Global Warming

Sea Ship Dev asked:


What effects of Climate change on carbon and nitrogen cycles?

Really need too know thanks!

Arnold

Arjun Singhe asked:


Many people believe that global warming is caused solely by the human beings that are on the planet.  It may be surprising to know that global warming is also a naturally occurring event.  It can easily be argued that whatever global warming occurs naturally on the planet is a fraction of what humans are capable of contributing. 

The human causes of global warming have been occurring for many years.  The various methods in which humans contribute to global warming include everything from driving cars to simply breathing.  Natural causes of global warming can be on a much larger scale that could be from sources outside of our planet.  Whether the cause is natural or human, global warming is a serious problem that everyone should be aware of.

Different Natural Causes Of Global Warming

One natural cause of global warming involves the sun.  Overtime explosions are generated on the surface of the sun and the impact is felt all the way back on Earth.  The impact comes in the form of higher temperatures which directly affect global warming.  These eruptions occur quite normally on the sun and the planet can be regularly subjected to the increased temperatures that result.

As both the Sun and the Earth orbit there are certain times that the two come closer to one another.  When this happens it is normal to see an increase in temperatures on the planet.  This is a great example of a natural cause of global warming. There is nothing we can actually do to prevent this from happening as it is part of the natural course of the universe.

Earth has numerous volcanoes that litter its surface.  Some actively are erupting while many others sit dormant waiting for their next opportunity to unleash their fury.  When these volcanoes do erupt they send numerous gases, ash, and smoke into the atmosphere of the planet.  As this happens the temperatures will slowly decrease.  This is because the sunlight that would typically shine in the area is shielded by the smoke released by the volcano.  Once the effects of the volcano have subsided the planet will naturally warm itself back up.

Any change that might occur in the planets ocean currents can effect global warming as well.  It is thought that these changes in the current can be influenced by the sun.  Depending on the location and the degree of the change in the ocean current, temperatures can increase dramatically which contributes to global warming.



Nellie

Enviro Saver asked:

A common mistake made by people who have a limited understanding about global warming will often loosely refer to the problem as either climate change or global warming. While the two have much to do with each other, they are two separate things that are related to the same cause, which is carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere by human activity. Global warming is referring to the rise in the average global temperature. It is this rise in temperature that causes the climate changes being seen around the world.

It may seem like it isn’t a big deal, but this really is something people should be concerned about. Global warming has been proven to be greatly caused by the greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide that people are putting into the air through their daily activities. These emissions are caused by cars, airplanes, factories, businesses, or anything else that burns fossil fuels. While there are other greenhouse gases put into the air, carbon is what makes up the largest contributor from human activities. Many don’t realize that global warming affects everyone, perhaps not in the most obvious way every day, but it does affect everyone. Global warming is what is causing the earth to warm, which, as mentioned before, causes the major climate changes that are being seen. What are some of these major climate changes and what does this have to do with people? Floods, severe hurricanes, odd weather patterns such as abnormally cold or warm winters; all of these are products of global warming.

Food and resources come from the natural world and if global warming causes severe drought (which it is in many places around the world), the crop yield will be much lower and money is lost. Not to mention that it’s less food available to people. Global warming is also what is warming the polar ice caps and drying up other fresh water resources. Life needs fresh water and without it, life tends to die.

It is something that people can change if they can take responsibility over it. It is possible to slow and stop the global warming, making the world a healthier place with the necessary resources available. It means that the burning of fossil fuels has to stop. Using energy sources that don’t require the burning of fossil fuels is what is needed. The sun and wind are both excellent examples of the tireless sources of energy available to humans. Saving water and producing less waste is also needed to reduce the carbon emissions. As more people turn to alternatives instead of burning fossil fuels, global warming could be stopped, which in turn would stop causing the major climate changes that have been the cause of such devastation in recent years.

Edith

Christophe Catesson asked:


A report of the effects of global warming on health published by WHO, has estimated around one million fifty thousand deaths every year due to global warming. Further it declared that each year five million people are suffering from health problems and diseases caused for this global warming. The rising concern over this matter has led many scientists and researchers to take a deeper look and prepare a plan to save human civilization from this onslaught.

Global warming has caused changes in temperature, ocean current flow, sea level, ecosystem, economy, agriculture, industry, settlements and related to all these - the health and living. Warmer world has created congenial atmosphere for the breeding and life expanse of various virus, bacteria and carriers of infectious diseases. Few evidences of global warming leaving negative effects on human health are -

- The vectors distribution of infectious diseases have been altered for global warming.

- Heat wave resulted for global warming are causing deaths.

- The seasonal distribution of few species of allergenic pollen have been altered for global warming.

- Various extreme conditions of global warming like droughts, heat and cold wave, storm, flood, fire will increase the death tolls as well as injuries and diseases.

- Malnutrition and disordered development of children are few long term results of global warming.

- Global warming will cause increase of malaria, diarrhea, cholera, dengue, encephalitis and other diseases.

- There will be constant rising rate of mortality due to ground level ozone related diseases as well as high cardio respiratory morbidity for global warming.

Thus global warming will affect human health in two major ways - with extreme weather condition and with rising infectious diseases. IPCC in a study of one of the most global warming affected area of Illionis, Chicago, has provided an apprehensive report that by 2020 extreme climate condition like heat wave will raise the climate average deaths to 400 and to 497 by 2050 from the present average of 191. European heat wave of 2003 is an example of its severity. Heat waves will even cause cardio respiratory complications resulting to high rate of deaths.

The results of ill health due to global warming and infectious diseases are already evident. Houston as well as many tropical countries are experiencing frequent outbreak of malaria, dengue and other encephalitis diseases. Even colder regions like Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Queens are severely suffering from malaria since 1990 as a result of global warming. McAllen of Texas also suffered a dengue epidemic in 1995. Florida, New Oreleans, Arizona, Mississippi, Texas, Colorado, and California - all are experiencing encephalitis epidemic for global warming since 1987. According to IPCC, 65% of world population will suffer from high risk of infectious diseases in near future. The risk itself will be increased by 20%, only as a result of global warming.

Facing such an impending calamity due to global warming, the requirement of proper planning and organized adaptation to new and changing condition has received a new dimension. Along with urgent and basic adaptation practices to fight the immediate effects, a longer planning and elaborate gradual methodology are also necessary to address the severity of future conditions resulted from global warming. A participatory approach to the holistic development of human health is expected to sober down the effects of global warming on health to some extent.



Michele

Joost Hoogstrate asked:


Have you ever listened to discussions and read articles about global warming and wondered why the resource person or the writer appears so emphatic and urgent in their call for fighting it? Well that is because global warming is an urgent problem that needs immediate action and resolution before it gets worse and could spell the end of human life and civilization as we see it today.

Broadly speaking, global warming is the steady increase of the atmosphere’s and ocean’s average temperature. And before you go saying ‘Big deal’ to yourself and scoff at the near-catastrophic predictions made by scientists and advocates, consider first some of the expected effects of global warming to our environment and to our very lives.

One of the most pronounced effects of global warming would be glacial retreat, in which glaciers in the Arctic region may be steadily melting. This translates to elevation of sea levels all over the world, raising concerns over obliteration of small islands and even countries. Global warming is also attributed to influence precipitation, leading to the possibility of increased flooding in some parts of the world and increased drought elsewhere. What’s scary about these projected changes is the complete inability of man to counteract and prevent them once these events start happening.

But then again, global warming effects are not solely manifested in the environment. Consider the effect of increased drought and flooding to food supply, and ultimately, to food consumption. Agriculture is one large sector expecting to bear the worst of the brunt of global warming, with lesser and lesser produce and crops expected to be harvested in the next decade or so. Now that is really scary, considering we all get a large portion of our food supply from farms.

Weather experts are also predicting extreme weather events due to global warming, ranging from severe snowstorms to intense cyclones and hurricanes in tropical areas.

The increase in the average temperature of oceans in our planet also means dwindling in the supply of our other food source. The rest of the world might not come to realize how fragile most of the sea organisms are and expected changes in temperature would bring about extinction to most of them. Carbon dioxide, the main culprit of global warming, is also expected to acidify ocean waters, leading to more extinction and disruption of the food web.

It is also worth considering the impact of global warming on human health as well. With increasing surface temperature, heat waves are expected to occur more frequently, possibly endangering children and the elderly. Many pathogens proliferate much faster in warm environment. Increasing atmospheric temperature could very well mean faster proliferation of these pathogens that would cause numerous diseases and illnesses to humans. There is also expected spread of fatal tropical diseases as the world becomes warmer and warmer, placing those living in temperate regions at higher risks.

The mentioned risks and dangers are but overviews of the complexity and gravity of the problem that is global warming. A lot of resources and references have been published and produced on the subject matter and it’s time people should sit up and make effort to learn more. With increasing knowledge and understanding, the fight against global warming would no longer seem to be overwhelming and insurmountable. And as cliché as it may sound, this is one fight nobody can ever win alone, so concerted efforts are certainly needed and cooperation from all sectors would be very much welcome.



Juan

Ernie Fitzpatrick asked:


I wonder what Al Gore will do when he finally realizes that the global warming hype is just that? I wonder if Barack Obama will wise up the global warming implications as well. Heavy snow and record low temperatures are being seen around the globe and it’s not just because it’s winter, nor because we just crossed the winter solstice.

The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is going to wreck havoc with Al’s theory as well as cause mjor problems for California in the ensuing years. PDO is a long-lived El Niño-like pattern of Pacific climate variability. While the two climate oscillations have similar spatial climate fingerprints, they have very  a different behavior in time. Fisheries scientist Steven Hare coined the term “Pacific Decadal Oscillation” (PDO) in 1996 while researching connections between Alaska salmon production cycles and Pacific climate.

Here’s what non-biased climatologists see.

The alleged global warming is in for about 30 years of cooling according to NASA, one of the leading global warming theory advocates. Who’s a person to believe? NASA has confirmed that a developing natural climate pattern will likely result in much colder temperatures, according to Marc Shepherd, writing in the April 30 American Thinker. He adds that NASA was also quick to point out that such natural phenomena should not confuse the issue of manmade greenhouse gas induced global warming which apparently will be going on behind the scenes while our teeth are chattering from a decade and a half long cold spell.

A cool-water anomaly known as La Niña occupied the tropical Pacific Ocean throughout 2007 and early 2008. In April 2008, scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory announced that while the La Niña was weakening, the Pacific decadal Oscillation – a larger-scale, Slower-cycling ocean pattern – had shifted to its cool phase.” Will Al Gore believe this?

This shift in the PDO, which could last for 20 or 30 years, can have significant implications for global climate, affecting Pacific and Atlantic hurricane activity, droughts and flooding around the Pacific basin, the productivity of marine ecosystems and global land temperature patterns. Look out California agriculture. The wine industry, fruits and nut growers will be hit with a shorter growing season and more threats of frost, among other things. 

In 1905, the PDO switched to a warm phase, in 1946, PDO switched to a cool phase, and in 1977, PDO switched to a warm phase again. Now they tell us! Says NASA: “Natural, large-scale climate patterns like the PDO and El Niño-La Niña are superimposed on global warming caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and landscape changes like deforestation. According to Josh Willis, JPL oceanographer and climate scientist, ‘These natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.’”

In other words, CO2 is secretly warming the planet. Or maybe not. Maybe it’s due to things in the universe since ALL of the planets in our solar system are warming up. Global warming? Maybe, but not of the genre that Al Gore speaks.



Monica

Christophe Catesson asked:

For a long time it has been believed that the effects of global warming on agriculture and food supply is going to be a positive one. This is because the rising level of carbon-dioxide resulted for global warming will help the greeneries for photosynthesis.

Thus there will be a rise of agricultural production and food supply. The theorem received a boost after the evidence of a sharp rise of barley production as one of the effects of global warming in Iceland which was quite impossible even few years ago.

But more recent experiments and researches have revealed that the effects of global warming on agriculture and food supply are not that good after all. AN UNEP 2001 report on the global warming has predicted that USA is going to have more droughts, floods, landslides and storms.

Winter will gradually be shortened and sobered down, while summer will rise in expansion and severity. Along with this heavy rain, big storm, heavy snowfall, high sea level, increasing coastal erosion and other problems will occur.

Though as one of the effects of global warming, the overall food supply and production level is supposed to rise in USA, but the Great Plains will suffer with more droughts resulting for global warming.

Even now many effects of global warming on agriculture and food supply have been perceived. The popular maple syrup production of North east USA has diminished by 10%, moving its production zone to farther north for shorter and warmer winter.

On the other hand as one of the effects of global warming the south west USA is suffering from a water shortage which will increase in coming days. The zone has become dry for any standard agricultural production with an apprehension of resettling Dust Bowl of 1930s’ by the year 2030 for global warming.

Following a report of IPCC on the global warming, California’s snow covered Sierra Mountains can reduce in near future by up to 60-90%. This will create dire water shortage in summer, making the Central Valley area unsuitable for agricultural production for global warming. The State University of Colorado has declared that the area is going to be less productive due to effects of global warming on agriculture and food supply.

As the effects of global warming, the food supply production in Florida is going to suffer a lot due to frequent and large scale floods. Also one of the most profitable agricultural products of USA - corn will suffer a bad condition due to dry and hot atmosphere for global warming.

As another example of the effects of global warming on agriculture and food supply - with the rise of temperature by 3 to 11 degrees in this century, the production rate of the main crops - the rice, corn, wheat, barley, soybeans and sorghum - will be cut down by 3-5% for each point rise of temperature for global warming.

However with all these effects of global warming on agriculture and food supply, new attempts have been made to adjust the agricultural and food production method according to the changing atmosphere. So to fight the effects of global warming, the researchers have established new methods of production with continuous revision of models. But still the best possible process to reduce the effects of global warming on agriculture and food supply is to be established.

Mary

Diana Trimble asked:


It’s not just the planet that’s hotting up, it’s the whole debate about global warming. Especially now that we can see and feel its effects every day. Yet you’ve probably noticed that when it comes to taking action, the focus always seems to be on what each of us can do personally. We the people must use energy-saving light bulbs, fly less, recycle, use green energy, take our appliances off standby, and so on. But perhaps, like me, these entreaties leave you feeling a bit ripped off. Perhaps you, too, are wondering what part business, industry and governments have to play? It’s certainly true that there are things individual citizens can and must do, but surely really significant reductions ultimately depend on tough, international legislative action. After all, if personal responsibility were all that has ever been necessary to solve problems, why were political systems and governments invented in the first place? Once we’ve taken individual action, is that it? Or is there more to be done? What really seems to be needed is a way of acting collectively to ensure that governments around the world start co-operating to solve global warming instead of talking more hot air while the planet burns.

In his film, An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore rightly points out that collective action depends on political will, but this, he says, is in short supply. Right again! The reasons for its scarcity, he suggests, are that it’s simply not in the short-term interests of the main polluting nations and their industries to take substantive action. So far so good, but the cartoon image he uses to hammer his point home is an unfortunate one: a pair of scales with gold bars on one side and the entire planet on the other. Gore uses this to demonstrate the absurdity of those who see economic prosperity and a healthy planet as an either/or choice: after all, what value could gold bars have if there’s no habitable planet in which to enjoy them? It’s plainly ridiculous, and so too, suggests Gore, is the reluctance of some to give up the gold bars.

But rather than ridicule those who fear for their short-term interests, shouldn’t we be trying to look at what may be their perfectly legitimate point, and trying to understand the forces that keep it relevant? Gore may have faced the inconvenient truth of global warming, but he is yet to face a second inconvenient truth: that stiff action on the part of the rich countries WILL have adverse economic effects, at least in the short term. And if global warming is dealt with in isolation, those costs WILL fall heaviest on the USA and on other big polluters. To deny the barrier to action that these short-term costs and disincentives represent, as Gore seems to, is to fall into the same trap as those who deny global warming itself.

I laughed along with everyone else when I saw the gold vs earth cartoon, but making fun of those who are wary of economic backlash is hardly likely to elicit the consensus Gore seeks. It also seems like a cheap shot when you keep in mind that had Gore actually become President in 2000, he would inescapably have joined the ranks of those he’s poking fun at. The president of the U.S. has only four years before facing another election, so Gore’s popularity and tenure in office would have been directly influenced by his corporate funders and their support for short-term gains to the US economy.

Today, there may only be few people who still cling to denying global warming. But knowledge and acceptance can’t effect change by themselves. What is urgently needed is a means to unlock the short-term barriers and disincentives that prevent decisive collective action - nationally and internationally. Make no mistake: in today’s globalised and largely borderless world, capital and jobs generally move to wherever in the world environmental and social costs are lowest and profits therefore highest. Any government moving first to significantly increase environmental costs or regulations in a bid to reduce emissions would definitely see investment and jobs moving elsewhere, thus making the nation uncompetitive. That’s why nothing changes except the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere just keeps on rising. Prime Minister Tony Blair at least seemed to recognise these realities when he pointed out that “The blunt truth about the politics of climate change is that no country will want to sacrifice its economy in order to meet this challenge”.[i]

Unlike Gore, Blair clearly recognises this second inconvenient truth and he should not be blamed for stating it. But his statement only holds true IF nations fail to act together. This is the barrier that keeps the gold bars firmly on one side of the scales. However, if all nations co-operated, the necessary regulations could be implemented without any nation fearing capital or employment flight because there would be no low-cost haven for them to run to. Corporations, too, would have nothing to fear because all corporations would be subject to the same additional costs, so maintaining their relative competitiveness and their relative profitability. Think about that for a minute.

But there is a further problem: the biggest polluter, the USA, would have the biggest adjustment cost, so it has the least incentive to sign up to any cooperative agreement. This is why the Kyoto Protocol is not supported by the USA and Australia, another big polluter. It is also why the provisions of the Kyoto agreement are so mild and relatively ineffectual. Because if the nations supporting Kyoto agreed to tougher, more significant curbs, the costs involved would make them uncompetitive with nations, such as the USA and Australia, who refuse to participate.

The net result is a recipe for missed targets and an intergovernmental dead-lock of a kind which raises the third, final and most important inconvenient truth; this time one that concerns not so much governments or businesses but each of us as individual citizens. It’s a truth which all citizens around the world must urgently take on board: that we can no longer abdicate responsibility for taking collective action to politicians and governments alone. If free-riding governments are to be compelled to co-operate, then it must be citizens who force them to do so. We have no choice but to take the initiative, and stop assuming that politicians are in the driving seat of the global economy. It’s time to grab hold of the steering wheel and find a way of driving our politicians and governments toward co-operation. What’s needed is a method of achieving cooperation which removes the barriers and objections, takes away the fears of being uncompetitive, and replaces those fears with an enthusiasm for shared problem-solving.

When Al Gore became fully aware of the dangers of global warming, he travelled far and wide to gain a deeper understanding of the science and its real-world effects, and justifiably so (although I do hope he planted plenty of trees to personally offset his carbon emissions). But Gore and the rest of us have so far failed to embark on another, far more urgent line of enquiry. If we genuinely wish to solve global warming and other global problems, we need to gain a deeper understanding of the barriers to collective government action under globalisation. For the deeper truth is that global warming and many other global “problems” are not the real problems at all. They are merely symptoms, albeit terrifying ones, of our failure as a global human society to co-operate. Until we understand the dynamics of co-operation and how to achieve it, and what we as citizens can do to unblock the barriers to it, international inaction, missed targets and deepening chaos will continue and global warming may well destroy human civilisation.

The Simultaneous Policy, a global citizen’s initiative, claims to have begun this vital journey and to offer a plausible and effective way that citizens can use their right to vote in a new way that drives the politicians of all parties and nations to collectively implement the measures we so desperately need. It seems that political representatives would find it a welcome relief to be freed from the restrictions that keep them beholden to big business interests and confined to wholly inadequate policies dictated by the need to keep their nations “internationally competitive”. This is reflected in the fact that already politicians from opposing sides of the spectrum - nationally and internationally - are pledging their support for the Simultaneous Policy as a result of voter pressure and/or enlightened social responsibility. Check it out for yourself at www.simpol.org - as Noam Chomsky commented, “Can it work? It’s certainly worth a serious try!”



Sean