Dedicated to the balanced discussion of global warming
This site wouldn’t be complete without an encyclopedia entry!
Global Warming, increase in the average temperature of the atmosphere, oceans, and landmasses of Earth. The planet has warmed (and cooled) many times during the 4.65 billion years of its history. At present Earth appears to be facing a rapid warming, which most scientists believe results, at least in part, from human activities. The chief cause of this warming is thought to be the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, which releases into the atmosphere carbon dioxide and other substances known as greenhouse gases. As the atmosphere becomes richer in these gases, it becomes a better insulator, retaining more of the heat provided to the planet by the Sun.
Free Internet Press – February 19, 2007
This blog talks about the IPCC report that recently came out recently and focuses on the melting ice caps and glaciers. Within the article itself, it cites very little scientific evidence since it is discussing an existing report.
New studies of Greenland and Antarctica have forced a United Nations expert panel to conclude there is a 50% chance that widespread ice sheet loss “may no longer be avoided” because of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
…would raise sea levels by four to six meters (12 to 18 feet)…
The melting process could take centuries, but increased warming caused by a failure to cut emissions would accelerate the ice sheets’ demise, and give nations less time to adapt to the consequences.
Human Events.com – February 20, 2007
This site is not known for balanced reporting but that does not mean that its statements are not true. This article is a compiled listing of the thoughts espoused in the book “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism ” is a pretty strong listing of opinions. Many of the opinions have some scientific backing – others do not.
The U.S. rejects the Kyoto Protocol’s energy-rationing scheme, along with 155 other countries, representing most of the world’s population, economic activity and projected future growth. Kyoto is a European treaty with one dozen others, none of whom is in fact presently reducing its emissions.
The Christian Science Monitor – February 20, 2007
This is a very interesting article that continues the thought process that methane is the worst offender in the battle of the greenhouse gases. The article contends that the huge livestock populations produce waste which produces methane in quantities that the environment cannot handle. The solution is to change the diet of a large portion of the population so that we need less livestock and therefore less of their waste.
While this is an interesting proposition, I am not sure that the science is 100% sound and I also am not sure that the cost is worth the benefit. There is no explanation of how to provide the nutrients that are needed by the human population without livestock.READ MORE
NewScientist.com news service – February 17, 2007
This article deals with the removal of carbon dioxide (CO2) by sequestering it underground. It is a fairly brief article without a lot of details on how this could be done, its costs, nor are the side effects adequately explored.
On 10 February, an amendment to international law came into force that allows the greenhouse gas to be buried beneath the sea floor. At the same time, a new study counters one of the main fears over carbon burial – that the gas will simply leak out again, to boost future global warming.
Times Online February 11,2007
This is an interesting article that says that we don’t truly understand the Global Warming phenomenon. The science in this article is very interesting, especially the following parts:
But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean
So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming.
Petition Project – January 1998
This article is states that the effects of CO2 on the climate are negligible if they exist at all. It contends that CO2 levels are definitely increasing but that their effect does not compare to other factors including random climate variation and the influence of the sun.
This petition project was created so that scientists could express their concern regarding the conclusions of the Kyoto agreements. It was supposedly “signed” by 17,000 scientists that questioned the conclusion of the politicians and scientists that gathered at Kyoto.READ MORE
The Royal Society – June 2005
This is an article (or maybe should be called a statement) from several scientific bodies proclaiming that the earth is getting warmer and it is man-made pollutants that are causing the problem.
…there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring1. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)2. This warming has already led to changes in the Earth’s climate.
…human activities are now causing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases – including carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide – to rise well above pre-industrial levels. Carbon dioxide levels have increased from 280 ppm in 1750 to over 375 ppm today – higher than any previous levels that can be reliably measured (i.e. in the last 420,000 years). Increasing greenhouse gases are causing temperatures to rise; the Earth’s surface warmed by approximately 0.6 centigrade degrees over the twentieth century.
This is an interesting analysis. The article basically says that we are foolish to be focusing on CO2 as a potential for the greenhouse gas effect for global warming. Rather, we should be focused on methane. While I am not sure that I totally by into the suggestion that the solution of this problem is that the human race should become vegetarians, the article does point out many good points. If this article is true, why are we spending billions of dollars to reduce CO2 emissions if it is not the true culprit?READ MORE