Global Warming Issues Are In Your Hands by David Yuri
There has been a lot of talk on the subject of global warming. Specialists believe that human activities in the past 50 years have given a negative boost to climate change. After a long series of tests and chart observations, it seems that the primary culprit for global warming is the emission of greenhouse gases (mainly carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide). These gases have altered the composition of the atmosphere and raised the planet’s temperature with almost 1?C since 1950.
The problem is not that these gases exist. They have always been in the atmosphere, but there is a major increase in their concentration. The planet started to heat up and the climate change appeared simultaneously with the beginning of industrial revolution. Then, at the start of a new era, the concentrations of carbon dioxide increased with nearly 30%, methane almost doubled and nitrous oxide with 15% making global warming a serious, even deadly matter.
These figures are truly concerning due to the fact that we rely on fossil fuels to drive, to heat and to power factories not thinking of the harsh reality: burned fossil fuels are the main reason for the rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leading to global warming and accelerating the rate of climate change.
Still, the combustion of fuel is not the only one to blame for global warming. Researchers consider that the development of agriculture, deforestation, landfills, industrial production and mining are also to blame. Each one of them has ‘helped’ induce large, global, abrupt climate change leading to a warmer planet, making it more difficult for us to live.
The statistics in climate change are frightening. Almost 98% of the greenhouses emissions are due to pollution and it is no surprise that the most powerful and rich country (U.S) on the continent is mainly responsible for global warming. 1998 has been declared the warmest year on record and scientistists are concerned that the snow cover in northern hemisphere and floating ice in the Arctic Ocean have decreased. Do we really pay enough attention to the climate change and do we want the planet to become too warm for us to live in?
We are all threathened by this sudden climate change. Global warming is not a joke and we should start paying more attention to it. Not only wildlife, forests and coastal areas are vulnerable to the climate change that the greenhouse gas may bring, but also water resources, animals and most important our health.
What should we expect from global warming? First of all, a change that will have a major impact on the way we live will be a warmer weather. Climate change will appear in the form of increased precipations worldwide, with acid rainfalls that will damage the natural habitat, with more frequent and intense storms that will build up and result in powerful hurricanes. And this is just the top of the ‘iceberg’ called global warming. The hurricanes will be stronger than usual with greater devastating powers.
The population of the globe should be taught more about these greenhouse gases that are held responsible for climate change and more specific, global warming. Carbon dioxide is realeased into the atmosphere when wood, fossil fuels (oil, gas and coal) and solid waste are burned. Methane is emitted during the production and transport of oil, gas and coal, but it also results from decomposition of solid, organic waste. Nitrous oxide is the product of: agricultural and industrial activities, combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste. So, do we still have to wonder why these greenhouse gases have such a strong impact on climate change?
Unfortunately, there are not many options to reduce the effects of global warming. Lately, in order to predict climate change, specialists have put up what is called an emission inventory which registers the quantity of air pollutants in the atmosphere. It also establishes the identity of the polluting agent (chemical/physical), the geographic area covered, the time period over which emissions are appreciated and the type of activities that cause the emissions. This way, the scientific community is making an effort to reduce the serious consequences of global warming.
Another solution for the problem of global warming is recycling. It started years ago in powerful and well developed states and it is a novelty for poor, undergoing tranzition states that are struggling to survive. But, slowly, people all over the world are learning about the strong effects of recycling newspapers, plastic, glass, metal. It is a healthy action that makes the world a better place. By recycling, we not only help ourselves, but also the forests, crop yields and water supplies which are severely affected by climate change. We also keep in mind the animals and the ecosystems - another sector badly damaged by climate change. We make the difference
Global warming affects everybody. That is why we must fight against our self destruction and life’s in general. Fight for your planet, don’t let the climate change affect the environment in an irrecoverable manner, keep in mind that Earth’s eco systems are sensitive and must be treated with care, and you will have a future!
Monday, February 25, 2008
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Global Warming's Fever
Global Warming's Fever by Thomas Phelp
The earth has a fever." This was a statement from Nobel Prize winning documentarian, Al Gore.
Increasingly the view of mankind by mankind is that of intruder. In many ways it would seem that we are the earth's enemy and our very existence is depleting the earth of resources that could keep an environmental balance.
Global warming is the belief that the temperature of the air nearest to earth is consistently rising. Droughts are blamed on global warming and new products are constantly being developed to help lessen human impact on perceived climate change.
Electric or hybrid cars are thought to provide the best example of how we can reduce carbon emissions that are said to be harming the earth. Every day children are learning about global warming in school and some are even taking their parents to task for habits that may not be viewed as earth-friendly.
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were slowly eliminated when it was discovered that chlorine in this common chemical compound might be responsible for ozone depletion in the 1970s. That in turn caused many to believe the hole in the ozone was causing the earth to warm substantially. Obviously global warming sounds a clarion call to environmentalist, but politicians and the education establishment have also embraced it.
Research tends to support the idea that humans have less to do with climate change than livestock and other animals, yet this is rarely discussed in the global warming debate. You should know there are those that believe the theory of global warming may be less dramatic than the aforementioned fever.
For instance there is no hard scientific data to indicate a long-term warming trend. Where some would espouse the belief that oceans will rise dramatically as icebergs melt the actual short-term data indicates an air temperature increase of less than a degree.
Additionally there are those who would request data be collected from multiple climate environments to assess the actual temperature variances. This is something that has not been factored into the current Global warming theory.
In was noted in 2007 that efforts in the UK to reduce the impact of their human population on the environment did essentially nothing to actually help in the effort. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction - we've all heard that before. The 'action' was regulation to effect a positive change in CO2 emissions. The 'reaction' was no change in spite of increased man-hours, new regulations and general compliance.
Would further restrictions stunt technological advances? There are those who believe global warming is much ado about nothing and remain alarmed that so many changes are being enacted based on a theory with no long-term supporting data. They are also alarmed that the regulations that are already in place are having very little impact on a perceived problem.
Add to that the fact that 2007 was the coldest year on record for the 21st century and you can see why some believe that the term 'fever' might have been used prematurely. Some may even wonder if man has less control over environmental change than we would like to believe.
I'm certainly not advocating that we act irresponsibly with our natural resources, but from a scientific point of view it is irresponsible to extrapolate an extremely costly plan of action from data that does not support the action.
From a logical point of view it makes perfect sense to replace deforested land with new plant life that can convert CO2 to oxygen. It makes sense from an economic point of view to decrease gas consumption as gas prices rise. From a health perspective it makes sense to reduce emissions to assist in the decrease of health issues. However, when the data doesn't support the theory it is either time to adopt a new theory or at the very least face the facts.
The earth has a fever." This was a statement from Nobel Prize winning documentarian, Al Gore.
Increasingly the view of mankind by mankind is that of intruder. In many ways it would seem that we are the earth's enemy and our very existence is depleting the earth of resources that could keep an environmental balance.
Global warming is the belief that the temperature of the air nearest to earth is consistently rising. Droughts are blamed on global warming and new products are constantly being developed to help lessen human impact on perceived climate change.
Electric or hybrid cars are thought to provide the best example of how we can reduce carbon emissions that are said to be harming the earth. Every day children are learning about global warming in school and some are even taking their parents to task for habits that may not be viewed as earth-friendly.
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were slowly eliminated when it was discovered that chlorine in this common chemical compound might be responsible for ozone depletion in the 1970s. That in turn caused many to believe the hole in the ozone was causing the earth to warm substantially. Obviously global warming sounds a clarion call to environmentalist, but politicians and the education establishment have also embraced it.
Research tends to support the idea that humans have less to do with climate change than livestock and other animals, yet this is rarely discussed in the global warming debate. You should know there are those that believe the theory of global warming may be less dramatic than the aforementioned fever.
For instance there is no hard scientific data to indicate a long-term warming trend. Where some would espouse the belief that oceans will rise dramatically as icebergs melt the actual short-term data indicates an air temperature increase of less than a degree.
Additionally there are those who would request data be collected from multiple climate environments to assess the actual temperature variances. This is something that has not been factored into the current Global warming theory.
In was noted in 2007 that efforts in the UK to reduce the impact of their human population on the environment did essentially nothing to actually help in the effort. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction - we've all heard that before. The 'action' was regulation to effect a positive change in CO2 emissions. The 'reaction' was no change in spite of increased man-hours, new regulations and general compliance.
Would further restrictions stunt technological advances? There are those who believe global warming is much ado about nothing and remain alarmed that so many changes are being enacted based on a theory with no long-term supporting data. They are also alarmed that the regulations that are already in place are having very little impact on a perceived problem.
Add to that the fact that 2007 was the coldest year on record for the 21st century and you can see why some believe that the term 'fever' might have been used prematurely. Some may even wonder if man has less control over environmental change than we would like to believe.
I'm certainly not advocating that we act irresponsibly with our natural resources, but from a scientific point of view it is irresponsible to extrapolate an extremely costly plan of action from data that does not support the action.
From a logical point of view it makes perfect sense to replace deforested land with new plant life that can convert CO2 to oxygen. It makes sense from an economic point of view to decrease gas consumption as gas prices rise. From a health perspective it makes sense to reduce emissions to assist in the decrease of health issues. However, when the data doesn't support the theory it is either time to adopt a new theory or at the very least face the facts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
