Welcome to global warming awareness 2007.

Welcome to global warming awareness 2007.

Well I accidently felt over this seo contest surfing the internet and on normal circumstances I would nerver participate in such at thing as the “global warming awareness 2007” contest, but by clicking around the sites in the contest, I decided that maybe this was right for me.
The thing is that the keywords, global warming, and awareness said something to me, and it hurts me to see some peoples reaction, to this contest and the keywords to it. I was shocked when I visited this site (I wont link to it ) globalwarming-awareness2007.isabloodycloaker dot com) This stupid moran have got this whole thing wrong, because I think that the global warming keywords are a totally great idea. Now you are probably thinking why is that. ?
The world seo championship has here by added a totally new thing to the contest by choosing these keywords, and that new thing is responsibility ! and I bellive that it is time that what all start to take responsibility to our actions in live, and to this contest. it is our responsibility to make our global warming awareness sites as informational as possible on this issue, so that when people surf the net, looking for global warming sites, and they enter one of the sites from this contest, they will get what they have been looking for, and not some crap site written by a totally idiot.

I am not a professor in global warming, but I will tell some of the facts I know, and besides that I will try to collect as much information on the awareness of the global warming, and post it here on this page.

A couple of weeks ago I went down to the gas station in my neigbor hood to rent a film, and on the dvd staples I saw a film called AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH.
I had seen some commercials in the televison for this film, and understood that this was a movie about global warming and on planet crisis. So I thought why not ? And rented it.
And I must admit that I was totally shocked when I saw this film. If you havent seen it I highly recommend that you do ASAP. The movie is made by former Vice President Al Gore, and I must admit that I have become a fan of this man, and his awareness of the global warming situation on our planet earth. The main reason why I was so impressed Al Gore, is that he takes responsibility for the global warming. As I look on Amercia they have always been the good guys (and always make it look that way) especially when it comes to the us government. But in this movie Al Gore speaks straight from his heart, and tells that America is the worst country, when it comes to creating global warming, and pollution in all kinds. And that is what I call taking responsibility, and if we all learn to do that everything will be way easier to manage.

I will be updating this site on a daily basis. If you are a professor or just a person who are aware of the global warming situation and feel that you would like to share something with other people do not hesitate to mail me my mail is elgynventegodt@hotmail.com you are also more than welcome to use the forum. All the best Michael

Global warming is a much disputed issue that can leave the average individual quite confused. Unfortunately, there are no straightforward answers. For those of us who are not scientists, it is easy to be overwhelmed by the contradictions. It is much more convenient to just give the whole thing up and enjoy the weather or not, as the case might be.

However, just because you are not a scientist does not mean that you must be misinformed or uninformed. There is a middle ground where you can get a reasonable perspective on global warming and global climate change.

Climate science is very complicated and the controversy surrounding it is only natural. It is in the nature of science to evolve and change. Through all the debate in climatology, a consensus is now beginning to emerge which accepts that our planet is experiencing the effects of global warming.

The following article gives a brief outline of the history of our planet, its current state, and what you may expect in the near future. The facts listed here are based in climatology.

Greenhouse Effect

Though this term is often tossed around as a problem, the fact is that the greenhouse effect is a natural aspect of the Earth's atmosphere and more than that it is a key component of the climate as we know it today. Left in its natural state ,the greenhouse effect would keep the average temperature at around 59 degrees Fahrenheit (15 degrees Celsius). Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth would probably not support the life we know as the temperature would be 0 degree Fahrenheit (18 degrees Celsius).

The term greenhouse effect comes because the effect is propagated through greenhouse gases with Carbon Dioxide (CO2) forming the biggest contributor. Greenhouse gases trap the heat that the planet receives from the sun ,thereby leading to a livable atmosphere and a stable climate. Carbon dioxide is produced through animal respiration. This mixes into the atmosphere and is absorbed by plants that use photosynthesis and release oxygen. The same oxygen is inhaled by animals and this cycle goes on in perpetuity.

The Human Contribution

Humanity has always relied on fuel of some sort but it is the beginning of the industrial revolution around 1750 that we started burning fossil fuels with utter disregard for consequences. Coal, oil, and natural gas are the popular forms of fossil fuels and all of them, when burned, release CO2 into the atmosphere. Besides CO2, other human activities release other greenhouse gases. Agriculture leads to methane and nitrous oxide excess while aerosol propellants produce CFCs (Chloroflourocarbons) that are directly damaging to the ozone layer. However, when viewed in terms of sheer volume nothing compares to excessive CO2 and its effect on the atmosphere.

At the beginning of the industrial revolution, CO2 had a concentration of 275 parts per million as a global average. Today, that same value stands at 350 parts per million, a staggering 30% increase that is increasing. The second half of the twentieth century has witnessed a further acceleration in this phenomenon.

Data from all over the world shows that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is steadily increasing as more and more countries are industrialized.

Global Temperature

Recording temperature at one place is quite easy but how does on figure out the global temperature?

There are temperature records from many locations all over the world that are more than a century old. As is to be expected, these records show a huge variation depending on where the data was recorded. However, between all the confusion there is still the fact that everywhere the temperature seems to have gone up by 1 degree Fahrenheit (or ½ degree Celsius) and this change is most precisely seen since the 2nd half of the 19th century. A 1 degree change may not sound like much but it has some huge effect on global climate.

However, there remains the problem of getting accurate data records from all over the world in order to arrive at a reasonably precise figure for global temperature. Some of the problems in doing this are as follow.

* The thermometer has undergone several changes and today it is far more accurate then it was a century and a half ago. So how reliable are the temperature recordings from back then?



* There is something known as an "urban heat island" effect. This basically involves land use and it is known that land use has an effect on local temperature. Cities are hotter than the surrounding countryside. This means that with urbanization a location might record higher temperatures that are not related to global warming. Locations for data recording change ,so their reliability becomes questionable.



* Most records are maintained in industrialized locations. This is known as a geographical bias.



These factors tend to confuse the whole global warming issue because you never know if the data is reliable or not.

This is why the 1 degree change is not taken from raw data but is adjusted to compensate for these factors.

Climate Models

Climatologists use CGMs (Computer Generated Models) in order to predict the change in global temperature based on an increase in greenhouse gases. The CGMs suggest an increase of 1 degree Celsius that is not so far from the actual increase reported but still double and hence a cause for worry. This discrepancy has been among the leading causes of controversy with global warming.

However, science is an evolving mechanism and newer climate models along with modern observations of changes to the Earth's environment have eliminated the reluctance of most climatologists towards global warming.

It is difficult to ignore the effects of global warming when there is clear evidence for rising sea levels, receding glaciers, migrating plants and animals, dying coral reefs, reduced temperature fluctuations, and unexpected and frequent precipitations. All of these events are being recorded all over the world to varying degrees.

Most climatologists are now of the opinion that we are indeed experiencing the ills of global warming.

The next obvious concern is the expected global climate change and its effect on the environment and on the future of humanity.

Politicians Who Make Big Political Announcements On Comedy Shows

John McCain announces for president on the Late Show With David Letterman.

Arnold Schwarzenegger announces for governor on The Tonight Show With Jay Leno.

John Edwards announces for president on the Daily Show with John Stewart.

That just leaves Al Gore announcing for president on The Weather Channel.

World View of Global Warming

The Arctic and Alaska

The Arctic is thawing very rapidly, documented by new reports from scientists and arctic natives. The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment was released in late 2004, and shows changes from the ice at the North Pole to animals and human settlements. More recent reports from Greenland show outlet glaciers moving meters per hour and rapidly thinning. The Arctic Ocean ice cap is shrinking in summer to the smallest it has ever been in modern measurements, and even winter cold has not been refreezing it as extensively as before. That sea ice is habitat for the polar bear. Declines in bear nutrition, birth weight and survival have moved the U.S. government (urged by three environmental groups) to propose the bear be named a species threatened with extinction.

Below and on linking pages, are reports on the latest science and warming effects across Alaska and parts of the Arctic. For more on Arctic natives, please see the Arctic page. Also see Glaciers for more on Greenland and Alaska glaciers.

Pushing the Boundaries of Life: Alaska

The listing of polar bears as threatened under the U.S. endangered species act will name global warming as the main threat, a first. The reduction of the permanent Arctic sea ice by 14 percent since the 1970s is causing not only feeding and breeding difficulties, but also drownings and apparent cannibalism among bears. The listing should be official by the end of 2007. For more information, see Center for Biological Diversity. Scientists are just beginning to see the effects of climate change on other Arctic wildlife. Caribou give birth at specific times and locations, making them susceptible to changes in weather and vegetation. Studies show that the tundra is now blooming slightly earlier and that it is affected by drier summers and heavier winter snow.

Biologist Gus Shaver at one of his experimental plots at Toolik Lake, Alaska, monitors increased birch growth due to experimental fertilization and global warming. Shaver says the results of his experiment suggest that warming eventually will promote the growth of birch at the expense of sedges, forbs, and other plants that caribou and other wildlife favor as food sources. During an initial 15-year study (1981-95, which included the warmest decade on record) the sedge Eriophorum decreased by 30 percent while birch biomass increased, even in control plots. In 2002 Shaver reports the growth of birch has changed the ecology of tundra in some plots by covering and killing moss with large amount of leaf litter.

The great loss of ice from the Arctic, which includes not only the polar sea ice cover but also thawing glaciers and tundra permafrost, has other major implications. One of the most important is that dark open water and tundra absorb much more solar heat than white ice and snow. This is a "feedback loop" that will make changes happen faster.

Another large effect in the Arctic is a freshening of the Arctic Ocean. In late 2002, geochemist Bruce Peterson of the Marine Biological Lab in Woods Hole, MA, and his collaborators in the US and Russia, showed that the major rivers of Siberia and Eurasia are discharging much more water now than in the 1930s. This not only meets the predictions of an effect of climate change, but indicates the scale of change affecting the Arctic.

In late 2002, geochemist Bruce Peterson of the Marine Biological Lab in Woods Hole, MA, and his collaborators in the US and Russia, showed that the major rivers of Siberia and Eurasia are discharging much more water now than in the 1930s. This not only meets the predictions of an effect of climate change, but indicates the scale of another source of added fresh water into the Arctic.

So what is happening to all this fresh water from increased river flow, melting glaciers and shrinking sea ice? It mixes into the Arctic Ocean and the less salty Arctic water flows south around Greenland, to the source of some of the greatest ocean currents.

The interplay of ocean currents in the North Atlantic is very important to climate. Here, between Labrador and Scandinavia, the Gulf Stream brings a huge flow of water from the south, helping warm Europe as it gives up its heat. This water sinks as it cools, to flow back south again in the deep Atlantic. This plunging down of millions of tons of water per second helps propel what has been termed the Great Ocean Conveyor, a system of huge currents transferring heat throughout all oceans and influencing climate.

One key to this system is that the Gulf Stream water becomes more dense as it gives up heat, and it sinks. But the added fresher water coming down from the Arctic is much less dense, and floats on top of the North Atlantic.

Is there enough new fresher water from the Arctic to prevent the Gulf Stream water from sinking to help drive the conveyor of currents? According to recent studies by Dr. Ruth Curry and colleages at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, there is more fresher water in the area than ever measured before. Already sinking rates in some locations are 20 percent less than in the 1970s.

The northern waters are getting fresher while the southern waters (near equator) are increasing in salinity. Curry says this indicates a change in the climate with more precipitation and ice melt in the north and much stronger evaporation in the south. In other words: "Global warming."

Scientists are concerned that the point at which the current Conveyor does begin to slow may be near. Other current research shows the Gulf Stream is not the prime moderator of European temperature (westerly winds play a larger role). Yet climate in Europe and NE North America could chill if the ocean current slows dramatically. This is the jumping off point for a recent Pentagon planning report about possible international unrest caused by climate change, and for the movie "The Day After Tommorow." Scientists say disruptive change is coming -- but much more slowly than depicted in these scenarios.

Reference 6

More Climate Change in Alaska 2 >>

Photographs from the World View of Global Warming are available for license to publications needing science photography, environmental groups and agencies, and other uses. Stock photography and assignments available.

Please contact requestinformation@worldviewofglobalwarming.org or Gary Braasch Photography (503) 699-6666.

Use of photographs in any manner, in part or whole, without permission is prohibited by US copyright law. These photographs are registered with the US Copyright Office and are not in the Public Domain.

Diesel: Global Warming, London

Global warming ready

Advertising Agency: Marcel, Paris, France
Creative director/Copywriter: Frederic Temin
Art directors: Nicolas Chauvin, Romin Favre
Photographer: Terry Richardson

Global warming may have permanently damaged reefs

A dead reef in the Seychelles.

The effects of global warming upon coral reefs have been more devastating than previously believed, according to the first report to show the long-term impact of rising temperatures on fish and invertebrate life.

According to a 50,000 square metre study of 21 sites on the inner islands of the Seychelles undertaken in 1994 and 2005, large areas of coral reef and the organisms that live there, may have been permanently lost due to global warming.

The study, which was undertaken by an international team of biologists, is the first to show the long-term effects of the 1998 heatwave which caused sea temperatures in the Indian Ocean to rise so high that they killed more than 90% of the corals in the inner Seychelles.

Collapsing reefs

Their paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences says that while the 90% loss of coral cover was dramatic enough in itself, the long-term prospects are more bleak and many reefs have been unable to recover and many have collapsed into piles of algae-covered rubble.

The study says that the collapse of reefs, which are in part held together by corals, has led to a drop in the amount of food available and shelter from predators, which has had a knock-on effect to the other reef organisms.

The effects of global warming have not just been damaging corals, either. Four fish species, including two labrid wrasses, a Butterflyfish and a damsel are already believed to be extinct in the area, while others have dropped to critically low levels.

Lead author, Nick Graham of Newcastle University's School of Marine Science and Technology said: "Reefs can sometimes recover after disturbances, but we have shown that after severe bleaching events, collapse in the physical structure of the reef results in profound impacts on other organisms in the ecosystem and greatly impedes the likelihood of recovery.

"Unfortunately it may be too late to save many of these reefs but this research shows the importance of countries tackling greenhouse gas emissions and trying to reduce global warming and its effect on some of the world's finest and most diverse wildlife."

In America, Global Warming Doesn't Even Register.

gratuitous picture of cute animal affected by global warming. suck on that, Cuteoverload!

Click on the amazing graph from yesterday's New York Times article on American opinion about global warming.(below the fold) It doesn't even register as a serious issue. Even when asked about environmental issues, it rates near the bottom, above acid rain and below the ozone hole. We think that Green is going mainstream in America as we read our Vanity Fair, Elle, Time and even Wallpaper this month, but we may be wrong. We are not even on the radar.
From the Times article: "I wish I were more optimistic of our ability to get a broad slice of the public to understand this and be motivated to act," said David G. Hawkins, who directs the climate program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a private group. In an e-mail message, he wrote: "We are sensory organisms; we understand diesel soot because we can smell it and see it. Getting global warming is too much of an intellectual process. Perhaps pictures of drowning polar bears (which we are trying to find) will move people but even there, people will need to believe that those drownings are due to our failure to build cleaner power plants and cars." ::New York Times

Last night's TV: The Great Global Warming Swindle

The Great Global Warming Swindle on Channel 4.

"We're heretics! I'm a heretic. The makers of this programme are heretics." Nigel Calder is explaining how the world sees scientists who deny global warming. Channel 4's The Great Global Warming Swindle made one interesting point - that scientists are not unanimous in their assessment of the connection between global warming and CO2. Most say the second causes the first; a few say the first causes the second. Interesting, huh? Academics in not-all-thinking-exactly-the-same-thing shock. The amazing thing about global warming is not that someone from Winnipeg University disagrees (if you've ever been to Winnipeg, you will know what it means to be forced by your academic qualifications to live there); it's how many people don't disagree.

Sorry, I am just rolling over and handing the refuseniks a piece of their most powerful weaponry - when everyone agrees, why, that's like when we thought the world was flat! Only a few brave voices stood up, and they were ridiculed! I actually had this argument on the Daily Politics with Peter Hitchens. "You can't seriously be contending," said I, "that just because all scientists say you're talking rubbish, that de facto turns you into the brave, lone voice of truth?" (I am buffing my prose a bit, I admit.) "That's the trouble with you Guardian journalists! You only talk to each other!" he retorted.

Calder, incidentally, is billed as the "ex-editor of the New Scientist"; to clarify for a second what they mean by "ex", he was the editor of a non-peer-reviewed journal that, under his relatively short tenure beginning 1962, was five years old. That's like accepting the ex-editor of a student fanzine as a leading authority on Mahler's experiments with harmonic dissonance. Here are the other core arguments against global warming: one, that the earth's temperature is always changing, and we had a mini-ice-age only a couple of hundred years ago; two, that the environmental lobby is just trying to scam the developing world out of developing, by forcing it to use solar power; three - this is a new one on me, I have to admit - that a new breed of "environmental journalists" has such a vested interest in there being an "environmental" case to answer that they effectively bully editors into printing stories that aren't true (they definitely have a point, here - a cancer journalist of my acquaintance recently ripped up the cure for cancer and flushed it down the toilet, because she worried that she might have to move into virus-reporting, and one's 30s simply isn't the time to retrain).

I know Channel 4 has a new remit of its own devising, to make trouble and stir up hornets' nests and all that, but what this amounts to is not mischievous subversion, it's just more of that age-old Fox News formula: take a surprising fact that might make people think, but won't make a programme on its own; gather together some bouncy commentators, stick a snooty voice over the top, create a sense of conflict without properly interrogating the positions taken within it, and aah, Bisto!, you have successfully brought to the world the smell of confusion.

What's a layman to make of all this? Oh me oh my, I'm too confused, I can't make anything of it! I'm just gonna take me a lovely holiday in the sun instead, and to heck with the environmental consequences which many leading people from Winnipeg have already told me aren't true. It's incredibly tacky, global warming aside, this cheap-shot attitude to what can be presented as truth. You can feel its insincerity, even before some frothy, patronising "scientist" bounces on to the screen to say: "If you had x-ray eyes, what appears as a nice yellow ball would appear as a raging tiger!" (That is Calder again. Talking about the sun.)

"You can't seriously be saying that the leftwing doesn't have its own propaganda," a young woman pertinently challenged Al Franken in BBC4's Storyville: Al Franken - God Spoke. I expected him to be annoying, but in fact he responded rather charmingly. She was pretty, I guess. Good God, though, it gave you a horrible insight into what it means to be a polemicist in America. Al Franken, if you remember, wrote Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them, whose subtitle - a Fair and Balanced look at the Right - gave the abovementioned Fox News cause to sue him. "Fair" and "balanced" are their words, apparently. Franken is not without his faults but the man has cojones. He takes on Ann Coulter. Nobody in their right mind would do that. Smarting, she emerged from the debate and a weeny sycophant ran over: "He is, like, totally obsessed by you! Did you hear what he said about your hair!" Coulter, fresh from defeat, stuck out her chin while her ego recharged.

It must be like playing Grand Theft Auto, keeping these people maintained. Storyville rocks. It should get all the licence-fee money.