Hearing Aid Comparisons

Global Warming and Solutions

Introduction to global warming:

greenhouse effect has existed for some time, probably since the Earth was first formed. greenhouse gas emissions, or gas conducive to the greenhouse effect, act or as a cover glass in a greenhouse in the walls: they reflect the heat of the earth would radiate into space descends to earth, taking in. You see, the heat balance on the ground is held by different processes. Solar radiation approaches the earth, clouds and atmosphere consider some of them in space. More radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere, clouds and the surface of the earth. Then the earth radiates heat to infrared radiation. To maintain a constant temperature, the rate that the earth radiates energy into space must be equal the rate of absorbing energy from the sun. The greenhouse effect of refusal to allow a certain amount of terrestrial radiation maintains the temperature switch Earth's average surface temperature about 60 ° F (15 ° C). If there were no greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere, most of heat radiated by the Earth's surface would be lost directly to space, and the global temperature should be 0 ° F (-18 ° C) too cold for most life forms (greenhouse gases).

There are several atmospheric gases that act as greenhouse gases (GHGs). Most notable is the carbon dioxide that is emitted by respiration of humans and animals, the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, and other changes in land use. Carbon dioxide is the main goal of many greenhouse gas sanctions, because it is the main greenhouse gas emissions that has been the most liberated in the atmosphere. However, some other gases may have a greater effect on climate than CO2. Looking research on possible warming effect of other greenhouse gases relative to CO2, we find that over 100 years ago gases present in quantities much lower, which have a much more concentrated. rice methane, a gas produced by livestock (flatulence), oil and gas production, the coal industry, the wet and dry farming, has 11 times more warming potential than CO2 per unit volume (Science) 25 times more per molecule (Clarkson). Nitrous oxide, produced mainly in the agricultural practices courses, has 270 times more warming potential by volume during this period that the CO2 (Science). Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), gases used as refrigerants and in aerosol dispensers were banned some time ago because of their potential depletion of the ozone layer, have more potential once the 3400-7100 warming volume than CO2 (Science). Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), substitutes for CFCs, have a slightly lower global warming potential at 1200-1600 times greater than CO2 per unit volume (Science).

And if, as one might deduce, studies are showing that additions of GHGs can cause the earth to get warmer than it would naturally. This is referred to as anthropogenic (human) global warming. Several times the global warming conditions and climate change are used interchangeably. (We'll do the same thing, because continuity.) But this is not correct and the concepts are different. Climate change includes precipitation, wind patterns and temperature. It also refers to any climate, not only the weather of a location. Global warming is an indication of change climate. It is an example of climate change has increased the average temperature of the atmosphere. The Earth has been warming much more and much cooling throughout its history. There is much debate as to whether or not the earth is experiencing a climate change at global warming and, if is, if the underlying causes are man-made or natural. Different studies have yielded different results.

Even if greenhouse gases were likely at a stable level before the start of the industrial revolution, the Earth's climate tended to fluctuate widely. A period 5000 to 3000 BC (where civilization began) is called the Climate Optimum and another period from 900 to 1200 AD is called Little Climatic Optimum or Medieval Climate Optimum, the two so named for their unusually warm temperatures. Similarly, a period from 1550 to 1850 is known as the Little Ice Age for its unusually cold temperatures (Pidwirny). At that time, glaciers in southern Norway have reached their greater extent in 9000 years (Keigwin). With large variations, it is difficult to know where the next natural fluctuation could lead us. Perhaps those who find that global climate is warming is simply a natural fluctuation measure. Or perhaps a natural fluctuation is masking the real impact of emissions GHG on the planet.

Global Warming: Big Questions, Big Search

As mentioned previously, there a great debate about whether or not humans are causing global warming. Some activists and researchers have resorted to insults and accusing the party opponent of having "sold in interest," an individual or another. As mentioned earlier, we tried cut the personal attacks between opposing parties, research for the kernel of truth (or logical, the truth can be discerned), and down in the heart of the matter.

To properly read one report or research on climate change, we must keep in mind that nothing (or almost) is certain. Everything has a certain degree of uncertainty, a certain flavor of the unknown. There really is no conclusive evidence of warming the world, and many scientists supporting the hypothesis that global warming will be a decade or more before it is possible to develop substantial evidence. As a climate modeler anonymous senior said about global warming, "The more you learn, the more you understand that you do not understand very well "(Kerr – Forecasts greenhouse). the global climate is by nature always fluctuating, and that only adds to the confusion anthropogenic climate warming. If there was a global anthropogenic warming, we could not be sure what the temperature we were supposedly less, that climate change is a natural part of life on Earth. Compounding this confusion is the natural variability, which works still confused researchers as they come near the awarding of a perceived change in the average temperature at some external factor, as a composition of the atmosphere (GHG) or solar variation. One reason for this variability is the time to adapt to long storage ocean heat and current systems. It is estimated to take hundreds of years for water to flow from the deepest parts ocean rises to the surface. This means that if, for example, a pool of cold water booster is singled out and stored in the depths by a mechanism freak, there may remain a century or two before resurfacing and production of a local climate change cool (Clarkson, North and Schmandt).

Since no one can create another Earth (much less one that behaves exactly like ours) and make the atmosphere experiences and change it, we are left with the alternative theory based on observations. In other words, the only way we can not claim to know everything about what could be the evolution of our climate is playing with the data, such as records of temperature measurements drilling, etc., and see what are the scenarios the data will agree with.

Most of the bodies of the theory of global warming based on computer climate models called general circulation models or GCMs, because they are almost the only tools researchers warming of planet have. CWM is difficult to do what makes them well requires a deep understanding of how the atmosphere and how its actions are interconnected with other planetary bodies, such as oceans or the terrestrial biosphere. But our understanding of the inner workings of the atmosphere and how it relates to other planetary bodies is not very good. Renowned NASA climate modeler James Hansen, the man testimony before Congress the summer of 1988 began the debate on climate change, states in the Proceedings of the Academy National Science: "The forcings [off] factors that influence the long-term climate change are not known with sufficient accuracy to define future climate change. "One of the fundamental figures of chaos, the butterfly effect, the system displays the interdependence of the atmosphere when he says that a butterfly fluttering in the air in China could bring rain to New York the following spring.

GCMs are made by formulating mathematical descriptions of relationships between the atmosphere / ocean / biosphere-cryosphere and the achievement of numerical experiments. They are certainly not able to form a mathematical description based on the type of interconnections, or feedbacks, the butterfly effect would suggest. Indeed, Michael Schlesinger, a modeler at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, says that "in the climate system, there are 14 orders of magnitude, the scale of the planet – which is 40 million meters – to the scale of a small aerosol particles on which water vapor can change phase to a liquid] [cloud of particles - which is a fraction of a millionth of a millimeter. "Of the 14 orders of magnitude, the two largest (and global scale atmospheric disturbances) can now be included in the models. Schlesinger Note that to include the third order of magnitude (the scale of the storms, about 50 km resolution) of a computer a thousand times faster would be necessary, "a teraflop machine that perhaps we'll have in 5 years." Including all orders of magnitude, it should be 1036-1037 times of calculation (Kerr - Forecast greenhouse).

Because GCMs are so difficult to do, often they represent the same process differently, Both models can have two different mathematical descriptions of what effect clouds have on global warming, for example. Process with a lower resolution a few hundred kilometers can not be directly represented in the models, but must be set, or expressed in terms of larger movements because the models do not have the resolution necessary to correctly represent the actions of weather systems important, such as tropical cyclones and extra-tropical. To compensate for this fall, a few settings (such as eddy viscosity, horizontal scale cumulus convection precipitation, gravity wave drag, etc.) are calibrated. Added to these settings are commonly adjustments called flux corrections, and they are an important factor arbitrary "for the MCG. These factors prevented the model from floating off into nowhere. As Kerr (Model) said: "Climate modelers have been 'cheating' for so long, it's almost become respectable." With these settings, attempt to represent some GCM climate characteristics fairly well, but they may be able to get the numbers right, but have poor underlying reasons for them. Consequently, these models ability to correctly simulate climate change would negatively.

Recently, a model was developed and tested at the National Center for Atmospheric Research to eliminate flow corrections. This model integrates better the effects of ocean eddies and not by reducing the scale, but by setting, from the effects of invisible eddies on scales larger using a more realistic ways of mixing hear through the ocean than any previous model did. This model does can not drift into chaos, even after 300 years of the race. This model gives an increase of 2 ° C of temperature due to a doubling of CO2. (Some MCG most popular assumption that the concentration of CO2 will double or quadruple in 70 years in 140 years and use the assumption of trying to predict what that the climate will be like over the decades or centuries depending on the doubling or quadrupling.) This figure is on the low side of estimates and sensitivity pose of the model to greenhouse gas emissions near the lower end of the current model estimates (Kerr - Model).

GCMs are very sensitive to representations of the influence of clouds and oceans, their effects are complex and not well understood. While some are specially MCG designed to simulate the behavior of water in the clouds, the limited vertical resolution (for example, they do not go far enough in place) and coarse resolution horizontal (eg, cloud activity over large areas of the Earth averages together and this average is used for the whole region) to avoid even these models accurately covering thin clouds and processes of cloud formation. More simulations have been done early distributions fixed cloud based on data observed cloud cover, but the levels set do not allow feedback between the distributions and evolution clouds in the atmosphere / ocean temperatures and motions. Problems in cloud feedback are considered the Achilles heel CWM. Similarly, representations of the oceans were initially crude in some early models, a swamp (standing, absorbing heat, heat and water vapor release the body of water) was used as a model ocean. Later models have a slab of 50 meters thickness of the Ocean as a storage of summer heat and the heat in winter. While not including the current ocean (caused by the movement of heat from colder areas of the ocean), these models attempted to represent responses to seasonal temperature in the upper ocean, but the absence of currents resulted in the tropical oceans too hot and too cold regions polar. Even the most sophisticated of today, climate models are computationally intense although experimental numerical approximations extremely complex atmospheric / ocean / biosphere / cryosphere. And yet, these GCMs are the basis of the theory of global warming, if for no other reason than the virtual impossibility of conducting physics experiments worldwide (Cotton & Pielke).

The main way to test these mathematical models of the climate means taking climate data from previous years, the implementation of programs, and see if the computer results are close to the current reality of climate data. The problem is that data are not entirely accurate. When predicted global warming ranges from .5 oC at 4 ° C, accuracy of data is important, to say the least. Satellite data (see certain) is called insubstantial by some researchers to the short duration of its archives, but Phil Jones says the brevity of the world records of sea surface temperature (about 100 years) aid to the uncertainty in the field. Interestingly, the current measures of surface temperature have showed a warming, 5 degrees Celsius during the past century, but the satellite measurements for the last fifteen years (satellite data has only been available for nineteen years) shows a slight downward trend. Satellite temperature trends vary smoothly, while in some surface data, a region appears to be warming, while the area around it seems cool. According to Dr. Roy Spencer, a scientist NASA, "We see major excursions [the trend] due to volcanic eruptions, such as [Mount Pinatubo] and ocean current phenomena like El Nino, but overall the trend is about 0.05 degrees Celsius per decade cooling "(Horack and Spencer). Earlier this year, we realized that the satellite data required correction for orbital decay, or "downward trend" in the satellites that wrong to show cause cooling in the data. However, even after careful adjustment the trend is still 0.01oC per decade cooling while weather balloons show -0.02 and-0.07oC per decade in Britain and America, respectively, and surface data Colombia show a warming of 0.15oC per decade. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) climate model predictions estimate of surface warming be 0.18oC decade and the warming in the deep layer measured by satellites and weather balloons about 30% faster, or 0.23 ° C per decade. No satellites or weather balloons indicate values anywhere near this not even when the file is updated by satellite in July 1998 adjusted to show a trend of 0.04 ° C per decade, which is still only 1 / 6 of the IPCC-predicted (Spencer).

Although the satellites may need adjustments to their data for changes in the orbit, these data are more accurate than the surface data. Satellites have nothing in their environment to skew the data. On the other hand, many sources of error exist on Earth. Things that appear as tiny variations in color and type of paint used for shelter for the instruments can distort the data slightly for different types and colors of paint to absorb small amounts, but different from sunlight. As another example, the urban heat island effect is known for making cities warmer at night and warmer during the day. The growth of urban areas during this century led to a bias in the climate 0.4oC United States, which makes the magnitude of warming appears greater than it was (Cotton and Pielke). Thomas Karl, a climatologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), has demonstrated in a 1989 document that if the temperatures surface are corrected for the effect of urban heat island, the years around 1940 emerge as the hottest, with readings from showing a downward trend (Crandall). If such bias exists in the global climate data from its use to represent a wider geographic record for studies climate change is misleading.

Another factor largely ignored the data on the temperature of solar variations, or periodic variations the brightness of the sun based on sunspots, etc.. Some climate modelers say that the Sun varies by only a cycle of 11 years, and this period is too fast for the climate system to respond. Hoyt points explosive volcanic eruptions radiation one to two years long forcing which does not seem to affect climate, solar energy and so the variance should have a significant impact on the climate. James Hansen, the famous modeler at NASA, put this way: "Greenhouse gas emissions anthropogenic (GHG), which are well measured, causing a strong positive (warming) forcing. But others, poorly measured, anthropogenic forcings, especally changes of atmospheric aerosols, clouds, and other forms of land use, causing a negative forcing tends to offset the greenhouse effect. A consequence of this partial equilibrium is that the natural forcing due to changes solar radiation may play a bigger role in climate change to long-term GHG deduct only "(NASA). Current research by Daniel Cayan and Warren White of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography is proof that "the growth and decline of the sun" may be behind the ongoing climate change. They studied temperatures in the North Pacific sea surface for the last 50 years and noticed that they looked remarkably like the pattern of records satellite solar radiation (Kerr – New). On this basis, it would seem logical to include these effects in the GCM, but few researchers do.

Moreover, while warming calculated is reduced by the cooling effect of volcanoes. Although we can not predict the occurrence of a volcanic eruption, we have enough statistical information on past eruptions to estimate the average effect of cooling, yet it is one of several factors not specifically considered by the IPCC (Singer – Scientific) and many other models.

If these models are wrong in their assumptions on climate, then all that is supposed to be known because of them is false. If, however, their assumptions are correct, but essential and effects in the global system are omitted from the study, MCG then mistakenly thought may actually need a refinement lit. Unfortunately, the illumination is difficult to find in this area. Many, many things are still unknown.

Effects of global warming on daily life

Another area where uncertainty rears its head is in the field of "real life" effects of global warming. Possible effects global warming have been played in the media: the hurricanes, epidemics, a sharp increase in sea level, etc. Some scientists refute these allegations. But, again, because climate models can tell us with certainty much smaller, we can not know with certainty whether warming the planet would have such effects.

Some researchers, such as those involved with the IPCC, the claim that the warming climate will result in an increase in violent storms such as hurricanes and typhoons. But S. Fred Singer points out (scientific), global warming will actually lead to a reduction of these storms that differences in temperature at the equator-pole drop, because it is this atmosphere temperature heterogeneity as storms discs and makes them strong.

record temperatures are given by others as a consequence warming. But they are actually the result of having to break Papers; per day on average, 2 million square miles (the equivalent an area of 1400 miles 1400 miles) of Earth know weather record breaking 100 years. Indeed, the probability of beating a record time is equal to 1 / n, where n is the number of years for which records exist (Hoyt).

Some, like Robert Shope virologist, say only Global warming could cause the mosquito carrier of dengue and yellow fever to migrate northward, causing outbreaks in North America. Cholera (Which is known to live in marine plankton), he said, could become epidemic in America that changes in marine ecology to promote growth and transmission of the pathogen. Rita Colwell, Paul Epstein, and Timothy Ford, another group of researchers, a little further and accused warming El Niño in the Pacific, at least partially for a cholera epidemic affecting Latin America in 1991 killed nearly 500,000 and 5,000. But cholera is known to spread from human to other humans through food, water and feces, which is why cholera epidemics appear when public health and sanitation decompose. CDC medical epidemiologist Fred Angulo said that "We had a powder keg ready to explode, a continent where sanitation and public water supply, and everything has been initiated for the transmission of this body once it has been introduced, possibly by ships emptying bilge water near the fishing areas. He added that cholera was introduced in time for the United States in the past several years, it has not spread "because we have a problem public health and sanitation infrastructure that prevents. "

With regard to diseases transmitted by mosquitoes, epidemiologist Mark L. Wilson of the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor said that predictions suffer from many levels of uncertainty. No one disputes that the weather have an impact: "There are reasons to believe that if it's a very wet spring, the summer mosquito populations increase," but he and his colleagues point out that nobody knows how the patterns of temperature and precipitation will change in a warmer world, or how these changes affect biology of disease. Paul Epstein was awarded Latin American epidemics of dengue in 1994 and 1995 El Niño and global warming, but experts on dengue in the Pan American Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say that these epidemics caused by a breakdown programs to eradicate the specific species of mosquitoes responsible and his subsequent return. Epidemics caused by mosquitoes both in the U.S. have disappeared due to fight against the mosquito eradication programs, systems of water supply, and changes in lifestyle (we have good housing, air conditioning, television and keep us inside, and screens to keep mosquitoes outside). They note as an example, the 1995 dengue pandemic that has stopped in Mexico Rio Grande, with over 2,000 confirmed cases in Reynosa, Mexico, but only 7 on the river, Texas. And if it's a bit early to tell, as the IPCC, that "climate change is likely to have impacts very diverse and generally adverse human health with significant loss of life "(Taubes).

It is interesting to note that it does not seem to be an increase in sea level along the coast. According to Robert T. Watson, IPCC Chairman, "We will see the rise sea levels could displace tens of millions of people … and entire islands … could be significantly flooded. The shores of America could be severely attacked. "But Dr. David Aubrey, an oceanographer and senior scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in Massachusetts, says "I have seen no convincing evidence that the recent rise in sea level are caused by effects on humans or warming global "(Hoyt). And even proponents estimates of global warming "have been declining steadily, at first, it was Proposed by EPA that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 cause 80-120 inches high, but in 1990 the estimate was a quarter of that. In 1996, a scientific advisory panel of the United Nations, has predicted an increase of only 15-22 cm by 2100. Even these estimates more Infants are very uncertain, changes in sea level are terribly difficult to measure. Historical data are based on tide gauges, which are mainly from northern Europe and North America. The long-term trends can be detected after the data are adjusted for waves, storm surges, and tidal changes (Singer – Sky). In addition, the land itself may be increased or decreased. Mid-Atlantic coast United States, for example, is down by a bulge formed by Ice Age glaciers moved slowly, as the Detroit News in 1996 (Hoyt). Most global sea level as shown reconstructed and adapted from an interesting trend: the levels were up about 7 cm per century, while several centuries, on which many of the global climate fluctuations took place. It is now believed that the slow tectonic changes caused the steady increase not the melting of glaciers some global warming theorists suggest. Moreover, the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich has found that between 1926 and 1960, when the planet was supposed cooler today, 70% of U.S. and European glaciers retreated. Since 1980 However, 55% of these glaciers have advanced even (Carlisle). This would not support the theory that global warming is happening, however, it is the melting of glaciers, and water causes a rise in sea level. While global warming may cause mountain glaciers to melt and thermal expansion water, the acceleration of physical place, it can also cause more water to evaporate from the surface ocean warming, leading to greater rainfall and a thickening of ice caps. shows data from the 1900-1940 warming period of lower level sea, while the subsequent cooler period showed a rise in sea level (Singer – Sky).

Other areas of global life the planet has an effect on people affected by attempts to stop global warming. Some people (Clark Kerr – Report Greenhouse) suggest that small changes, such as using high efficiency compact fluorescent bulbs, use public transport or public self-powered over often, etc., could have a significant impact on global warming (assuming it exists). This would go hand in hand with the idea expressed by some scientists that the only measures that should be taken until there is more certainty are those who would (or should) be taken anyway. But people will do these things if they do not? Some others are more pessimistic.

Great measures are suggested by these people. Because cotton and condition Pielke human impacts on weather and climate, "Clearly, the reduction of emissions CO2 in these countries [the United States, China, and the former Soviet Union] will have a significant impact on global CO2 emissions and reduce the risk that the activity human has a significant impact on weather and climate. "By working with such an uncertain outcome, we can only weigh its risks, study the costs and benefits of all alternatives and make the most competent guess its what the best course of action is. In the face of all this uncertainty, I propose a sort of wager climatologists (a variant of Pascal's wager on this question). Assume for a moment that there is global warming occurring. If this is human-induced climate and will have a negative impact on the climate and life, then we must take action. If it is not anthropogenic warming climate warming will have a negative effect on the climate and life, nothing can be done. If there is no anthropogenic warming of global warming and has no negative effect on the climate and life, nothing should be done. Similarly, if man caused global warming the planet, but it will not have a negative impact on the climate and life, no action is required.

But there is another dimension to choose what to do: assuming that anthropogenic global warming is underway and it will negatively impact the climate and life, one must weigh the costs and benefits of maintaining this risk against the costs and benefits of action. Take the Kyoto Protocol as an example. President Clinton signed Nov. 12 1998, but he expects him to the Senate. This agreement, if ratified by the Senate, would require the U.S. to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases (mainly CO2) to 7% below 1990 levels by 10 to 14 years. The costs of the mandatory reduction of emissions are important. Compliance would cost U.S. $ 3.3 billion from 2001 to 2020, or $ 30,000 per household. Gas prices expected to increase by 65 cents a gallon or more. Residents of Michigan should paying 77.3% more for home heating oil, 73.5% more for natural gas, and 64.2% more for electricity. Industries and businesses will suffer. It is believed that some of the sectors hardest hit will include energy-intensive manufacturing (such as automotive, cement, iron, steel, chemicals, aluminum, etc.), transportation, telecommunications, paper and allied products, petroleum refining, and utilities. Wages fall, while the costs of food, shelter and medical has increased. The state of Michigan will lose 96,500 jobs (49,800 in manufacturing), 9.3 billion dollars in production and 3.4 million of billions of dollars in tax revenue, reducing the ability of the State provide even greater need for social services. It is expected that the unemployment rate would reach 5.5% and 1.1 million U.S. jobs would be lost (Novak, Littmann).

This is a bleak picture if these changes were known to be necessary for survival. But a much darker picture is one to go through all this economic hardship for one unproven theory, and eventually discover that these expensive changes really had a negligible effect climate and life in general. There is no scientific understanding of what level of greenhouse gases is "dangerous." How can we regulate what level should be, not knowing if the danger is above or below the standard we set? Besides, how can global climate treaty in 1992 that his goal is to "stabilize concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at a level that prevents dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system "(Singer – scientific)? It also seems a bit odd that only a rapidly growing, prosperous society would be better able to afford the additional technology to be cleaner, healthier, and safer, but the treaty would certainly not have this effect on the economy of the United States. By not penalizing countries Development, Kyoto encourages industries to locate near the reasonably efficient and well regulated countries to developed countries developing, which have little (if the regulations) on pollution. S. Fred Singer has an interesting idea in "danger of the Global Climate Treaty" " It [the Kyoto Protocol] has been rightly described as transfer of money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries. "Meanwhile, climate scientists who support the theory of anthropogenic global warming that it is unlikely that the Kyoto Protocol, even temporarily slow down the accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere. Jerry Mahlman, director of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, says that "it could take another 30 protocols Kyoto in the next century "to cut global warming to the size (Malakoff).

For information and Fiction

FICTION: Even if the Earth warms, we can not be sure how much, if any, of the warming is caused by human activities.

FACT: The international scientific consensus is that most of the warming over the last 50 years is due human activities, not natural causes. Over millions of years, animals and plants lived, died and were compressed form huge deposits of oil, gas and coal. In a little over 300 years, however, we have burned a large quantity of carbon deposit energy supply.

Today, the byproducts of fossil fuel use – billions of tons of carbon (as carbon dioxide), methane and other greenhouse gases – in the form of a blanket around the Earth, trapping heat from the sun, naturally temperatures to rise to the ground, and steadily changing our climate.

The impacts associated with this deceptively small change of temperature are evident in all corners of the planet. There are heavy rains in some areas and droughts in others. Glaciers are melting, Spring comes early, the oceans are warming, and coral reefs are dying.

FICTION: The Intergovernmental Panel on developments climate provides an increase in average global temperature of only 1.4 ° C to 5.8 ° C over the next century.
This small change, less the daily temperature range during most of the major cities, is not a concern.

FACT: The average temperature is calculated from temperature readings around the Earth. As the temperature varies considerably at a daily level in one place the average global temperature is remarkably constant. According to the analysis of ice cores, tree rings, pollen and other climate proxies, " the average temperature of the Northern Hemisphere fluctuated up or down a few tenths of a degree Celsius between 1000 and 1900 AD or so, when rapid warming has begun.

A change in average global temperature between 1.4 ° C to 5.8 ° C would result in impacts related climate are much bigger and faster than those that occurred during the 10 000-year history of civilization.

Scientific analysis of past centuries, we know that even small changes in global mean temperature may cause significant climate changes. For example, the average temperature difference world between the end of the last glacial period (where much of the northern hemisphere is buried under thousands of feet of ice) and interglacial climate today is only about 5 ° C.

FICTION: The warming can not be due to gas greenhouse effect, since changes in temperature and changes in emissions of greenhouse gases over the past century, has not held simultaneously.

FACT: The slow heating of the oceans creates a lag between when carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases are emitted in other the atmosphere and when the temperature changes occur.

This is one of the main reasons why we do not see changes temperature at the same time as changes in emissions of greenhouse gas emissions. You can see the same process occurs when you heat a miniature pot of water on the stove there is a lag between when you turn the flame and when the water begins to boil.

In addition, there many other factors that affect year to year variation in the temperature of the Earth. For example, volcanic eruptions, El Niсo, and small changes in the output of the sun can affect the global climate on an annual basis.
Therefore, you would not expect the accumulation of gas greenhouse emissions to exactly match the trends in global climate. However, scientific evidence clearly anthropogenic (or man) to effect greenhouse gases as the main culprit of climate change.

FICTION: carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere fairly quickly, if the warming climate appears to be a problem, we can expect to take measures to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases until As we begin to see the effects of global warming.

FACT: Carbon dioxide, a gas created by burning fossil fuels (like gasoline and coal), is the principal greenhouse gas emissions by the biggest man.
The carbon dioxide from fossil fuel use is produced in large quantities and can persist in the atmosphere, as long as 200 years.

This means that if emissions of carbon dioxide have been adopted today, it would take centuries for the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere down to it was the pre-industrial. So we must act now if we want to avoid the consequences of increasingly dangerous climate change future.

FICTION: Human activities contribute only a small fraction of carbon dioxide emissions, an amount too small to have a significant effect on the climate, especially since the oceans absorb most of the additional emissions of carbon dioxide.

FACT: activities before humans began to significantly increase the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by natural sources closely matched the amount that was stored or absorbed through natural processes.
For example, the forests grow, they absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by photosynthesis, carbon is then sequestered in the wood, leaves, roots and soil. Some carbon is later released into the atmosphere when the leaves, roots and dead wood and decay.

Dioxide carbon that cycles of ocean life through the plankton to the surface of oceans absorb carbon dioxide through photosynthesis. Plankton and animals that eat the plankton die and then fall to the bottom of the ocean. As they decay, carbon dioxide is released into the water and returns to the surface by ocean currents. Following these natural cycles, the amount of carbon dioxide in the air has changed little since 10,000 years. But this balance has been broken by man.

Since the industrial revolution, the burning of fossil fuels like coal and Oil has taken about two times more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than what is naturally removed by the oceans and forests. This led levels of carbon dioxide accumulates in the atmosphere.

Today, carbon dioxide levels are 30% higher than pre-industrial levels, higher than they were in the last 420,000 years and are probably the highest levels over the last 20 million years. Studies of the climatic history of Earth have shown that even small changes in natural levels of carbon dioxide have generally been accompanied by significant changes in the average global temperature.

We have already seen an increase of 1 ° C in global temperature over the past century, and we can expect a significant warming in the next century if we fail to act to reduce emissions of greenhouse gas emissions.

FICTION: The Earth has warmed rapidly in the past without disastrous consequences, then society and ecosystems can adapt easily to any warming predictable.

FACT: The Earth has experienced rapid warming in some places, at the end of the last glacial period, but for the last 10,000 years climate of the planet has been relatively stable. During this period, such as agriculture and civilization developed, the world's population has grown phenomenally. Now many heavily populated areas such as urban centers in coastal lowlands, are very vulnerable to climate change.

In addition, many ecosystems and species are already threatened by existing pressures (such as pollution, habitat conversion and degradation) may still be under pressure at the point of extinction by climate change.

FICTION: The accumulation of carbon dioxide will lead to a "Greening" of the Earth because plants can use more carbon dioxide to accelerate their growth.

FACT: Carbon dioxide has been shown to act as a fertilizer for some plant species under certain conditions. In addition, a longer growing season (due to temperature warmer) could increase productivity in some regions.

However, there is also evidence that plants may acclimate to higher levels of carbon dioxide – that plants can grow more quickly than for a short period before returning to previous levels of growth.

Another problem is that many studies in which the growth of plants has increased due to fertilization of carbon dioxide have been conducted in greenhouses where other nutrients that plants need to survive, have been replenished.

In nature, nutrients such as nitrogen and water are often in short supply. Thus, although plants have carbon dioxide Further available, their growth could be limited by a lack of water and nutrients. Finally, climate change could lead to growth plants has declined in many areas due to increased drought, floods and heat waves.

Whatever dioxide fertilization carbon benefits can be made, it is unlikely to be anywhere near enough to offset the adverse effects of climate change fast.

FICTION: If the Earth has warmed since pre-industrial, it is because the intensity of the sun has risen.

FACT: The intensity of the sun varies. In the late 1970s, sophisticated technology has been developed that can measure direct sunlight intensity. The measurements from these instruments show that in the past 20 years, changes in the sun were very low.

Indirect measures of changes in the intensity of the sun since the beginning of the industrial revolution in 1750 show that variations in the intensity the sun does not take into account all the warming that has occurred in the 20th century and that most of the warming has been caused by an increase of Origin human emissions of greenhouse gas emissions.

FICTION: It is difficult to predict the weather a few days in advance. How can we have confidence in climate projections for a hundred years?

FACT: The climate and weather are different. Weather refers temperatures, precipitation and storms on a given day in a certain place. Reflects a long-term average climate, sometimes on a very large area like a continent or even the whole world.

Averages over large areas and time periods are easier to estimate that individuals characteristics of weather events.
For example, although it is notoriously difficult to predict whether it will rain or temperature Exact daily including a specific location, we can predict with relative certainty that, on average, in the Northeastern United States, it will be colder in December in July.

In addition, climate models are now sophisticated enough to be able to recreate past climates, including change climate over the last hundred years. This adds to our confidence that future climate projections are accurate.

Finally, when we report the projections climate, we use a series of climate model results that represent the limits of our projections (what is the average global temperature could at least change to what the average global temperature could change the most) and our degree of certainty of the projections.

FICTION: The Science of Change Climate can not tell us the amount by which human emissions of greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced to slow global warming.

FACT: The Framework Convention on Climate Change, emissions of greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced to avoid "any dangerous interference with the climate system. The scientists then attempted to define what constitutes "dangerous interference."
Study (O'Neill and Oppenheimer, 2002) provides three criteria that could be used:

1) the risk for threatened ecosystems such as coral reefs

2) the large-scale disturbances induced by changes in the climate system, such as elevated levels seas caused by the rupture of the Antarctic ice sheet and

3) large-scale disturbances of the climate system itself, such as closing thermohaline circulation of the Atlantic Ocean (Gulf Stream), which would result in a sharp decrease in temperature in Europe.

This project to study if the concentrations of C02 are capped at 450 parts per million (ppm), significant disruptions in the climate system may be avoided, although some damage (such as coral reefs) may be inevitable.

Current estimates of CO2 concentrations air could be achieved without strong measures to limit emissions of greenhouse gases are much higher – at from 550 ppm to 1000 ppm in the next hundred years.

FICTION: Because of the uncertainty of climate models, it is extremely difficult to predict exactly what will result in regional impacts of global climate change.

FACT: According to the IPCC, climate trends some are very likely to happen if emissions of greenhouse gas emissions continue at current levels or increase: sea level rise, droughts will be more in some areas, floods in others, temperatures will rise, leading to more frequent heat waves and glaciers may melting at a faster pace.

Regional impacts are very likely to occur, but exactly when and what they will be more difficult to predict.

This is because:

1) regional climate models are more intensive than computer models of global climate – they take longer to run and are more difficult to calibrate, and

2) Many factors contribute to non-climatic impacts at regional level. For example, the risk of mosquito-borne diseases like dengue and malaria may increase because of rising temperatures, but the actual probability of infection depend largely on the effectiveness of public health measures in place.

A better world climate: How can we get there?

As previously stated, there are a large number of unanswered questions about global warming. We wonder if whether or not there is anthropogenic global warming really a threat or a because we do not have the perfect climate model to tell us. And we not this model because we do not understand what is happening, we do not understand how the system interacts with atmospheric oceans, terrestrial biosphere, cryosphere, or any of its contributing factors. Therefore, the research should be first and foremost in our minds is that, for better understand the rich interactions between these organisms and the different characteristics of each, which may not be well understood. The effect of clouds, by example, on global and vice versa are not well understood. Did they simply cool by reflecting heat back into space, or their role complex than that? What is the effect of every shape and size of the cloud? What outside factors affect cloud formation? And most importantly yet, how can we better link these effects in GCMs?

Similarly, aerosols are in need of study. Are they simply cause a cooling by reflecting solar radiation back into space, or, as one researcher said, is canceled by the fact that heating by reflection of radiation land back to earth and give their real cooling effect by enhancing the clouds of water droplets, giving them a higher albedo?

Variations in solar radiation and sunspot cycles behind all or part of the perceived global warming? Could there be changes in the production of energy from the sun causing global warming, as some have observed?

How the tropical ocean interact with the global atmospheric circulation, as tropical cyclones (hurricanes) form there? Are there special procedures that might work there influence on the theory of global warming? Similarly, how the atmosphere, ocean, sea ice and interact in the high latitudes?

What, exactly, the terrestrial biosphere place in the carbon cycle? How much CO2 different types of vegetation, soil, or the rock to absorb? If CO2 is found to be a significant problem, would there be a way to make parts of the Earth biosphere take more CO2? What effect would it have on ecosystems different actors?

And so on potential issues go. As shown above, there are many different research directions of global warming can go and goes in. All these would be useful in trying to better determine the direction that we as climate a planet is headed in. But there is another dimension to this attempt to better understand global climate modeling. Currently, even the most sophisticated and encompassing GCM is incredibly crude and simplistic compared to the actual atmospheric system and its returns. And so, since new discoveries in research related to the above topics and others, we must continue to update the models. We must continue to work on models, improving them, until corrections flow or "fudge factors" as they are called, are not required to make good conditions forecast today. As computer technologies become smaller and ever faster and more capable of complex systems, we must keep in reduced scale models and setting several variables to take into account or the comprehension more detailed existing variables. To have a perfect model, each variable, each gyre, and particulate sulfate should be taken into account. Although it is unlikely that the state of modeling, we can continue to try to better explain what is happening and how things are connected and interdependent in bringing greater understanding and greater subtleties in the atmosphere at the table of modeling.

Unfortunately for the world researchers of climate change, the computer industry does not move fast enough around this research. In many respects, the climatologists are waiting the computer industry to build more powerful supercomputers so they can make more complex models to take advantage of this computing power. And yet, there is at least a small advantage to wait many studies conducted with useful innovative, legitimate methods have simply been collecting data long enough to be as helpful as possible. The satellite data is a good example of this. If we wait, the data will be better.

Thus, we can see that the science behind global warming is far from settled. Much is unknown and theories abound, as they often do in scientific forums. New ideas and new studies keep science of global climate change will, to keep the second guessing, keep looking for new, better ways to explain what is happening. Ultimately, the change global climate could be a way for science to prove it can work well even under the most uncertain situation. <! – / Message ->

[Deleted] / /

<! [CDATA [/ / <! [CDATA [google_ad_client = "pub-8827297375521878" google_ad_width = 336 google_ad_height = 280; google_ad_format = "336x280_as" google_ad_type = ""; google_ad_channel = "1389449785" google_color_border = "F7F7F7"; google_color_bg = "F7F7F7"; google_color_link = "054b1d" google_color_text = "000000" google_color_url = "000000"; google_ui_features = Rc: 0 "/ /]]> [deleted] [deleted] [deleted] [deleted] / / <! [CDATA [/ / <! [CDATA [google_protectAndRun (ads_core.google_render_ad "google_handleError, google_render_ad) / /]]>

[Deleted]

About the Author

Nadeem Wagan

writer of Pakistan

Fox News cover the launch of the Sonic Touch hearing aid