How to save Earth from an asteroid impact

Scientists have used a virtual model to investigate options to save the Earth from an asteroid impact.

According to a report in New Scientist, the model was developed by a team led by David Dearborn of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, which modelled the impact of a nuclear explosion on an asteroid's trajectory.

It is based on the option of gently nudging the asteroid away from Earth without breaking it apart, either by exploding a nuclear device at a distance or zapping it with high-powered lasers.

The team's virtual asteroid was 1 kilometer in diameter and made of rocky rubble loosely bound together by gravity, which is considered by many planetary scientists to be the most likely composition for small asteroids.

Thirty years before the asteroid was set to collide with Earth, a nuclear blast, equivalent to 100 kilotonnes of TNT, was set off 250 meters behind it.

The nudge from the explosion increased its velocity by 6.5 millimeters per second, a slight change but enough for it to miss us.

The technique also reduced the risk of a break-up.

Just 1 per cent of the asteroid's material was dislodged by the blast, and of that only about 1 part in a million remained on a collision course with Earth.

Dearborn adds that the technology for this method is already established, unlike for the use of a heavy object to shove the asteroid onto a different path - the "kinetic impactor" strategy.

"Should an emergency arise, we should know that the technology is available, and we should have some idea of how to properly use it," he said.

He has now begun simulating the effect of nudging an asteroid with a smaller nuclear explosion - less than 1 kilotonne - 1 meter below its surface.

This would reduce the device's weight, making it easier and quicker to launch. (ANI)

Will you Rise to the Global Warming Challenge?

The general consensus among scientists is that global warming is happening, and we need to do something about it soon, otherwise we will face serious problems in the future. Most solutions to global warming work around reducing the amount of energy we use, and the amount of emissions produced. This is something that we could do, if more people took global warming seriously.

We need to put solutions to the global warming problem in place now. The temperature of the planet is gradually rising and we have contributed greatly to that increase. We produce large amounts of CO2 emissions through our usage of coal, oil, and natural gas, and those emissions are damaging the ozone layer. Without rapid action, we will cause serious damage on a level that could threaten our future on this planet, as the ozone layer will be too thin to protect us from the suns rays.

Time For Common Sense

This is one problem that is not going to just suddenly go away. Some people joke 'it would be nice if it were a few degrees warmer, what is the big deal?' but the problem needs dealt with now. Heat waves are no joke, and can kill the very young, ill, or elderly. Heat waves mean forest fires, which can decimate entire woodlands. Then there are droughts, and the freak storms and winds that occur as the overall increase in temperature alters the weather system.

Reducing usage and waste are big steps towards protecting the planet 

Global Warming Events

Global warming is a phenomenon that is way beyond and over the level of awareness of the man on the street, but whose impact is felt by him wherever he is.in every nook around the world, in our very residences, in every geographical location in fact. Everyone is starting to feel its impact in our daily lives. Already there are indications of the sad plight of the earth's climate in some areas of the US that are blessed with very good climate.

There is ample evidence of the effects of a changing climate in California, for example. Records show that in the half century that passed, temperatures in winter and spring have been warmer. There has also been a recorded drop in the level of spring snow in low elevation to mid-elevation mountains. Blooms show up a couple of weeks earlier, while snowpacks are also melting earlier by 1 to 4 weeks. This is very much related to the worldwide increase of average temperatures by 1 degree Fahrenheit over the last 100 years. It is important to note that the US is the biggest contributor to air pollution that traps heat (CO2 emissions from cars, trucks and industrial plants) and causes global warming. Such kind of activities is projected to be the gauge at how much warmer the state's climate will become as it is also a scientifically projected that California temperatures will rise by 4.7 10.5 degrees Fahrenheit in this century. If state laws and Washington declarations prevail, emissions could be cut and consequently contain the temperature rise to around 3 to 5.6 degrees Fahrenheit.

In addition to warmer climate, continued abuse and misuse of the environment can cause corollary incidents of widespread wildfires, as well as reduced production and quality of agricultural harvest.

San Joaquin Valley, according to climatologists, may also bear the brunt of global warming. There are existing problems, like water shortage, that can be aggravated by climactic change. At present, South of Fresno for instance, gets only 8 inches of rain annually; the residents depend on the melting of Sierra Nevada's snowpack to compensate. But this will be where the main problem would lie with warmer temperatures, the Sierras may not be able to hold that much water anymore. This spells disaster for California's $32 billion agriculture industry. San Joaquin Valley produces nearly 50% of the US supply of fruits and vegetables, San Joaquin County ranking 5th in the countries total agriculture production.

This is a painful eye-opener; global warming hurts not only the physical environment, but also society and the economy. Worst of all realizations is: mildly put, it was initiated by human activities and it is perpetrated by human indifference.

San Joaquin Valley may, for the most part of the year, be dry. Not the case for the area north of the valley. Higher sea levels (another dangerous consequence of global warming) would pose a danger for the Delta areas like Stockton and Sacramento. They stand the risk of being flooded, especially Stockton which is at sea level. Seawater seeping inland would destroy agriculture that thrives on fresh water.

Another consequence that is not as highly felt as the effect of global warming on water and land resources, is the effect of warmer temperatures on the quality of air. San Joaquin Valley will suffer from poorer air quality; as it is, it is shoulder to shoulder with LA and Houston in not so healthy air quality.

These are no laughing matters. Foreseeing the dismal developments, state leaders are starting to legislate to address global warming concerns by cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Last year saw California as the very first state to implement a law limit emissions of these dangerous gasses.

Concerned agencies are also actively advocate awareness of global warming and encourage helpful measures. The University of the Pacific continually conducts campaigns for the cause. Recycling is highly recommended anything from bottles, to cans, to paper. So is lesser driving and the use of fluorescent bulbs over incandescent ones. These are very simple solutions which can be easily done by everyone, but are usually overlooked and disregarded. If only everyone would stand up to the challenge now!

Global Warming Cool Down?

We know what Al Gore thinks. We know what Hollywood thinks. And we know what some mereorologists think. Can we get a word on the global warming debate from a scientists or two? How about, say 400 scientists? Yep, that's not a typo- it's FOUR HUNDRED scientists! Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. Objections you say?

The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007. Ah, so the report came out of the politicians closet- and a GOP one of course!

Who can believe a Republican politician? But, wait!

This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters” report is poised to redefine the debate.

Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.

“Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,” Paldor wrote. Does this mean we scrp the Greenhouse effect ideas?

Specifically, these scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Why not. He's become the lightning rod, the poster child for global warming.

One other top-notch scientists added to the 400 pile on.

Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a “consensus” of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. “I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority.”

So much for the Kyoto Agreement- or disagreement too!

Let the debate heat up!

A Visualization of the Urban Legend Called, Man Made Global Warming

About the only truth pertaining to Man Made Global Warming

is that there are many people across the world making tons of money by perpetrating a junk science hoax. Just as in the previous Nuclear Winter scare of the 80s, there is no basis for the fears that are being manipulated by those who are profiteering from this absurd science. Worse yet is that if one calls a Global Warming Alarmist (GWA) out on their claims then they will get the patented answer of, the debate is over.

I think not. One has to have a debate before the issues can be resolved. Yet the GWAs will not debate their evidence because they have none. If there is evidence anywhere to prove Man Made Global Warming as fact it has yet to be supported by reputable men of science. Therefore, the best recourse for these GWA profiteers is to claim that a debate which proved their claims has actually occurred. That brings to mind the following famous quote:

"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." - Adolph Hitler

I will attempt to prove the absurdity of blaming man for the acceleration of Global Warming by first providing some basic botany facts and then a couple of visualizations which anyone can do at home. Bear in mind, these examples are for visualizing how small man actually is on this planet.

Through normal Photosynthesis, algae and cyanobacterium in marine environments provide about 70% of the free oxygen produced on earth. The remainder of Earth's overabundant oxygen is produced by plants like trees, shrubbery, grasses, flowers, et al. In fact just three average sized trees can provide one person with enough oxygen for their entire life. Now imagine how many trees there are on Earth.

For the first graphic experiment one needs to agree that there are 300 million people living in the United States. Now what we will do is to multiply that number by three feet in length per every man, woman and child. The three feet is what we will say is the average width of each of the 300 million people, from shoulder to shoulder. That leaves us with a line of 300 million people stretching shoulder to shoulder for 900 million feet in length.

The entire 50 United States has 12,383 miles of coastline and 7,458 miles of International Boundaries with Mexico and Canada. Which means the little thin outline on a map of the continental USA, complete with an insert of Hawaii and Alaska stretches 19,841 miles in length. Multiply these miles by 5,280 feet and the length of the USA outline stretches out to 104.8 million feet.

Now all we have to do is to figure out how many times we can run our line of 900 million "people feet" around the boundaries and coasts of the United States map. Through dividing the 900 million in people feet by the 104.8 million in USA outline we will get a total of 8.6 rows of people stretching around the entire USA map and inserts. Now if each person is averaged out at being two feet in depth then our rows would become 17.2 feet deep by 104.8 million feet long. At that thickness this line would not even be visible from low earth orbit!

Now look at the entire United States. One can see nothing but green and blue with a few sprinkles of beige for deserts. All of this green and blue and a small portion of beige produce oxygen. That is the entire oxygen producing ground cover of the United States. The CO2 emitting lines of people are not even visible at all. So how can one say that man is affecting the land?

For the second graphic experiment all we need to do is multiply 300 million people by six square feet (their footprint). That is an allocation of three feet by two feet for every single person in the USA. This results in approximately 1.8 billion square feet of people. Divide this by the total square feet of a square mile (27.9 million) and you will get an area of 64.6 square miles. That is actually a smaller area than Reno, Nevada! Which compared to a USA map would be like throwing a golf ball out onto a football field. The grass of the field would produce oxygen while the golf ball would represent the 300 million people producing CO2. Still think man can affect the earth?

To account for emissions from factories, transportation and animals, let us get crazy and just toss a volley ball out onto the football field instead of the golf ball. Even then, there is plenty of green on the field producing an overabundance of life sustaining oxygen.

Kyoto Protocol - A-z of Global Warming

This article is taken from The A-Z of Global Warming deals with the Kyoto Protocol. A major political force which brought global climate change to the fore was born from the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, where an agreement called the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), was agreed. This followed hot on the heals from the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's ( IPCC ) first report on climate change.

The Kyoto Protocol as it became known entered into force on the 16th February 2005 and became the first important step in relation to climate change as governments and countries around the world committed themselves to a binding agreement to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

The road to Kyoto was a bumpy one. After agreeing the UNFCCC, governments realised that action had to be taken to set real reduction targets, and so, in 1997, in Kyoto in Japan the parties to the UNFCCC reached agreement on what later became known as The Kyoto Protocol.

For the protocol to enter into force it had to become ratified by at least 55 parties to the convention, and incorporating a list of 35 industrialised nations. These nations together with the EU, accounted for at least 55% of the total of CO2 emissions in 1990.

A stalling point came however when the USA, having signed up to the protocol under President Clinton, withdrew from the protocol when President Bush was elected in early 2000. Luckily, the protocol was thrown a lifeline by Russia, when President Putin ratified the agreement on November 18th 2004.

The protocol's main aims required industrialised countries to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gasses by 5% below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. The gasses covered are the 6 main greenhouse gasses, namely;

- Carbon dioxide (CO2);
- Methane (CH4);
- Nitrous oxide (N2O);
- Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs);
- Perfluorocarbons (PFCs); and
- Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6)

The agreement attempts to do this by providing for various market based mechanisms to assist countries or individual companies meet their respective emission targets. Emissions caps are put on Annex 1 countries, giving each country an emissions quota, or allowable amount of CO2 emissions. So for example the European Union has been given a target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 8% below 1990 levels. This target can be distributed amongst member states.

In general developed Annex 1 countries have to reduce their CO2 emissions, whilst developing non Annex 1 countries have not had to cap their emissions, but instead will participate in CO2 emission reducing projects.

There are three basic methods open to countries to meet their targets;

Emissions Trading Schemes (ETS)

As explained above, these schemes allow for the trading of CO2 emissions for carbon credits. So, if a country or industry exceeds their assigned amount of CO2 emissions, they would be able to purchase credits from a country or industry that has not. Only a small proportion of global emissions are covered by these schemes, and currently the EU has the largest scheme, the EU ETS.

Clean Development Mechanisms (CDM)

This is a way for Annex 1 countries to earn credits by investing and funding climate friendly projects and technologies in developing countries, thus helping control emissions in these countries.

Joint Implementations Projects (JIP)

Basically these are the same as CDM's, but with Annex 1 countries investing in climate friendly technology in other Annex 1 countries, rather than other developing countries.

Whilst Kyoto is an incredible achievement it is at present the world's only agreement attempting to limit greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. There are problems due to the fact that the USA has not ratified the Protocol, and neither had Australia, until literally 3rd December 2007, following government change.

Whist the USA refuses to sign up to the protocol other countries such as India and China, whilst ratifying the Protocol do not have obligations at present to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions on the basis that these countries were not responsible for today's greenhouse gas levels. However, at the rate these countries are developing, they will soon be the World's major polluters as they build more and more fossil-fuelled electricity plants to satisfy their energy needs. Indeed it is believed that in June 2007 China overtook the USA as the world's highest CO2 emitters

It is true to say however that instead of the richest countries reducing their emissions by 5% to 1990 levels, they have in fact increased them by some 10%. It is believed that only four countries, UK, France, Germany and Sweden are on track to meet the targets set.

Recently the UK announced the introduction of a Climate Change Bill making it the first country to set legally binding targets to reduce its CO2 emissions. The Bill will receive royal ascent in the autumn of 2008, and it will set targets to reduce CO2 emissions by 60% by 2050.

What will happen after 2012? Well, UN secretary Ban Ki-moon convened a high level event that took place in New York on 24th September 2007, to promote discussions on ways to move the international community toward negotiations on a new global agreement on climate change. This took place at the UN climate change conference which took place in Bali on 3rd December 2008. The purpose of discussions will be to try and get in place a multilateral framework for action on climate change, already refered to as Kyoto 2, for the period after the Kyoto agreement ends in 2012.

Whist the Kyoto Protocol was a big step in the right direction, it seems that much more needs to be done and far greater cuts made to CO2 emissions to ensure global temperatures do not rise over critical levels.

How Global Warming Could Cause An Ice Age?

An Ice Age brought on by global warming was the scenario depicted in the movie THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW. While the science on which the movie based has been called into question, there may be some merit in the theory that global warming could cause an Ice Age.

Why is Europe's climate comparitively milder than other places at the same latitude? Alaska and Greenland, both the same distance to the North Pole as Europe, are covered with ice and permafrost while most of Europe is not.

The ocean currents called the Gulf Stream bring warm waters up to Europe from the Caribbean. This water brings warmth to the countries in its path. Cooler water from Europe feeds back into the loop and causes the water to flow back to the Caribbean in a continuous cycle.

The Gulf Stream has been significantly weakened in every major cooling event, including the last great Ice Age. In the past this weakening has been brought on by natural events. In current times, global warming brought on by human activities could be the cause of slowing or even stopping the Gulf Stream. If this were to happen, the cold waters would stay in the area of Europe and the Northeastern US and could mean an Ice Age for those regions.

If an Ice Age occurs, it will likely be due to the melting of polar ice. This will dump large quantities of cold, fresh water into the ocean. It would disrupt the Gulf Stream and cause the cooling of many areas that now have milder climates. The return flow of cold water from Greenland, which goes back to the Caribbean, has already showed a weakening over the last 50 years. There has been a twenty percent decline in the amount of current flowing in this direction. It stands to reason that the warm waters returning from the Caribbean have also decreased in volume. The change would not be gradual. This is a phenomenon that takes place rather quickly. Perhaps it does not happen as fast as depicted in THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW. However, it could happen within a few short years.


A slowing or stoppage of the Gulf Stream would affect the entire earth. Observations have been made of current data and historical information gleaned by studying the ocean and the lands around it. With all the information at hand, it appears that it is indeed possible that global warming could bring about a modern Ice Age.

Deforestation and the Greenhouse Effect

The main reason for deforestation is the demand for fuel, wood and paper products, cattle ranching, farming

, mining and road construction. Half of all the trees cut down in the world are used for fuel. Burning wood is common in developing countries where there are often no readily-available alternatives. This in itself may not a huge problem; only, most of these trees are not replaced, which is a problem. The use of wood and paper, mainly in developed countries, is a huge factor driving deforestation all over the world. Hardwoods like mahogany are sought after for furniture and are consequently very valuable. In every square kilometer of rainforest, there are probably only half a dozen mahogany trees, yet the whole area is often cut down for those few trees, with other trees left to rot, even if they are useful for something. Areas of rainforest, generally in developing countries, are cleared by cutting down all the vegetation and then burning it. Pastures of grass are then grown and used for grazing cattle. As soon as the cattle are a certain age, they are slaughtered. Although some of the meat goes to the locals, a lot goes to the cheap meat industries giving products such as corned beef and burgers. Huge areas of rainforest have to be cleared to support several hundred cattle. After a few years, all the nutrients have been removed from the already poor soil and the land is useless, so another area of rainforest has to be cleared. Rejuvenation of the soil is possible, but it takes a lot of time and energy

. Large areas of rainforest are cleared for farmland all over the world. In developing countries there are two main types of farming: 'Slash and Burn' and 'Subsistence Farming'. In Slash and burn forming areas of forest are cleared to grow crops for a couple of years, and then left for a few years for the rainforest to recover, and then the process starts again. It is the most sustainable of the farming methods, but only if the population in the area is low, because as soon as you get more people in an area, there is less land available for each person and areas of land don't have enough time to recover, so the soil is quickly exhausted. Slash and burn also increases air pollution. In Subsistence Farming, small areas of land that have been cleared are farmed. The produce is used to feed the family and provide a small surplus to buy other goods. The problem with this method is that the soil is quickly exhausted of its few nutrients and they are not replaced. This means that the farmers have to rely increasingly on fertilizers before eventually being forced to move. Rare minerals such as gold, bauxite and iron ore are often discovered in areas of rainforest. To mine them huge portions of rainforest are cleared, not just the area where the mine is, but also routes for roads and areas for storage of equipment and housing for men. Examples include gold-mining in the Amazon Basin and tin-mining in Indonesia. In places where there are large rivers running through rainforest, deforestation often takes place in order to build hydroelectric power stations. The resulting dams cause enormous amounts of flooding behind the walls and large areas of drought downriver. The world population is increasing. With this increase the amount of land needed for humans to live on also increases. More and more areas are being cleared to provide living space. This is known as urbanization. In developing countries people are moving into previously undisturbed areas of rainforest to log, mine or farm. For example, on the Indonesian island of Java, the population has grown so rapidly that people are encouraged to move to other less densely populated islands where they cut down the rainforest for farming and homes. Immediate effects of deforestation include the washing away of soil in the monsoon season. This is because trees are no longer anchoring and binding the soil and so mud slides take place. The earth is leached of minerals by the large amounts of water. The lack of vegetation also means that there will be very few animals in the area. The lack of decomposing vegetation and animals means that the nutrients are not replaced and the area quickly becomes infertile. Rivers often silt up as soil is moved downriver and deposition takes place. Fish and plants relying on clear water die as the river becomes more and more clogged. This has a knock-on effect through the entire food chain. If large areas of rainforest are cleared, the pattern of precipitation may change. This is because less evapotranspiration takes place due to the lack of trees. Water is also not delayed before making its way through the ground because of the lack of trees, shrubs, and leaf litter. Another very worrying effect of deforestation is global warming. The Earth is made habitable by a process called the greenhouse effect. Gases, mainly carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and water vapor (H2O), are found in the atmosphere. When light rays from the sun come into the Earth's atmosphere, they are absorbed by the Earth, and then emitted as infra-red rays; the greenhouse gases trap some of them in the atmosphere, warming the earth. The greenhouse effect is essential for life to be able to live on earth because without it, it would be too cold. Current scientific theory suggests that when the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increases, more of the heat rays are trapped in the atmosphere, gradually warming the Earth. This increase in temperature might seem quite nice, but it isn't good. The effects of global warming are already showing themselves; the polar ice caps are melting and if this continues we are set for a significant rise in sea level, flooding many places. Places which are now full of life could become deserts if rainfall patterns change with the temperature increases. Deforestation may account for part of the rise of greenhouse gases because trees have a large store of carbon in them, they take in CO2 from the atmosphere through photosynthesis, and although a lot of what they absorb comes out through respiration, some of it stays in the tree in the form of carbon. When trees are cut down, and especially when they are burned, this carbon reacts with oxygen in the atmosphere and becomes CO2.Less trees mean more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and an increased greenhouse effect, which in turn means more global warming. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are also rising because of the increasing burning of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are made from dead organisms, which have gradually been compressed over millions of years, so they contain a lot of carbon. This means that when they are burned carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere. This increased use of fossil fuels contributing to global warming led 160 nations to come together in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan, to try to reduce emissions. In 2001, the then newly elected president of the USA, George W Bush, declared that the USA would not sign the Kyoto Protocol because it would be economically damaging for the USA. Without the backing of those of the nations that have the highest emission levels in the world, however much all the other nations may try, there are remote chances reducing global warming, which, if not reduced, will have disastrous effects for all Many countries have a forestry management Commission, a governmental department that is set up to protect and increase the size of woodlands. For example, the forestry commission of U.K. and the National Forest Service of USA. Sustainable forestry is the act of managing a forest so that it continues to grow and the ecosystem is undisturbed. For every tree cut down, two more young ones are planted. Sustainable forestry is a good idea because even though trees are being cut down, if they are replaced, the amount of CO2 that can be absorbed and stored in the trees will stay roughly the same, thereby not contributing to the greenhouse effect. Land is set aside for trees with agreement from the owner and the local community that the region of land should be a woodland area. Grants are given to help with costs of planting etc. Pine trees are often planted as opposed to oak and other deciduous trees because they are fast-growing and there is a high demand for pine furniture and products. 

Biodiesel and the Kyoto Protocol

I thought I would talk about some aspects affecting the production of biodiesel.

The Kyoto Protocol goes by a number of aliases: The Kyoto Treaty, The Kyoto Accord, or The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

It does not stand alone but is actually an amendment to a larger body of work by the United Nations on climate change. The larger body of work is a treaty on managing environmental change by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. It came into being in 1992 at a summit in Rio De Janeiro, but since it is a treaty and does not hold countries accountable to make any changes, an amendment was added to it, called a protocol, to help nations take action in response to the treaty. The goal is to stabilize the amount and concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Since then, the Kyoto Protocol has eclipsed the treaty itself in terms of assumed effectiveness and controversy. Countries who choose to ratify the Kyoto Protocol are committing to the reduction of six greenhouse gas emissions including carbon monoxide, or developing measures to deal with those commitments if they cannot fill them.

There were two conditions for the Kyoto Protocol to enter into force. The first condition was that no fewer than 55 participants in the convention needed to ratify the protocol. This was agreed on May 23, 2002 when Iceland ratified the protocol. The second condition was that countries who participated in producing a leased 55% of the total carbon dioxide emissions for 1990 needed to ratify the protocol as well. Russia's ratification on November 18, 2004 met the second condition needed to put the Kyoto Protocol into force. Ninety days after the conditions were met, on February 16th 2005, the Kyoto Protocol entered into force.

The United States and Australia have not ratified the Kyoto Protocol. In spite of that, 157 nations have ratified the protocol, which represents 61% of global greenhouse gas production.

The legally binding protocol calls for countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5.2%, compared to the emissions produced in 1990. While the average is 5.2%, different countries have different targets to aim for: Japan needs to reduce its emissions by 6%, Australia by 8%, the US by 7%, and Iceland by 10%. The reduction needs to affect the following greenhouse gases:

* Carbon dioxide * Methane * Nitrous oxide * Sulphur hexafluoride * HFCs * PFCs

Countries who exceed these targets earn "credits" that they can sell to other countries that are not yet able to meet those targets. Credits are also earned by countries with large forested regions that turn carbon dioxide into oxygen. So countries who can quickly exceed emissions standards or who can create Kyoto Protocol forest areas have financial incentive to do so.

Cleaner, breathable air, a clearer sky, and a reduction in global warming are noble pursuits. So why has the Kyoto Protocol received so much controversy and attention and not been ratified by everyone?

Objections and criticisms

There are a number of objections and criticisms to the Kyoto Protocol. Here are some of them:

* By 2050, if the Kyoto Protocol is successful, the global warming trend will be reduced by one third to one half of a degree annually. Unless other modifications are made, Kyoto Protocol will be ineffective at reducing global warming in a largely measurable way.

* Both the United States and Australia have not ratified the protocol because of concerns over the economic ramifications resulting from sweeping changes that need to be made by industries. Other countries, like Canada, have ratified the protocol but with a lot of national controversy for the same reason.

* Credits earned from planting a 'Kyoto Protocol Forest' sound like a great idea, except that the first 10 years of a new forest tend to produce more carbon dioxide than it reduces, because new forests help to release carbon dioxide that is locked in the ground.

* China, who is the second-largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world, is exempt from ratifying the Kyoto protocol or being bound to it because it does not belong to a specific class of countries: those who were producing excessive greenhouse gases during the growth in industry that the UN feels contributed to current concentrations. In fact, China's usage is on the rise, increasing 40% between 1990 and 2003.

* Because of the variety of credit-selling opportunities as well as responsibilities to share knowledge with non-industrialized countries, some people see the Kyoto Protocol as a global social movement to spread wealth from the "have" countries to the "have-not" countries instead of effectively addressing climate change.

* As well, the law of supply and demand suggests that a reduction in fossil fuel usage by industrialized nations will lead to a reduction in overall prices for fossil fuels, allowing non-industrialized nations, who are not bound by the Kyoto Protocol, to burn more fossil fuels at a cheaper price without any restrictions.

* Lastly, critics say that the Kyoto Protocol only addresses the problem with an immediate, short-term solution. Critics suggest that the Kyoto Protocol, or something like it, needs to address greater issues such as population explosion, which has a huge effect on global warming.

Who wins?

If the Kyoto Protocol is successful in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we will all win with a reduction in global warming. But there are others who will win in a different way:

* Kyoto Protocol measurements are based on emissions produced in 1990 and ratifying countries are measured against that number as a benchmark. Russia, however, because of its collapse, will easily meet its 1990 number, and its benchmark is set at 0%. This means that it should continuously generate credits which can be purchased by other countries. This means that reactionary spending by other countries will push millions of dollars to Russia.

* The Kyoto Protocol also requires industrialized nations to provide information and support to non-industrialized nations attempting to make leaps and bounds in technology and power generation. So countries like the United States will be expected to provide assistance and support to countries like India and China who both have a lot of people and are struggling to become industrialized nations. In both situations, by supporting the Kyoto Protocol, they receive financial assistance but have no parameters in which to operate once they do achieve industrialization.

Why the Earth is Overheating

The industrial revolution and the rapid development of the world's economies during the last two centuries were driven by the accelerating use of energy. Steam engines began to burn wood and coal. Coal is still burned in large quantities and has been joined by ever increasing amounts of oil and natural gas.

After the invention of the automobile, consumption of petroleum products began accelerating steeply and is actually still growing today.

During recent years, we have begun to realize that combustion of fossil fuels not only releases large amounts of energy in the form of heat but also discharges huge amounts of water vapor and treacherous carbon dioxide.

In addition, combustion of fossil fuels is emitting many harmful pollutants, which accumulate in the atmosphere, in freshwater reservoirs, and in soil.

Increasingly, people are becoming aware of the many negative implications of fossil fuel combustion. Regulatory efforts are being introduced for reducing the emissions of health threatening substances. However, large amounts of pollutants are sent still into our atmosphere on a continuing basis. There is no legal liability for the damages these substances are causing, and there are no efforts underway to effectively eliminate these harmful agents entirely.

Combustion of fossil fuels is accelerating, emissions of pollutants and of carbon dioxide are increasing, global warming is intensifying, and aggravating climate changes are being felt across the world.

Why is the world overheating, what can be done to stop the damages, and what are the consequences of a continuing accumulation of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere?

Already one hundred fifty years ago, a couple of scientists warned of the dire consequences of releasing carbon dioxide emissions into the Earth's atmosphere. Their warnings were published in scientific journals, were read by only a few people, and were soon forgotten.

Since then, science has made huge advances and our knowledge about the effects of carbon dioxide emissions has advanced dramatically. Carbon dioxide emits and absorbs infrared radiation. This emission effect is used in sensors for the early detection and location of rockets and airplanes and is a vital part of the US Ballistic Missile Defense System.

The strong radiation effect of carbon dioxide is also a major factor in industrial applications where metals and other substances are heated and melted at extreme temperatures.

This same emission capability is present at lower temperatures but to a lesser degree. A major reduction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leads to a major cooling effect and has caused an earlier Ice Age. Conversely, a major increase of carbon dioxide will result in a warming effect and to the eventual overheating of our Earth.

Very small concentrations of carbon dioxide can be measured very accurately. Therefore we know that carbon dioxide concentrations have increased from 280 parts per million (ppm) to close to 400 ppm as a direct result of fossil fuel combustion. In fact, the increase would have been even larger, if the oceans had not absorbed some of this combustion generated carbon dioxide.

Unfortunately, this ability of the oceans is being diminished as seawater is heating up in response to global warming. Additionally, countries like China, India, and many other Asian countries have begun to burn ever increasing amounts of fossil fuels and especially coal. Coal combustion discharges especially large amounts of carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide emissions have resulted in an average global warming effect of roughly two degrees Fahrenheit already. Extrapolating quickly accelerating carbon dioxide emissions during the last decade over the next forty years makes it very likely that global temperatures will rise another three to four degrees by 2050.

Carbon dioxide is a very stable gas, which stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. There are no technologies available or imaginable that can remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Once global warming has occurred, it cannot be reversed. The effect of global warming is a delayed effect. World oceans and lands need a long time before they begin to warm perceptibly. This means that global overheating will continue even after we have stopped all fossil fuel combustion.

There is only one conclusion we can arrive at. We must end fossil fuel combustion as quickly as possible or our Earth will overheat and make living in the tropical and subtropical regions unbearable. We will experience ever more destructive climate changes in the form of more violent storms, extreme flooding, and more severe heat waves. Many animal and plant species will become extinct. Melting of glaciers on mountains and of ice sheets in Polar Regions will accelerate. Ocean levels will rise and will inundate coastal regions with their irreplaceable infrastructures and huge cities.

Is there anything we can do?

Yes there is. The US must take the lead and show the rest of the world how to change their energy supply systems. The world must begin to use more and more renewable energies in the form of sun energy, wind power, hydropower, marine power, geothermal energy, nuclear energy, and biomass.

Most difficult will be the replacement of fossil, liquid transportation fuels with renewable fuels. Airplanes cannot fly, cars cannot drive without.

Only the USA has the resources to find and develop replacement energies that can be used for the next several centuries without harming our Earth.

We must convince the incoming administration to start with a well directed and well managed rescue effort immediately.

Political Lies And Global Warming

Political Lies And Global Warming

There's an old joke about how you can tell when a lawyer is lying - his lips move. Can the same thing be applied to politicians? Oops - most politicians ARE lawyers!

Is the public's increasing apathy towards politics partly due to the perception that politicians can't be trusted to give it to us straight? Have many of us become so jaded that we assume it's normal for politicians to lie? Where does "spin" end and outright lying begin? Is silence on an important issue the same as lying about it? And why do politicians fail to discuss these issues with us in a frank and thorough manner?

Global warming may be the number one issue on which politicians lie. The scientific facts of global warming and its predicted adverse impacts are accepted by the vast majority of climate scientists. Opponents of taking action on the issue are using a few scientists who still have doubts - or who find financial advantage in having doubts - to try to keep global warming in the "no clear evidence" category as long as they can. But there IS clear evidence of a long-term warming trend, and the consequences of continued inaction may indeed be globally catastrophic.

Unfortunately, those who call global warming the "greatest hoax of all time" are not alone in the Global Warming Liars Club. Even those politicians who are courageous enough to fight for action on the issue are not telling us the whole truth.

The Kyoto Protocol, whose implementation was rejected by the US Senate 94-0, would have required the US and other industrialized countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 5% below 1990 levels by 2012. Given the amount that emissions have grown since 1990, that may seem like a daunting challenge. But the problem is really much worse than that, and it causes all but the bravest politicians to lie.

The Kyoto treaty, while a step in the right direction, is vastly insufficient to reverse the climate change trend. The global reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions probably needs to be more like 50% to have the desired effect, and it needs to happen sooner rather than later. Even tougher is the fact that developing countries claim the current problem has mostly been caused by industrialized nations and that their developing economies should not have to be constrained to their current low levels of fossil-fuel use.

Given the seeming hopelessness of the challenge and the level of sacrifice that would appear to be required of the US to be part of a truly effective global solution, it's easy enough to understand why most politicians would rather hide from the issue in general or cast doubt on it, and why even the politicians who do publicly support action on global warming are loath to discuss the whole truth.

But the potential effects of global warming, such as increased bad-weather events, coastal inundation, and - most seriously of all - disruption of global food production, are all likely parts of the future that will be faced by our children and successive generations if we don't fix the problem. The challenge to finding solutions is one of leadership - leadership that will devise programs to:

1) replace our CO2-producing cars and power plants with clean technologies;

2) reduce sources of methane (another leading greenhouse gas) by confronting the issue of large-scale animal farming operations;

3) eliminate chemicals that cause global warming and replace them with non-problematic alternatives;

4) devise innovative programs to reduce the loss of forests (which serve as "carbon sinks," thus keeping substantial amounts of CO2 from getting into the atmosphere).

Politicians and technologists will be needed to devise and implement solutions to global warming, and we consumers will have to be supportive with our dollars and our votes. But to get there, politicians must lead, not lie.

We saved the world from waves of Nazi stormtroopers, from hordes of Red Communists, and from the very ugly, unfriendly aliens in "Independence Day." Surely we can also save it from a few kazillion tiny greenhouse gas molecules

Global Warming-How It Could Spark World War III

These Days global warming is a very hot topic and little wonder, seeing as the earth grows hotter with each passing year.

For a long time now the effect of man's industrialization and technological progress has quietly yet continuously eked away at the delicate balance of the planet's atmosphere and ecosystem, but within the last 30 or so years the pace of this damage has markedly accelerated!

DOWNPLAYING GLOBAL WARMING

In much the same way that big tobacco once vehemently denied the association between cigarette smoking and lung cancer, for the longest time a number of multi-billion-dollar-a-year industries have also been questioning the existence of global warming and misleading the public about its reality.

In fact the Bush II years have been particular devastating to Environmental Protection Rights, yet staggeringly lucrative for those who would profit from the loss of such protection.

In what can best be described as an orgy-fest of self-congratulatory backslapping, many a heavyweight lobbyist for industries such as oil, coal, mining, logging, aviation and auto manufacturers have left the Bush Whitehouse grinning like the proverbial Cheshire cat because they'd gotten firm assurance that pesky environmental laws would never get in the way of business as usual!

An example of how the Bush II Administration misled the public into believing they were truly concerned about protecting the environment was the sneaky way in which they enacted laws such as The Clean Skies Act.

The Clean Skies Act introduced in February 2003 apparently appears to strengthen already existent environmental laws such as The Clean Air Act but which in reality actually weakened and undermined them.

The Clean Skies Act gave pollutant industries a lot of leeway allowing them to spew an additional 42 million more tons of pollution into the atmosphere and raised caps on greenhouse gas emissions.

Soon after Bush II came to power the situation got so bad, that after decades of effective service, two of the most senior enforcement officials in the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) resigned citing an agency that was pursuing contrary goals to that of actually protecting the environment.

Former US vice president Al Gore is no stranger to these tactics. As perhaps the most widely recognizable face in the fight against global warming he has been scoffed at and ridiculed by the same individuals who would have us believe global warming is nothing more than a myth!

Recently in 2007 several scientists have gone on public record citing claims of a gestapo-like environment of intimidation to produce figures and reports that belied the true extent of global warming!

CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING

The unprecedented super-accelerated rate of global warming happening today is due to the amount of greenhouse gases being spewed into the atmosphere.

The most notorious greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide (CO2) because it so happens to be the biggest single contributing factor to global warming (CO2 comprises more than 75% of all greenhouse gases). So what's spewing all that CO2 in the air? Simply put--mankind and his toys!

Some of the biggest greenhouse gas pollutants include automobiles; electricity production; planes; shipping and the various manufacturing industries dotted all over the globe.

SCIENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING

This article is intentionally not an in-depth treatise of the process of global warming, but having said that, here's a brief explanation:

The rays from the sun are comprised of shortwave solar radiation which pass through the atmosphere and are then absorbed by the earth thereby warming it. Part of that absorbed energy is reflected back to the atmosphere as long wave infrared radiation which is mostly trapped by the greenhouse gases. This trapped heat ensures that the earth is approximately warmer by 33 degrees Celsius than it would otherwise be.

This trapped heat is actually good for us, for were it not for those greenhouse gases and other constituents in the atmosphere that trap heat, the earth would be as cold as Mars which has for all intents and purpose no atmosphere to speak of.

Over the past century the earth has gotten warmer by approximately 0.7 degrees Celsius. This may not seem like much until you consider that the difference between the average earth temperature of today and another ice age is a mere 5 degrees Celsius!

EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING

Drought! Flooding! Disease! Hurricanes! Starvation! Unbearable Heat!
Any of these words seem to you to be appearing much more often in the news than before?

Do you remember the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami that claimed more than 200,000 people? Remember hurricane Katrina that claimed more than 2,000 lives? These are the better documented horror stories. The less well documented global-warming related stories are often dismissively written off as ethnic conflicts in a region (Africa) where supposedly little else can be expected.

CATASTROPHIC ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS CAUSED BY GLOBAL WARMING

1. Larsen B Ice Shelf: In 2002, a 500 billion ton chunk of ice that was 220m thick and covering a surface area of 3,250 sq km disintegrated in 35 days! What was especially alarming was that the experts expected this ice shelf to still be around for the next 100 years even after factoring in current global warming trends.

Yet more alarming still is that there're two other MUCH, MUCH BIGGER ice masses that are exhibiting the same global warming related disintegration characteristics!

These endangered ice masses are Greenland and the West Antarctic Ice Shelf which was previously thought to be stable. Since these ice masses are land based (unlike the Larsen B Ice Shelf) if either one of them goes they could raise sea levels by 20ft apiece!

If both of them disintegrate around the same time, sea levels could rise by 40ft! Catastrophic does not adequately describe the ensuing destruction.

More than 66% of the world's largest cities would be devastated if even just one of these ice masses disintegrated. Though many of the affected low-elevation costal areas are located in Asia, New York, Florida, San Francisco and The Netherlands are also on the list!

Perhaps this disturbing data may explain the belated, albeit grudging acknowledgement by the Bush II administration that global warming is not a myth after all and that it won't just affect the poorer regions of the world. As things stand, experts are predicting that with current unmodified global warming trends Greenland may collapse as soon as 2050.

2. Lake Chad: Lake Chad used to be the 6th largest lake in the world but due to global warming has shrunk to 1/20th of its former size. In fact Chad the country for which it is named after is now more than 60 miles from the water's edge!

3. New Ice Age: The northern hemisphere of the world is located above the equator and constitutes most of the world's land mass as well as almost 90% of the world population.

Though current expert reports on global warming imply that the northern hemisphere will initially actually benefit from the temperature increase (unlike the southern hemisphere where unprecedented drought and starvation is predicted by 2020) what is little mentioned is how global warming could usher in a new Ice Age!

Some paradox, huh? Warming leading to freezing! Here's a simplified explanation of how that comes about:

The Gulf Stream current is one of several currents that occur in the Atlantic Ocean. The particular importance of the Gulf Stream Current and its northern extension (the North Atlantic Drift which flows towards Europe) is that their warm-water flow heats up the surrounding air which in turn ensures that the temperature of the northern hemispheres does not dip precipitously.

These two currents are saline (salt) based. If a huge mass of fresh water (such as a melting body of ice the size of Greenland) was to dilute these currents, in effect that would shut down the Gulf Stream Current!

Once the Gulf Stream Current shuts down temperatures are going to drop precariously in the United States, Europe and other nations located in the northern hemisphere. When that happens those regions will deep-freeze into another Ice Age!

GLOBAL WARMING AND THE CO2 WARS

The following figures illustrate the CO2 emissions from the various regions around the globe:

USA: 30.3%
Europe: 27.7%
Russia: 13.7%
South East Asia: 12.2%
Japan: 3.7%
South America/Central America: 3.8%
Middle East: 2.6%
Africa: 2.5%
Australia: 1.1%

These figures amply illustrate how Western Europe and the United States are by far largely responsible for the effects of global warming we are seeing today.

Contrastingly the regions least responsible are the ones that will bear the brunt of those effects (initially at any rate, until such time that the process progresses to an ice age then the situation will reverse).

However, with the two mega economies of China and India expanding rapidly (each boasting a population in excess of 1 billion) soon their greenhouse gas emissions may surpass those of the U.S.

A series of meetings held in Washington in early 2007 had American legislators demanding that developing nations be held to the same greenhouse-gas-emission accountability as the developed nations! Not unexpectedly there were worldwide outcries and accusations of shameless hypocrisy leveled at the United States.

With the not unreasonable contention that they have the right to develop and advance in the same manner that both Europe and America have enjoyed over the past forty years these two looming economical giants are not about to be cowed by Washington.

Furthermore considering the suspicious manner with which the U.S. justified its invasion of Iraq, few these days are inclined to believe a word that Washington says.

Compounding this climate of distrust and suspicion are the many questionable prerogatives the U.S. claims. These include:

1. Not subscribing to the Kyoto Protocol (Treaty on Global Warming)
2. Seeking the right to pre-emptive strikes (Bush II)
3. Demanding to be exempted from The Geneva Convention (Bush II)
4. Not a participant of the World Court
5. Biggest contributor to global warming but doing the least to rectify the situation.

In a world where America demands exclusive rights to pre-emptive strikes, perhaps then it is not too far fetched to understand if India and China harbor a degree of paranoia that the U.S. may one day set its targets on them.

After all for a country that so conveniently and magically connected two totally unrelated events to one another as an excuse to pursue its ultimate goal (U.S. invasion of Iraq after 911), it is not unconceivable that the U.S. could one day claim that the greenhouse gas emissions from the Asian giants are threatening the very existence of its coastal cities and hence amount to an act of war!

For their part the Asian giants already suspiciously view Washington's demands concerning greenhouse gases as a thinly veiled attempt to restrict their economical development.

That said, China and India are hardly Iraq! These are two countries which both boast formidable nuclear arsenals that are quite capable of reaching the U.S. Besides if the U.S. were to take any drastic action it is unlikely that the slumbering Russian bear would continue dozing for much longer.

World wars have erupted over much less and in the heated climate of today it only takes one more little spark to set everything off!

Should We Worry About Global Warming?

Everyday people worry, some worry about how to pay their bills and others may worry about losing their job, these are very common fears that have been around for centuries and will probably continue to plague mankind for many more, but over the past few decades the number of things people worry about has been rising at a dramatic rate and is showing no signs of slowing down.

Worrying can also affect your health in many ways by upsetting your sleep schedule or eating habits, worrying can also cause some people to abuse alcohol or start taking drugs.

Some things we worry about we can actually have an effect on such as paying our bills, for example if you worry about being able to pay your bills then you might try to get a second job or cut back on your spending so you would then be able to pay off the bills, but many things people worry about are beyond an individuals control, things like Terrorism, Nuclear Proliferation, and Global Warming.

Worrying about things like Global Warming accomplish nothing positive, in fact at this point we have not even proved that Global Warming is real, let alone that we as humans caused it or can affect it either way so why worry about it.

One very effective way to stop worrying about things beyond your control is to develop a fun list, a fun list is nothing more then things you really like to do, things that you can do to keep yourself busy whenever you start to worry about things like Global Warming.

Here is an example of a fun list:

1. Walk your dog.
2. Flirt with someone you have a secret crush on.
3. Play free arcade games.
4. Go fishing.
5. Read a book.
7. Ride a bicycle.
8. Surf the net.
9. Exercise.
10. Clean your house.

Whenever you catch yourself worrying about things beyond your control you should think of your list and pick one and start doing it right away and keep doing it until your forget all about whatever you were worrying about, at first you may have to do this many times a day but it should become less and less frequent as time goes on and before you know it you will stop worrying about things beyond your control and you will have a much better attitude and hopefully a healthier and happier life.

So remember the next time you start to worry about something out of your control like Global Warming or Nuclear Proliferation to stop and take a deep breath and then do something on your list right away like play some free arcade games and enjoy yourself instead of worrying. If you do this you will live a happier and healthier life.

GLOBAL WARMING

If you use a computer and can read this newsletter, you'll have no doubt heard about global warming.

You've probably heard different stories about what could be causing global warming and what it'll do to us, ranging from the effect that CFC gases have on the ozone layer to global warming being nothing more than a natural occurrence as our planet continues to emerge from the last "Little Ice Age". But just how much do you know about either of these subjects? And how are they affecting you?

The Effect of CFC Gases

First of all, in order to understand how CFC gases might be affecting the ozone layer, it's important to understand what the ozone layer actually is.

Ozone is a form of oxygen, one of three forms that can be found in our Earths atmosphere. Without ozone, our planet would be a very different place because it shields us all against harmful radiation from the Sun (ultraviolet (UV) radiation), lifeor at least, life as we know itwouldn't exist.

If the ozone layer breaks down, UV rays will be able to reach the Earth's surface, with the result being a dramatic increase in the number of cases of skin cancer and eye cataracts.

The affect on the food chain could also be disastrous. Because UV rays kill plankton in the sea, the fish and whales that live off of plankton would eventually starve and disappear. This would then affect the next link in the chain - those creatures that live off of fish - and so it would continue throughout the chain.

It's just as well we're not dependent on meat for survival - a few carrots, a handful of potatoes and a cabbage a day should suffice.

Anyway, let's move on to look at how CFC gases affect the ozone layer. Those who did chemistry at school will understand what this is all about.

Any compound that contains chlorine will lead to the decrease in natural ozone levels by removing one oxygen atom from the ozone molecule, thus converting it into oxygen.

As you can imagine, there's no natural occurrence of such compounds in the upper atmosphere, but vast amounts have built up over time due to our increased use of man-made chlorine based compounds, of which CFCs (Chlorofluorocarbons) are the most common.

When we first starting using CFCs back in the 1930sprimarily to cool fridgeswe thought they were safe. When you don't know better, you can't be blamed for making a mistake, can you?

We know now that CFCs rise from the surface of the Earth and into the stratosphere where they're bombarded by UV light. We know that this releases the chlorine atoms that react with the ozone molecules and we know that before long, ozone becomes oxygen and we're left with less protection.

While most countries have banned the use of CFCs in aerosols, these gases are still found in fridges and in some types of foam packaging.

How much this will affect our generation is uncertain - it depends entirely on how quickly the ozone layer is depleted - but what is certain is that it will have an effect on future generations.

The selections we make today will affect the future of the planet. It's up to us to make the right ones. What's great is that we have the knowledge to make the choices that will give our descendants the chance of a good life too.

Is global warming all about the ozone layer though?

There is a theory that doesn't involve the ozone layer at all, and that's that our planet is becoming warmer because oceanic tides are driving climate change.

Evidently, the coldest water found at the deepest points of the ocean is generally transported to the surface by tides that cause the water to mix, thus lowering the temperatures in the air. But thanks to changes in the way the tides work, less cold water is mixing with the warmer upper layers of water, with the result being warmer periods on Earth.

According to scientists at Scripps Institution of Oceanography- part of the University of California, the way the ocean deals with cold water is controlled by the alignment of the sun, moon and earth. Right now we're experiencing less and less cold water being forced to the surface, so the planet is heading for its warmest peak.

When will this happen? Well, the last "Little Ice Age" was during the 15th century, when the Vikings perished on Greenland after having enjoyed a temperate climate there during the 14th century. This was about 1,800 years after the previous "Little Ice Age" of 1300 AD. With known hot periods also being spaced at about 1,800 years apart, it's pretty safe to assume that the next hot peak would have been around the 30th century- but due to the depletion of the ozone layer, this will have changed, but by how much? Your guess is as good as anybody's.

How hot will it be? Unfortunately it appears that the answer to that is also anybody's guess. What is for sure, however, is that it will be too hot to sustain life as we know it long before the Earth's temperature reaches its peak.

If the answer really is a matter of the inevitable, the least we should do is get out there and enjoy the good weather while we have it. Just make sure you remember to wear your sunscreen.

Effects Of Global Warming on Agriculture

Author: James Nash

The earth's climate has been relatively stable for thousands of years. We know intuitively that it is hot, humid, and rainy in the Amazon, and that corn grows well in the US Midwest. We know that at a particular altitude we should plant a crop during a certain week of the year because conditions for it are just right then. For most of our memory as humans, our climates have closely oscillated around predictable patterns, and this has allowed us to feed ourselves and flourish.



When a stable climate system is modified beyond its "tipping point," it gets out of balance and loses its equilibrium. While the system searches for a new set of patterns to stabilize around, variability and uncertainly are the norm. This, in essence, is the nature of the challenge that we are now facing.



Agriculture is one of the most weather-dependent of all human activities. It is ironic, then, that a significant percentage of greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture. Fossil fuel-intensive agriculture is contributing to the creation of the unpredictable weather conditions that all farmers will need to battle in the not-too-distant future.



The Green Revolution of the 1960s and 1970s allowed us to increase yields by "borrowing" solar energy from the past in the form of fossil-fuel-based fertilizers and pesticides. When one adds in the oil used for processing and packaging foods and for refrigerating and shipping them long distances, it's easy to see how the food industry consumes about 20% of all the oil used in the US.



About 1% of the world's annual energy usage goes into the production of fertilizers. This might not seem like much, but it ties the price of food to that of natural gas, and will make food prices shoot up once energy supplies start to dwindle.



In the UK, food production and distribution account for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions. The 18% is split fairly evenly between "on-the-farm emissions" (from farming activities) and "beyond-the-farm emissions" (from transportation and processing activities, etc.).



While we've all gotten used to carbon dioxide being the bad boy on the global warming block, agriculture's greenhouse-gas contributions include healthy shares of methane and nitrous oxide, both of which are more potent than CO2.



Finally, while production and transport of chemical fertilizers and pesticides lead directly to creation of greenhouse gases, use of these chemicals also does so indirectly by reducing farm soil's capacity to store carbon.



So, what to do? Go organic! United Kingdom's Environment Secretary notes that, in many cases, organic agriculture produces fewer greenhouse gases than conventional equivalents. There's a catch, though. Organic food transported long distances is NOT helpful. So, go organic AND local.



We are already seeing some climate changes that may be indicative of what's to come for agriculture:



1) Maple syrup production in the American northeast is suffering. The climate in which maple trees thrive is expected to move about two degrees (of latitude) north to Canada. Maple syrup production is already down by about 10% because of warmer and shorter winters.



2) The southwestern United States is already experiencing a lack of water - without water for irrigation, this area is too dry for large-scale agriculture - and serious desertification is expected to happen within the next few decades. Conditions similar to the Dust Bowl of the 1930s are expected to be the norm in the area by the 2030s.



3) All over the country, we are seeing earlier bird migrations and northward shifts in the ranges of crops and pests.



4) We're also seeing increased peaks in spring run-off from glacier melt and snow-fed rivers.



Global-warming-related changes will affect the future of farming in myriad ways. Here are some examples:



1) The snow pack in California's Sierra Mountains has been gradually declining for the last 50 years, and the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report says that it could ultimately be reduced by 60% to 90%. This will result in a very serious lack of water for Central Valley farmers during the summer months. Southern California will be particularly hard hit.



2) A Colorado State University study shows that warming will cause Colorado's grazing lands to become less productive.



3) Florida is expected to get heavier rains and flooding, which will be hard on citrus and other crops.



4) Most importantly for the US economy and for the "mainstream" industrial food system, which is primarily "corn-fed," the latest climate models predict that it might become too hot and dry to grow corn in what is now called the Corn Belt.



Scientists believe that higher carbon dioxide levels and temperatures may actually increase yields slightly - as long as the temperature increase is no more that a few degrees C. Beyond that, the warming effect dominates and crop yields decrease. Keeping in mind that, so far, observed global warming effects keep surpassing scientists expectations (in a bad way), it seems likely that rising temperatures in farming regions will wreak havoc on crop yields.



Less availability of irrigation water due to warmer temperatures will also be a big negative for dry areas. Many of our most productive farming areas depend heavily on irrigation. Further, there is a local cooling effect in irrigated areas (from evaporating water) that moderates temperatures, helping crops survive withering summer temps. Thus, less irrigation will exacerbate global-warming-driven temperature increases in water-short areas. And remember - 40% of the world's food supply comes from the 2% of land that is dependent on irrigation.



On the other side of the water issue, global warming is expected to increase "severe weather events." That will be another blow to global agricultural output.



Globally, yields for many of the world's main staple crops are bound to decline. A study by researchers at the Lawrence picture of parched corn Livermore National Labs and Stanford University compared yields for the world's six main staple crops - wheat, rice, corn, soybeans, barley and sorghum - and found a 3% to 5% decline for every one degree of temperature increase. Those six crops account for at least 55% of non-meat calories consumed by people, and more than 70% of the world's animal feed. The IPCC's latest report estimates an average warming of between 3 and 11 degrees by the end of the century.

About the Author:

James Nash is a climate scientist with Greatest Planet (www.greatestplanet.org). Greatest Planet is a non-profit environmental organization specialising in carbon offset investments.

James Nash is solely responsible for the contents of this article.

Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/environment-articles/effects-of-global-warming-on-agriculture-566845.html

Global Warming & Hurricanes

It took Al Gore a few days but he eventually blamed cyclone Nargis on global wamring. Cyclone Nargis was a strong tropical cyclone that caused the deadliest natural disaster in the recorded history of Burma (aka Myanmar). The cyclone made landfall in the country on May 2, 2008, causing catastrophic destruction and at least 80,000 fatalities. Globalwarming? Not so fast Al! 

We're into the MANIA time on global warming so it seems.

Global warming is causing more hurricanes, more intense tornadoes, and CAT 5 cyclones- or so the story goes. But the truth is, as I've said before, while the carbon footprint might be larger, there are things out there in the universe that are far more capable of global warming- BIG TIME! 

Ah, but back to the earth facts! What about theGreenland Ice Sheet then?

A new model of Atlantic hurricane activity for the last two decades of this century projects fewer hurricanes overall, but a slight increase in intensity for hurricanes that do occur. Hurricanes are also projected to have more intense rainfall, on average, in the future. The findings are reported in a study by scientists at NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, N.J., scheduled to be published online on May 18 in Nature Geoscience. 

Tropical Atlantic sea surface temperatures have increased over the past century and several studies have reported strong correlations between increasing tropical Atlantic sea surface temperatures and measures of hurricane activity since at least1950. This new study suggests that in the Atlantic basin, global warming from increasing greenhouse gases will have little impact, or perhaps cause some decrease, in tropical storm and hurricane numbers. 

In fact, over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years.Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile....etc.

What we need is more like a global warning!

John McCain admitted when battling in the New Hampshire priamry that he knew little about economics. Well, with his latest global warming rants, we now know that he doesn't know much about global warming or cooling either. McCain badly needs to educate himself on the debate currently raging over the climate. The left wing of the party has many things going for it in this election cycle, and McCain doesn't need to join them in the global warming "lack of knowledge".