 14 times before he’s now become its head. JACQUELINE PATTERSON: Mm-hmm, yes. And unfortunately, not only—if it was just slashed off of the EPA budget in general, that would be bad enough. But the fact that it’s targeted slashing of environment justice programs, that are meant to protect communities like Mossville, Louisiana, which is in this petrochemical corridor, which is a cancer cluster, which has already these existing impacts for their community, communities like Uniontown, Alabama, which, again, has multiple assaults in terms of its environmental exposures, the communities across the nation that are, again, disproportionately communities of color, disproportionately indigenous communities and low-income communities, communities in Appalachia, who are suffering under the impacts of mountaintop removal and so forth and so on.

And so, the Environmental Protection Agency, as we—as per its name, it is there to ensure that we have the monitoring and the enforcement of safeguards for our health and well-being. So I shudder to think what the impacts will be if that agency does not serve that function. AMY GOODMAN: Jacqueline Patterson, I want to thank you for being with us, director of the NAACP Environmental and Climate Justice Program, speaking to us from New Orleans. This is Democracy Now! When we come back, the House votes on internet privacy. Stay with us..

Can We Save Our Cities From Drowning?

The antarctic ice sheet is DEFINITELY MELTING! Here's a crazy idea: let's NOT wait until millions of people are homeless before we do something about it. Eh? Eh? Hello folks, Laci Green here for DNews. When it comes to the rising sea level, one of the key players is our Southern buddy Antarctica. Antarctica is a something of a neglected continent because basically nobody lives there– but it is about twice the size of Australia and contains 90% of the earth's ice. The entire continent is basically a 1 mile thick slab of ice. If the whole thing were to melt, the sea level across the planet would rise 200 feet. And humanity would be TOTALLY screwed. Fortunately, we're only SLIGHTLY screwed. Multiple studies published in the journal Science predict that we're looking at closer to a TEN foot increase in sea level across the planet by the year 2200. So hey! It's not 200 hundred feet…but 10 is still a lot, even across the projected 200 year period.

By the time your great-great-grandbabies are walking the earth, around 29,000 square miles of US land will be under water — land that is currently inhabited by over 12 million people. Researchers at Climate Central say that New York City, New Orleans, Miami and DC will be the areas that are most heavily flooded. Various coastal cities in Texas, New Jersey, New England, Virginia, California will also be severely affected. In Florida, the highest risk area, ⅓ of all its housing will go under, and because of what are essentially holes in Florida's bedrock, levees and seawalls will be useless. On a global scale, thirteen of the world's largest cities and about 25% of humanity rests in coastal areas that will be affected. Some inhabited islands, like the Maldives, are projected to go underwater completely. Of course, this kind of rise also poses a great threat for severe flooding during storms like Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Sandy.

Plus tsunami zones from earthquakes will extend much further back into the land. BUT! Before you freak, keep in mind that this is something that will happen SLOWLY, over time. It's not an overnight thing. The melt predicted is also not reversible, it's gonna happen, so cities will need to figure out how they will handle the physical and economic impacts — a process that begins by scientists and policymakers working together and asking the right questions to get started. The American Geophysical Union is already asking: alright guys, what's our approach here? Should we build up our seawalls? Should we start to zone future buildings and real estate further up on the land? How will this affect our economy? To prevent even more sea level rising, we should also be seriously thinking about what role humans play in preventing more ice melting. The common response to this kind of news is usually fear (OH MY GOD!) followed by apathy (I DON'T CARE!).

I'd argue that the proper response isn't fear or apathy at all — it's action. Action in the form of prevention and adaptation. Time to roll up those sleeves and get to work. What do you think? Tell me about it down below and I'll see you next time with more science updates..

The Worldwide Phenomenon That’s Shrinking Animals

The threat of rising temperatures due to global warming will have serious effects on our tiny blue planet. Warming oceans could kill coral reefs, there might be less fresh water, more disease, less polar bears, more bark beetles, the list goes on. But here is one side effect you may not have heard of…smaller horses. That’s right, warmer temperatures could make some animals shrink. About 50 million years ago, after the dinosaurs died off, the Earth went through a series of warming events called hyperthermals, most likely from an increase of carbon. Most notably was what scientists call the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), when temperatures rose between 5 and 8 degrees celsius, and stayed that way for almost 200,000 years. Now, scientists wanted to know how this global warming event affected the creatures living at the time, so they started studying ancient horse teeth.

And they found that, when global temperatures rose, these horses shrank. During the PETM, one ancient horse species called Sifrhippus (siff-RIP-us), shrunk by 30%. But as the Earth cooled back down, it got 76% bigger. During the less drastic Eocene Thermal Maximum 2, another ancient horse, the Arenahippus shrank by 14%, going from about the size of a dog to about the size of a cat. Yeah, ancient horses were smaller than you might have thought. So, why the shrinkage? Well, one explanation might be Bergmann's rule, which states when the climate gets warmer, mammals get smaller so they can cool off more efficiently. Rising temperatures also see an increase in drought and a decrease in plant growth, which basically mean less food and water for the animals, which could result in smaller and smaller offspring. But this is more than a fun fact, because global temperatures are on the rise again and some shrinking has already been documented in modern day animals, like sheep, goats and reindeer. Now, there are other factors that could have been in play and the same dwarfing may not happen the same way it did over 50 million years ago.

But with some climate scientists predicting the earth’s temperature increasing by up to 6 degrees by the year 2100, there may be a lot to learn from studying these shrinking horses. And if history does indeed repeat itself, more tiny horses could be on the horizon. If you’re tired of talking about the tiny, why don’t you go watch this video on some of the largest creatures to ever walk the Earth, dinosaurs. Scientists have completely rewritten how they are categorized and it’s kinda crazy. Don’t forget to subscribe, share and come back for more on Seeker..

UN chief urges leaders to address climate change and sustainable development in Davos

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was another distinguished guest attending the World Economic Forum in Davos to speak on some of the most pressing issues facing the global community. He said global efforts to tackle climate change issue should go hand-in-hand with pursuing sustainable development. Park Ji-won shares with us the UN chief's message. The UN chief urged world leaders to join global efforts to address the climate change issue,… by ratifying a historical agreement reached in Paris in December,… aimed at effectively limiting green house gas emissions. "Governments must quickly ratify the Paris Agreement, so that it can be effective." He also called for sufficient financing for developing countries to promote less dependency on fossil fuels,… and the rapid implementation of actions at every possible level. The use of market mechanisms to spur the growth of carbon pricing being one of the actions. "The Paris Agreement gives the private sector an unprecedented opportunity to create clean energy and climate resilient economies. Governments have agreed on transparent rules to monitor progress, enhance accountability and foster climate market ambition." Ban stressed that such global efforts to overcome climate change must coincide with efforts to achieve sustainable development goals,.

… or SDGs. SDGs make up a set of 17 ambitious goals such as ending poverty and zero hunger,… that were agreed upon by more than 190 countries in September last year. The UN Secretary General said,… the global community should now move towards development models that are both sustainable and protect against climate change. The UN chief reiterated the importance of sustainable development goals at another open forum session in Davos. Ban called for the need to end poverty and create sustainable food systems,… through a successful implementation of the 17 goals,… an initiative that aims to eliminate hunger within 15 years,…and leave no one behind. Park Ji-won, Arirang News..

Storing the Sun’s Energy in Liquid Could Change Solar Forever

The sun puts out a lot of energy, more of it hits the earth in an hour than humankind could use in a year And we’re really not taking advantage of it, the US got less than 1% of its electricity from solar power in 2016. If we could get that number higher, we could run our homes, cars, toaster ovens, all with zero emissions. That’s the dream anyway, some perfect future with limitless free energy. So what’s in the near future for this future? Where does solar power go from here? One of the big problems is what do we do when there’s no sun? Like on cloudy days. Or at night time. If we’re going to go all solar, we need a way to store the sun’s energy.Usually, we’d combine solar panels with rechargeable batteries, but batteries are pricey and they kinda suck. So researchers in Sweden are working on how to catch the sun’s energy in a bottle, or at least in a little tube. Those crazy Swedes developed a liquid with an intriguing property. The molecules in the liquid react when exposed to light and become isomers; meaning they still have the same makeup, but in a different arrangement than normal.

This new arrangement stores energy, and when a catalyst is introduced, it shifts the molecules back to their usual structure and releases the stored energy as heat, which could be used to warm homes at night or generate electricity, provided enough heat is released. Recently the researchers switched from expensive ruthenium to the more common elements carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen to build their molecules; this makes the process cheaper and easier. On top of that, they’ve actually increased their storage capacity by a hundredfold! Ok so… they could only store 0.01% of the energy that hit it before… and a hundredfold increase means just 1.1%, but still, progress! Storage isn’t the only issue. The panels themselves are also expensive… If we could make the solar panels cheaper that would go a long way to creating a competitive source of energy compared to fossil fuels and other renewables.

90% of photovoltaic cells today use crystalline silicon, making them expensive to manufacture and the process creates toxic by-products. But an entirely different approach does exist: Using perovskites. Perovskites have a crystal structure of tetrahedral arrangements of atoms and molecules, and depending on which elements are used they have different properties. They could be superconductive, magnetoresistive, or photovoltaic. Solar cells that use them are cheap and easy to assemble and could now be on par with silicon cells in terms of energy efficiency. But you may have noticed every rooftop in sight isn’t covered in perovskites. That’s because they have a fatal flaw: the cells are unstable, and extreme light levels, temperature, and humidity cause them to decompose. Even normal weather can destroy them, which is bad because you typically see a lot of weather outside, the place where solar panels need to be. As a result perovskite cells only function for several months, compared to silicon cells which can last more than 25 years. But hey, a decade ago perovskite cells only lasted a few minutes.

Again, progress! Scientists are constantly coming up with new and ingenious ways to make the sun do our bidding, and these are just a couple of things currently in the works that show promise. Though we don’t use much of it now, breakthroughs and innovation could lead to a world powered cleanly and sustainably by sunlight. The future of solar power looks bright. There are crazier ideas for solar like putting panels in space and beaming electricity to Earth, but a massive project like that would be insanely expensive. They’re fun to ponder though, so Trace covers some far our geoengineering projects here. Do you have a favorite renewable energy technology that’s not quite ready yet? Let us know in the comments, so I can see how many of you say thorium reactors, subscribe for more, and thanks for watching Seeker.

.

The decline of American democracy in one graph

There's this graph that I saw recently. It's the most unsettling graph I've seen in American politics in a very, very, very long time. And yet it's really boring to look at. It's just a nearly straight horizontal line. The line doesn't do anything interesting at all. But what the graph shows is something that's somewhat terrifying. What that line shows is the relationship between what the average voter wants, and what they actually get. In a huge study, looking at over 2000 surveys of people's policy opinions, whether people were on the left side of the line which meant they opposed something happening, or on the right side, which meant they all wanted it to happen, it didn't matter. Once you controlled for the opinions of affluent Americans and interest groups and other lobbying organizations — average people, their voice was not heard at all.

Or at the very least their voice didn't appear to matter at all. Average folks only get what they want if economic elites or interest groups also want it. And all this data comes from a time when these groups were arguably less powerful in American politics. America never sold itself as a democracy. It sold itself as a representative democracy. There's accountability from voters onto politicians, but politicians, they get time in office. To step away from the passions of the electorate for at least a little while. And do things that are right for the country, and then voters will judge them on whether they did a good job. So maybe its the case that affluent Americans and interest groups and politicians just — they're always right. And average voters. You can just safely ignore them. But it doesn't look like America's been run so well. We had a massive financial crisis because we didn't do enough to regulate Wall Street, we got into a disastrous war in Iraq. We have median wages that haven't substantially grown in many, many years.

It doesn't seem that we are so incredibly good at running this country. Maybe we need a little more democracy in our representation..

How Global Warming Works in Under 5 Minutes

You may have heard of global climate change, which is often called "global warming." Whether or not people accept that humans are causing global warming, most folks have an opinion about it. But how much do regular people understand the science of climate change? If you were asked to explain how global warming works, could you? Take a moment to try to explain to yourself how virtually all climate scientists think the Earth is warming. What is the physical or chemical mechanism? Don't feel bad; if you're anything like the people we've surveyed in our studies, you probably struggled to come up with an explanation. In fact, in one study we asked almost 300 adults in the U.S.– and not a single person could accurately explain the mechanism a global warming at a pretty basic level. This is consistent with larger surveys that have shown that people often lack knowledge about climate change.

But how can we make informed decisions without understanding the issues we're debating? Allow us to give you a short explanation of how global warming works: First, here is how Earth's temperature works without considering how humans influence it. The Earth absorbs light from the Sun, which is mostly visible light. To release that light-energy, Earth also emits light. But, because the Earth is cooler than the sun, it emits lower-energy infrared light. So, Earth's surface essentially transforms most to the visible light it gets from the sun into infrared light. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as methane and carbon dioxide, let visible light passed through, but absorb infrared light–causing the atmosphere to retain heat. This energy can be absorbed and emitted by the atmosphere many times before it eventually returns to outer space. The added time this energy hangs around has helped keep earth warm enough to support life as we know it.

Without this greenhouse effect–caused by these greenhouse gases in the atmosphere– the Earth's average surface temperature would be about 50 degrees Fahrenheit cooler, which is well below the freezing point for ice! So, how have humans change things? Since the dawn of the industrial age, around the year 1750, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 40%– and methane has almost tripled. These increases cause extra infrared light absorption, meaning an extra greenhouse effect, which has caused Earth to heat above its typical temperature range. In other words, energy that gets to Earth has an even harder time leaving it, causing Earth's average temperature to increase– thus producing global climate change. In case you're wondering about what makes greenhouse gases special, here are two sentences of slightly technical information: Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide absorb infrared light because their molecules can vibrate to produce asymmetric distributions of electric charge, which match the energy levels of various infrared wavelengths.

In contrast, non-greenhouse gases such as oxygen–that is, 02–don't absorb infrared light, because they have symmetric charge distributions even while vibrating. To wrap, up we'll quickly summarize the mechanism global climate change: Earth transforms sunlight's visible energy into infrared light, and infrared energy leaves Earth slowly because it's absorbed by greenhouse gases. As people produce more greenhouse gases, energy leaves Earth even more slowly– raising Earth's temperature even more than it has already gone up. That's how global warming happens! This wasn't so hard to understand, right? In these few minutes you've hopefully become one of the few people who understand the mechanism of global climate change. Please share this video with others so you can help them understand how global warming works, too.

Thanks for listening!.