1717troutman.com

Archive for September, 2011

Reusable grocery bags and reusable shopping bags are now becoming very popular in society today. Though most of us don’t realize it, manufacturing bags-plastic, compostable plastic and even paper bags-contributes significantly to global warming. Greenhouse gases are the result of emissions caused by burning fossil fuels during the production of plastic and paper bags. The greenhouse effect is caused when infrared radiations from the earths surface are prevented from escaping into the outer space. The consequence is global warming. A very important way to reduce the use of plastic bags is through the use of reusable grocery bags and reusable shopping bags. It is through the use of these reusable grocery bags that we are able to reduce the negative effects that paper and plastic bags have on the environment. Reusable shopping bags eliminates the need for many consumers to carry their purchased items in paper or plastic bags. When consumers show that they no longer want to use paper and plastic bags, there will be less of a demand for these bag manufacturers to produce so many of them. It is through the production of these bags that the environment is affected. When these manufacturers see the lowered demand for them because consumers are using reusable shopping bags and reusable grocery bags, they will lower how many they put into production.

Paper bags have the highest global warming impact per bag compared to other types of bags. According to the US EPA, 70% more global warming gasses are emitted making a paper bag than a plastic bag, and 50 times more water pollution. They also use 4 times more raw materials, and consume 3.5 times more energy. They also contribute to global warming by destroying trees. In 1999, the American Forest and Paper Association reported that Americans used 10 billion paper shopping bags, consuming 14 million trees. The use of reusable shopping bags and reusable grocery bags not only eliminates the need for paper and plastic bags, but they will lower the number of bags being produced. It is evident that the production of these bags has a major effect on the environment and people need to make a strong effort in their consumption of these paper and plastic bags.

Reusable Grocery Bags and Reusable shopping bags are a great way to do your part in the prevention of global warming. Global warming, or climate change, shows no signs of slowing down. Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The rate of warming is increasing. When you go shopping at your nearest retail outlet, make sure to bring your reusable shopping bags. The next time you go to the supermarket, you should bring your reusable grocery bags. The 20th century’s last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according to a number of climate studies. And the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850. The Arctic is feeling the effects the most. Average temperatures in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia have risen at twice the global average, according to the multinational Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report compiled between 2000 and 2004. Arctic ice is rapidly disappearing, and the region may have its first completely ice free summer by 2040 or earlier. Polar bears and indigenous cultures are already suffering from the sea-ice loss. Glaciers and mountain snows are rapidly meltingfor example, Montanas Glacier National Park now has only 27 glaciers, versus 150 in 1910. In the Northern Hemisphere, thaws also come a week earlier in spring and freezes begin a week later. Reusable grocery bags are a great way to prevent the countless plastic bags from being manufactured, and it is partly through the production of these plastic bags that global warming is happening. Reusable Grocery Bags and reusable shopping bags are a simple and effective way people can do their part in conserving the environment. Reusable grocery bags can be purchased and used at all supermarkets, while reusable shopping bags are great for any occasion when you are out shopping. Do your part in caring about the environment and saving the planet through the use of reusable shopping bags and reusable grocery bags.

Some simple steps such as using biodiesel fuel and carbon credit trading you can take to limit your contribution to global warming
There can be no doubt what so ever. Global Warming is very, very serious – probably the biggest threat to our environment since the Noah and the biblical floods.
One of the main contributors to global warming is greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide. When natural gas or oil or coal is burnt, it increases the quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The same thing happens when oil is burnt, as well as coal. It is important that we reduce the amount of these types of substances being burnt.

Back in the days of the Old Testament, God wanted to teach us a lesson, and gave Noah detailed instruction how to save the creatures on our planet. It may well take divine intervention to fend off the threat to our existence due to Global Warming. If you dont believe this will happen, consider what you can do to prevent further environmental damage.

Let us start easy. The more electricity that we use, the more greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere. By cutting our use of electricity, we will reduce the greenhouses gasses. The less greenhouse gases, the slower global warming will progress. By simply switching of lights, switching off appliances at the power socket, and drying clothes on an old-fashioned washing line, instead of a power-hungry clothes drier will make a massive contribution.

Moving on. Cutting down large amounts of trees to supply timber reduces the amount of trees. When we cut down the trees in the world, we are increasing global warming. The remaining trees can’t absorb all of the carbon which is floating in the atmosphere and carbon levels rises. We should try to find products that are used by recycled products instead of products that are freshly cut. If we do this, more trees will be spared and less toxic greenhouse gases will be emitted into the atmosphere.

Finally. It is important that we convince others to preserve and protect our environment. Inform them of the things they do which increases global warming and the relatively simple things they can do such as using less electricity and using more recycled products, as outlined above – to reduce the effects of global warming.

Article Tags:
Global Warming

Before Prince Albert of Monaco visited the North Pole in April this year he declared that it was as part of an effort to push the environmental issue up the agenda with other world leaders.

Now he has established a foundation as part of his personal commitment for ‘the protection of the environment and sustainable development’ – and in the process show that far from his North Pole visit being a publicity stunt it was the beginning of a campaign to highlight the dangers of global warming.

The Albert II foundation aims to be a permanent source of dynamic and innovative actions for environmental protection.

It is just over a year since Prince Albert succeeded his father Prince Rainier to become Monaco’s leader, and in that year Prince Albert has changed his image from that of a Playboy Prince to one of a leader concerned for the future of not only Monaco – the second smallest country in the world – but for the world as a whole.

Apart from his visit to the North Pole, Monaco has shown her commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by making the Monaco Yacht show, due to be held in September, to a carbon-neutral event by paying for enough wind turbines in New Zealand to generate power for 45,000 homes.

In a more recent development Monaco, at Prince Albert’s behest, has decided for the first time to calculate her GDP so she can play a more active role at the United Nations, which will include calculating how much to pay to meet the UN’s request for 0.7 per cent of developed countries GDP for third world development. Tax Haven

Previously Monaco has best been known as Europe’s number one tax haven, and for the Monaco Grand Prix, held each May around the streets of Monte Carlo.

Often referred to as the ‘Playground of Europe’with many world class hotels in Monaco any concerns over Monaco changing style are misplaced insist local travel guide YourMonaco.

‘Monaco will continue to attract the wealthy due to her to income tax policy’, comments spokesman Henri Boulanger, ‘And as well as the Monaco Grand Prix there is also the annual Yacht Show each September. Prince Albert knows that these events along with being a tax haven are the geese that lay the golden eggs and without them there wouldn’t be a lot of point in calculating the GDP to send to the United Nations as it would account for very little. By promoting and encouraging events like the Monaco Grand Prix it allows him to play a serious and active part on the world stage’.

Real estate in Monaco ranks among the highest priced in the world, with one bedroom apartments ranging from nearly a million Euros to two million, and three bedroom apartments often over three million Euros.

Buyers from the UK have increased significantly in the last couple of years, and demand from them has helped push property price inflation to nearly ten per cent a year.

For the future it is expected that prices will continue to rise for the short and medium term, but with interest rates expected to rise in the UK it is not certain whether the supply of British buyers will continue at the same pace as recent years.

The world’s leading luxury yacht show in Monaco is to pay for 55 wind turbines in New Zealand – enough to generate power for 45,000 homes – making the event ‘carbon neutral’. Under the watchful eye of Prince Albert, the yacht show is part of Monaco’s new stance on global warming, and comes shortly after Prince Albert himself travelled to the North Pole in April to highlight the damage he believes global warming is having on the environment.

‘Since Prince Albert came to the throne last year’ comments Henri Boulanger of Monte Carlo travel guide http://www.yourmonaco.com, ‘Monaco has changed her policy from one of the few countries not to sign the Kyoto Protocol to not only signing it but taking a lead in the battle against global warming. Prince Albert has personally taken steps to show how concerned he is, and by setting the example of going to the North Pole has shown the leadership necessary to encourage Monaco companies to become environmentally friendly, and the Monaco Yacht Show is an example of this’. The Monaco Yacht Show has bult a reputation over the years as the place for the wealthy to view potential purchases, and this year there will be nearly a hundred yachts on display to those able to afford it. In total 22,000 visitors are expected to attend with over 500 exhibitors from the yachting world exhibiting. The mix of wealth and Monte Carlo also means that real estate agents in Monaco will be on full alert. In previous years the Monaco Yacht Show has often proved more beneficial for the realtors than the Monaco Grand Prix . The Monaco Grand Prix attracts tens of thousands of Formula 1 fans annually to the principality at the end of May, but with some Monte Carlo streets closed, showing property in Monaco can be more problematic than during the Yacht Show. Monte Carlo real estate specialists Tribune Properties say that the more relaxed atmosphere of the Yacht Show allows potential property buyers to view properties. ‘If someone is visiting Monaco for the Yacht Show and has several million Euros available, it’s a pretty safe assumption that those buyers will have a few million for a property too, and a luxury yacht and Monaco Real Estate appeal to the same type of buyer’, claims Roger Munns, Tribune’s Managing Director. Typical of Monaco Real Estate prices is a two bedroom two bathroom apartment in Seaside Plaza, close to where the Yacht Show is located, at 3,700,000 Euros. Monaco Hotels The emergence of the Yacht Show has helped the Monaco economy by drawing the world’s wealthy to the principality for four days in September. Until recently the Monaco Grand Prix in May and the Monte Carlo Masters tennis the month before have been the two main events of the year which boost the occupancy levels of the hotels in Monaco . With the Yacht Show in September filling the hotels at premium rates, it has proved to be a welcome addition to the calendar of events for both residents and businesses alike, and the Hotel de Paris Monte Carlo will be the scene of many deals being signed over the four days. This year also saw the first Monaco Flower Show, which it is hoped will also be a tourist magnet in future years. ‘In the past Monaco has had the highlights of the Monaco Grand Prix and the tennis, with consistent numbers of visitors the rest of the year,’ state http://www.yourmonaco.com, ‘but Monaco is becoming much more diverse in what it offers throughout the calendar year. The Yacht Show has been a success, and given a little time the Monaco Flower Show will appeal to a different type of tourist, and might be as popular as the Hampton Court and Chelsea Flower Shows are in the UK. Diversity is the key to sustained tourism, and Monaco is doing it very well. Despite being the second smallest country in the world, Monaco has attracted many of the world’s top business and entertainment people to live there due to her income tax free status, and with Prince Albert at the helm it seems that the principality is beginning to punch above her weight in world politics as he takes the lead on environmental issues’, conclude YourMonaco. Related Articles – Monaco, Monte Carlo, Monaco hotels, Monte Carlo hotels, Monaco Grand Prix, Monaco weather, Monaco map, Email this Article to a Friend!Receive Articles like this one direct to your email box!Subscribe for free today!

Methane is a gas found on most planets with atmospheres. In limited amounts, it isnt a particularly problematic gas. In larger amounts, however, it can become a regulator of atmosphere temperatures. Methane and Potential Impacts on Global Warming

Methane is fairly common gas found in nature. It is produced from both natural elements of the biomass cycle and artificial industrial sources. Methane is classified as a greenhouse gas and is believed to contribute to global warming. Methane (CH4) is a problematic greenhouse gas for a variety of reasons. First, it has a long life once it is in the atmosphere, to wit, it will remain suspended in the upper atmosphere anywhere from nine to 15 years depending on climatic conditions. Second, methane is much more lethal when it comes to trapping heat in the atmosphere, being as much as 20 times better at doing the job than the much discussed carbon dioxide. The unique chemical makeup of Methane is what makes it a problem. Once it gets situated in the upper atmosphere, it acts as a sponge for infrared radiation being reflected from the planet towards space. By doing so, it acts as a gas coat around the planet, heating us up as time passes. Since we can count on it sitting in the atmosphere for roughly 10 years, massive accumulations of methane can have a devastating impact over time. There is nothing we can do to stop natural methane sources. On the industrial side, however, there are a lot of areas that can be addressed. The production of methane through our actions is primarily through natural gas, petroleum, agricultural, coal mining, waste water reclaiming and landfill systems. All produce methane to a certain degree, some on a very large scale. Modifying our behavior on methane production is actually a win-win situation. Unlike carbon dioxide, methane can be used as an energy source in and of itself. The technology is complex and the gas can be unstable, but we have certainly accomplished far more difficult tasks. The bigger point is that we dont have to stop any activity that produces methane, just modify such activities to make use of the methane. Global warming is a controversial topic. There is little doubt it is occurring. The real question is what it will mean as temperatures increase. Nobody really seems to know. What is clear is our current climatic situation is fairly calm. If you agree, why risk moving to a more chaotic one? Rick Chapo is with SolarCompanies.com, a directory of solar energy companies. Visit us to read more articles on solar power and Methane in atmosphere. Related Articles – methane, global warming, greenhouse, gases, atmosphere, ch4, nature, environment, , Email this Article to a Friend!Receive Articles like this one direct to your email box!Subscribe for free today!

There can be no dispute that the ice over the Arctic is melting pretty fast. Satellite pictures clearly show the extent of the decrease in Arctic ice during the last several years. In fact, observations from instruments on the ground, balloons, and satellites indicate that the Arctic is warming much faster than the rest of the planet.

Last year’s seasonal ice shrinkage set records, reaching a September minimum of 2.6 million square miles, some 23 percent smaller than the previous record, set in 2005. If it sets another record this year, it would mark the fifth season of record declines since 1998.

In fact, preliminary data in June 2008 from University of Colorado researcher Sheldon Drobot does show that the vast expanse of ice at the top of the world is some 55,800 square miles smaller than it was on the same date last year.

The proponents of man-made global warming now point to the melting Arctic sea ice as proof that the planet is in immediate dire peril. Their climate models show that the Arctic sea ice is melting nearly three times faster than global warming computer models had previously projected.

Of course, melting Arctic Sea ice linked to the warming of the planet seems like an easy public relations correlation to make. Ice melts when temperatures rise. Arctic temperatures are rising fast apparently due to man-made global warming. The faster the ice melts, the faster the impact on the planet. So, everyone needs to spend more money and change behavior to eliminate CO2 gas to save the planet.

It all seems so logical until you think about it for awhile and do some research. Then, it really begins to not make much sense. Ultimately, I find that when things don’t make sense then they are usually not true. Here is what bothers me about melting Arctic sea ice caused by man-made global warming from an increase in CO2 gas.

First, no study has ever directly linked the increase in global temperatures of the last several decades with melting Arctic ice. There is no scientific evidence of a direct connection, only media hype. In fact, with the climate projection models predicting only one third of the Arctic ice melt that is actually occurring, then maybe another reason outside of global warming is really at work.

Next, there has been a record melt in Arctic ice each year since 1999. However, the average global temperature has not increased and has actually started to decrease in the last few years while that Arctic ice has been melting at an increased pace. Ice melting faster when the planet’s actual average temperature is going lower? Doesn’t seem to make much sense, does it?

Now, consider that in 2008 ice between Canada and southwestern Greenland reached its highest level in 15 years according to Denmark’s Meteorological Institute. The Institute used satellite images to track the southward expansion of the ice.

In fact, on a global basis, NOAA had this to say about world sea ice in April 2008. Global sea ice reached levels that were unprecedented for the month of April in over 25 years. Levels are the third highest (for April) since the commencement of records in 1979, exceeded only by levels in 1979 and 1982.”

So, if global warming is creating melting Arctic ice, then why is ice not melting everywhere? In fact, the world had more global sea ice in April 2008, than it had for over the last twenty five years. Again, if it doesn’t seem to make much sense, it probably is not true.

So, the actual reason for melting Arctic ice may well have nothing to do with global warming. There have been several recent studies and discoveries in the Arctic that would suggest as much.

Recently, a team of scientists led by Dr. Robert Sohn of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts got a first-ever glimpse of the ocean floor (13,000 feet) beneath the Arctic pack ice. Indeed, they were astonished with what they saw.

Massive volcanoes had risen from the ocean floor deep under the Arctic ice cap, spewing plumes of fragmented magma into the sea. The eruptions took place in 1999 along the Gakkel Ridge, an underwater mountain chain snaking eleven hundred miles from the northern tip of Greenland to Siberia.

Remember, that the record Arctic sea ice melt began in 1999 the same year as these volcanic eruptions began on the ocean floor. The truth is if you overlay the area of melting Arctic sea ice over the area of these massive volcanic eruptions on the ocean floor, a compelling circumstantial case can be made that volcanic eruptions may indeed be the cause of Arctic ice melt.

Other studies also indicate that global warming may not be the cause of melting Arctic sea ice. Last year, a team led by Son Nghiem of NASAs Jet Propulsion Laboratory, in Pasadena, Calif., studied trends in Arctic perennial ice cover by combining data from NASAs Quick Scatterometer (QuikScat) satellite with a computing model based on observations of sea ice drift.

The conclusion of the NASA team was as follows: “Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic”. So, in effect, polar wind patterns changed and blew the sea ice further south to warmer waters leading to the record Arctic ice melt.

The fact is that there is so much that is unknown about how our climate changes over many thousands of years of time. This lack of knowledge makes it very easy for environmental alarmists to use melting Arctic ice and blame it on global warming due to a man-made increase in CO2 gas.

The point is that the cause of all that melting Arctic sea ice may have many different explanations. Indeed, melting Arctic Sea ice may well turn out to be just more misguided man-made global warming hype.

Global warming research has become a very big business throughout the world. Each year billions of dollars are spent studying climate change. The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), now has an annual budget that has reached more than $136 million. The Bush Administration has spent more than thirty billion dollars on federal programs involved in global warming in the last six years. In total, global warming proponents are estimated to have been funded by more than fifty billion dollars during the last decade. This huge money stream is flowing directly into the pockets of the advocates of man-made global warming. It is a river of money that can only be shut off if it is discovered that man does not cause global warming and that climate change is really out of our control. In effect, the same people that benefit from the huge research funding pool would have to be motivated to shut it off.

The truth is that the business objective of the man-made global warming bandwagon is an increasing flow of scientific research grants and bureaucratic jobs. The worse the man- made global crisis, the better for the global warming business. In addition, the news media loves stories of fear. This makes man-made global warming a big business for television, magazines, and books as well. Various “experts” on man-made global warming appear regularly on television to remind everyone of the upcoming global climate catastrophe in the next century. Unfortunately, its not in the interest of the media to cast doubt on man-made global warming. It is a very good business for them. The fact is that very little news media coverage is given to research that brings into doubt the so-called scientific man-made global warming consensus. Therefore, it is not surprising that we have not heard much from the news media on the recent blockbuster report (December 2007) in the prestigious International Journal of Climatology (Royal Meteorological Society), of professors: David H. Douglass (of the University of Rochester), professor John R. Christy (of the University of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson and professor S. Fred Singer (of the University of Virginia). In this report the scientists found: “that observed patterns of temperature changes over the last 30 years disagree with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability”. Their conclusion was that climate change is “unstoppable” and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation. Dr. S. Fred Singer, said: The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals. “Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless but very costly.” The news media has also not made us aware that data (2005) from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide “ice caps” near Mars’ south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row. This means that both the Earth and Mars have been experiencing similar degrees of global warming. Of course, the problem for the man-made global warming crowd is that there are no humans on Mars for them to blame for that planet’s warming. In a National Geographic story on February 2007, Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the Sun. He reasons that “The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars.” The man-made global warming industry should remind us of the tulip bulb mania in Holland in 1636. The history books tell us that in 1593 tulips were brought from Turkey and introduced to the Dutch. The novelty of the new flower made it widely sought after. After a time, the tulips contracted a non-fatal virus known as mosaic, which altered them causing different colors to appear on the petals. The color patterns came in a wide variety and increased the popularity of the flower. The increase in popularity of the tulip led to a rise in its price. Soon everyone began to deal in tulip bulbs. It became a very big business. Eventually things became so crazy that people were selling everything they owned, including their homes and livestock, to buy tulip bulbs. At the time, the consensus expectation was that the tulip bulb would continue to grow in value forever. In 1636, tulips were listed on the Amsterdam stock exchange which further accommodated the tulip speculators who had become the primary market for tulip bulbs. The price of a tulip bulb at the height of this mania was $76,000. In the next six weeks tulip bulbs would drop in value to less than one dollar. Today, man-made global warming is similar to the tulip bulb mania in Holland in 1636. It is an issue that has been hyped into a huge business. The absurd consensus in Holland in 1636 was that tulips were so unique that they would continue to increase in value forever. The current global warming crowd wants us to believe that global warming is controllable and man-made. There is no conclusive evidence that global warming is man-made and all contrary evidence is dismissed and ridiculed. We are told that we must act now to save the planet or our world will be lost to a multitude of catastrophic events in the future. The inconvenient truth of all this is that, like the Holland tulip bulb in 1636, man-made global warming hype has entered the world of the absurd. We may think the price of $76,000 for a tulip bulb in Holland was silly. However, how silly is it when compared to the global warming hype of today? Indeed in the future people will look back with humor on a decade when tens of billions of dollars were spent in an attempt to convince society that the warming of Earth was due to man and not a function of the Sun. James William Smith has worked in senior management positions for some of the largest financial services firms in the United States for the last twenty five years. He has also provided business consulting support for insurance organizations and start up businesses. Mr. Smith has a Bachelor of Science Degree from Boston College. He enjoys writing articles on political, national, and world events. Visit his website at http://www.eworldvu.com Related Articles – science, environment, global warming, man-made global warming, United Nations, bush administration, Email this Article to a Friend!Receive Articles like this one direct to your email box!Subscribe for free today!

Carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas linked to global warming, is accumulating in the Earth’s atmosphere at an increasing rate, according to a new study released by the US government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The research has renewed concern that the ability of the environment to absorb the gas may be waning. The NOAA study said the average atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 reached 381 parts per million, up from 2.6 ppm since 2004. The annual rate of increase, which has been recorded since the 1950s, now exceeds 2 ppm for three of the past four years. This is an unprecedented increase; 50 years ago, the annual increase was less than 1 ppm.
The extra CO2 is produced by the burning of fossil fuels, currently emitting approximately 7 billion tons of carbon per year, and roughly half is absorbed by vegetation and the oceans. Researchers believe the yearly fluctuations in CO2 build-up are caused largely by nature’s variable ability to absorb the emissions. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is now higher than experienced on Earth for at least the last 400,000 years, and the rise is expected to continue. Over the past two decades, only half of the CO2 released by human activities such as fossil fuel burning, the so-called “anthropogenic CO2,” is still in the atmosphere; about 30% has been taken up by the ocean, and 20% by the terrestrial biosphere.
This new finding follows reports that 2005 was probably the warmest year on record, with temperatures slightly higher than the previous peak in 1998. Also, scientists at the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, in Boulder, Colorado, reported that Arctic sea ice did not reform fully in the winter of 2005 after record rates of melting during the summer.
Until recently the largest increases in concentrations of CO2 always occurred during El Niño years, when tropical vegetation grows more slowly due to lack of rain and fires occur in dried-out rainforests. The greatest recorded increase of 2.7 ppm occurred in the El Niño year of 1998. However, scientists are alarmed by the fact that none of the past three years of near-record increases have coincided with an El Niño event.
According to Peter Cox, a scientist at the Center for Ecology and Hydrology in Dorset, UK, who studies the interaction between plants and the atmosphere, the recent surge in CO2 levels “may be the first evidence of a feedback from the carbon cycle, in which plants under heat stress from global warming start to absorb less carbon dioxide”.
Not only are plants slowing their rate of CO2 absorption, but coastal carbon sinks are shrinking as well. Mangrove forests, which play a large role in sequestering carbon from the atmosphere and dissolving it into the ocean, are disappearing rapidly. A research team led by Thorsten Dittmar of Florida State University in Tallahassee studied how much mangroves contribute to the organic carbon dissolved in ocean waters off the coast of Brazil. They came to the conclusion that even though intertidal mangrove forests cover only 0.1% of the earth’s surface, they contribute up to 10 per cent worldwide of the ocean’s dissolved organic carbon. This is approximately equal to the amount reaching the ocean from the Amazon river, the largest single source of dissolved organic carbon.
Intertidal forests of mangroves surround many tropical coastlines. Mangroves, like all plants, fix carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis and return organic material to the soil when they decompose. Their tangled root systems also collect fallen leaf litter. However, mangrove roots and soil are washed over by tides, and much of this organic carbon leaches into the ocean. Unlike CO2 absorbed directly from the atmosphere, much of the carbon produced by mangrove trees is bound up in large molecules which are highly resistant to decomposition, and is therefor likely to be held in the ocean for decades instead of being returned to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.
Mangrove forests have declined by nearly fifty percent during the past century due to increasing coastal development and habitat damage, such as the draining of swamps for agriculture. As the habitat has changed, fewer mangrove trees and their derived detritus are available to bind and export dissolved organic matter into the ocean. The research team concluded that the rapid decline in mangrove forests threatens to shut off this important link in the carbon cycle, with potentially damaging consequences for atmospheric composition and climate.
Direct absorption of CO2 by the ocean surface also occurs, but it has unfortunate consequences not produced by complex carbon molecules fixed by plants. As dissolved CO2 rises, the pH of the ocean water decreases, becoming more acidic. This low pH causes the calcium carbonate shells of sea creatures to dissolve or form poorly, threatening coral reefs.
A pH reduction of approximately 0.1 unit in surface waters has occurred already due to oceanic uptake of anthropogenic CO2. Scientists estimate that the total drop in surface seawater acidity (pH) will be approximately 0.4 pH units by the end of this century, with an almost 50% increase in the concentration of dissolved carbonate ion concentration. The surface ocean pH drop would be lower than it has been for more than twenty million years.

There are still some people out there who refuse to believe that global warming is happening. Even some supposedly educated scientists still say that global warming is not happening, and that the way humans are treating the environment will not contribute to the destruction of the planet.
How Can You Say Global Warming is Not Happening?
You do not need to have a degree to know if global warming is happening or not. Nor do you need to study the huge number of white papers and reports where scientists discuss the state of the environment. Al you need to do is watch the changes to the climate in your local area to see that the world overall is getting hotter.
Note that for the past several years, the glaciers around the planet have been melting due to extreme heat. According to studies, about 84% the glaciers in the Antarctic have shown signs of melting in the past 50 years due to warmer climate. On the other hand, the Peruvian Andes which have always been known for its great glacier caps have been reported to be melting really fast for the past 50 years due to warmer weather. Given the fact that the glaciers in many parts of the world are melting due to warmer weather, one cannot really say in all honesty that there is no global warming.
What Can You Do To Prevent It?
Everyone can do something to help prevent global warming. One of the best things to do is plant trees – the trees will reduce the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Since greenhouse gases are one of the primary causes of global warming, reducing the amount of carbon dioxide will have a big benefit, and will stop the earth from warming up even further.
Beyond planting trees, anything you can do to reduce fuel consumption will help – walk, cycle or use public transport instead of driving everywhere. Turn off appliances when they are not in use – insulate your house and turn the thermostat down a little during the winter, and consider using renewable energy whenever possible. Also, don’t commit things to landfill when they could be recycled.
Small lifestyle changes may not seem like a big deal, but if you persuade others to make small changes as well, then together, we can have a big impact. We all have a part to play. Let’s start today!

Before the dawn of man, there was an indisputable history of climate change. Some of which were dramatic climatic shifts: horrendous storms, numerous ice ages, temperature extremes, huge masses of formerly fertile land converted to desert. All this is part of the rich and continuing tapestry of our planet Earths climate. The important point is that climate change exists without any influence of man whatsoever, and was around long before even the existence of life itself. Indeed mankind owes its very existence directly to the Earths episodes of climate change.
Ironically much of the modern countryside (whats left of it) is on the whole a manmade construction that in many ways can be superior to wild unrestrained growth. But it is the onslaught of the Industrial Revolution that really provided a quantum leap in mankinds impact on the planet. Following a period of largely agricultural economy, the industrial revolution originated in Britain in the late 19th Century. This saw a dramatic expansion of manmade activity, with the steam engine, railways, electricity generation, and factory production amongst many key factors leading to the current Western modern consumer led culture. This also vastly increased the amount of man-made pollutant waste products both on ground and in the air, accompanied by increasing population and urbanisation of much of the land.

By the 1970s much of the western world became increasingly urban, with concrete jungles and proliferation of manmade gadgets. Climate wise some scientists were predicting an imminent Ice Age, this was taken up by much of the media, and popular opinion was that the Earth was cooling. In fact within 20,000 years time was the imminent projection. The point is that it can be very easy to get things dramatically wrong or misinterpreted for such a complex prediction; this is especially pertinent if this culminates in a drastic change in habits, which would with hindsight appear foolish or worse it is quite possible that matters could be made inadvertently worse. There also appears to be a protest vogue, where certain groups of people continually protest about something. A bit of a stereotype, but such protesting individuals are more likely to come from a social science, arts, or unemployed background rather than followers of pure science in the traditional sense. The point is the postulation that man created CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) emissions will result in global warming, is often portrayed as an indisputable scientific fact it is not, many prominent scientists dispute this. A quick Google search of List Scientists Opposing Global Warming will verify this.
The fear of a possible Ice Age has been replaced with a fear of global warming. The theory sounds plausible enough, pollutants put into the atmosphere create a greenhouse gas effect where heat can penetrate, but cannot so easily escape, creating an escalating temperature pattern. Al Gore in his famous documentary An Inconvenient Truth has basically taken it as read that it is an indisputable fact that man is causing irreversible climate change by emissions of CO2 gas, and has shown graphs showing the irrefutable link between CO2 and increasing heat. The trouble is on closer examination, the charts show CO2 lagging behind the rising temperature; this tends to support rising heat being the cause of increased CO2 levels not the other way around.

It must be said at this juncture, that the author does not know for certain one way or the other the definitive impact excessive CO2 emissions have on the climate. Considering man is responsible for around 0.28% of greenhouse gas emissions including water vapour, intuitively the amount appears to be minimal. The computer modelling which has been used to predict the effects of CO2 are not perfect and by no means conclusive that man created emissions will lead to cataclysmic global warming. The point is that on detailed scrutiny, this is not an exact science, and if life changing habits are the result of the global warming philosophy the science needs to provide precise reinforcement. It is quite possible to end up doing more damage through mistaken, albeit well meaning change in habits. An example is prioritising reducing CO2 emissions by burning corn and wheat products, rather than the chemically and more efficient life sustaining option of eating them!

CO2 emissions can be measured or at least fairly accurately estimated, and if it can be measured it can be taxed and utilised as a means of control. Climate Change tax provides a perfect opportunity for governments to raise revenues; any dissenters are faced with the charge of destroying the planet. However, what if this is the ultimate con? An analogy are slimming products, there is an awful lot of money being made from them but to lose weight surely should involve the lowering food consumption, which should mean lower bills to the slimmer. In similar manner reduction of CO2 emissions should really mean strategies for lowering costs; instead governments appear to target areas which do not significantly change behaviour but bring in much in the way of income and hence cost to the general public.

The current vogue in solely focussing on CO2 emissions to avert disastrous climate change is flawed in this authors firm opinion. Notwithstanding that this strategy may be a waste of time, money and effort or worse inherently wrong; there is a wider global view of mankinds impact on planet Earth that appears to have taken second place in the current obsession on CO2 emissions. Pollution can take many forms, the planets population is increasing towards unsustainable levels, many resources are being wasted, and heritage both natural and manmade are being destroyed. This has coincided with western governments becoming ever more wasteful, bureaucratic and controlling, particularly in the UK and USA.

There is a real possibility that millions of people have been suckered into a climate change ideology albeit for all the right altruistic reasons; but have inadvertently ended up as pawns to be manipulated at will by profit driven corporations and controlling governments.

For further information on this article see http://www.datalite.org/global-warming-climate-change-ultimate-con.html