Submit link

Search Engine Optimization and SEO Tools
free counters

Snows of Kilimanjaro Are Melting

Posted by Atlantis Thursday, November 5, 2009 View Comments

Source:http://www.allgov.com   Thursday, November 05, 2009

Mt. Kilimanjaro
When Ernest Hemingway wrote “The Snows of Kilimanjaro,” he inadvertently crafted a perfect metaphor for the modern problem of global warming now threatening the famous icy peak in Tanzania that inspired the story early in the 20th century. In Hemingway’s 1936 tale, the main character dies having lived a life that was all about the present, with no regard for the future—much the same way modern industrial societies have done without concern for the long-term impact of pouring volumes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere just to meet immediate economic gains. That approach has resulted in noticeable changes to the earth’s landscape, including atop Africa’s highest peak, which within two decades will lose its picturesque glacier, scientists predict.
 
A new study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences says the top of Kilimanjaro—which has been capped by a glacier for 12,000 years—will be ice-free in about 20 years, thanks to global warming. Eighty-five percent of the glacier has melted away since 1912, with 26% having disappeared just within this decade.
 
Researchers from Ohio State University, who drilled into the rock beneath the ice as part of their research, noted that even a drought of 300 years was unable to do the damage humankind has done in less than one century.
-Noel Brinkerhoff

Source: http://www.sidewaysnews.com

Al Gore has published a new book, Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis
Al Gore has published a new book, Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis
Climate change crusader Al Gore says campaigners need more than facts to encourage people to tackle climate change.
The Nobel Prize winner and former US vice president - praised for his film An Inconvenient Truth - has stated that to stop global warming, more needs to be done to ensure that facts are presented in ways that relate to a person's spiritual or moral compass.
Speaking with Newsweek to promote his new book Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis, Gore explained that he is talking to religious leaders to create new ways to showcase the arguments over climate change. He added that a Christian version of his slideshow featuring scriptural references is "probably his favourite".
However, the interview also revealed that Gore has accepted new evidence thatcarbon emissions are not the only issue affecting global warming, as the likes of methane and soot also have a great impact.
"A comprehensive plan to solve the climate crisis has to widen the focus to encompass strategies for all.""Over the years I have been among those who focused most of all on CO2, and I think that's still justified," he explained.

By Channel 4 News


A charity warns that the biggest health threat to children in the 21st century is global warming. Band Aid's Midge Ure travelled back to Ethiopia and speaks to Krishnan Guru-Murthy.

A charity is warning that the biggest health threat to children in the twenty first century is global warming.

Save the Children says that up to a quarter of a million children could die in the next year because of the effects of climate change.

The musician Midge Ure, who co-wrote the Band Aid single "Do They Know It's Christmas" 25 years ago, travelled to Ethiopia with his daughter recently to see how changes in the climate have caused food shortages there.

The Save the Children ambassador and two-time Ivor Novello award winner spoke to Channel 4 News.


Source: www.economictimes.indiatimes.com

India needs to play a leadership role to adapt and mitigate the adverse impact of global warming as it is the most "vulnerable" country to climate change, Union environment minister Jairam Ramesh said. 

"We cannot afford to ignore the threats of climate change as four areas of vulnerabilities exist only in India and nowhere in the world. For instance, if monsoon fails our economy will come to a standstill," Ramesh said at a function to launch the "Climate Change Agenda for Delhi 2009-2012." 
Similarly, he said the vast stretch of coastal lines, Himalayan glaciers in the Northern regions and thick forests in Central India were under threat. 

"Without being told by the world what we should do, we have to be very proactive and take a leadership role and show the global communities how to adapt and mitigate the adverse impact of climate change," the minister added. 

Appreciating the Delhi Government's effort in becoming the first State to prepare the domestic action plan to tackle global warming caused by green house gas emissions, he said, it is in keeping with the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's call all the States to come out with such points. 
He also appreciated the government's 'green initiatives' such as taking solar energy in the households through power tariffs, preparing a map for carbon footprints of the city and greening the capital by setting up urban forests across the city. 

What Will The Climate Be Like in 2100?

Posted by Atlantis Wednesday, November 4, 2009 View Comments

Source: www.knowledge.allianz.com
Stanford University climatologist Stephen Schneider discusses what we know and don’t know about the future of the Earth’s climate, and whether it is worth spending trillions of dollars to fight climate change.

What will the Earth's climate be like at the end of this century?
What's the old joke? Prediction is hard, especially about the future. What do you have to do to predict the climate of 2100? Well, you have to know how much CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, aerosols - that's dust and smoke - are going to be there, because that changes what we call the forcing - the pressures on the climate system - to be warmer or colder. We know it's going to be warmer. That's virtually certain.

But you don't know what those are going to be on the basis of any history. There's never been a time before when there was six to ten billion people on the Earth, when they're demanding dramatic increases in their standards of living, and when they're using the cheapest available technology - usually coal and oil burning, big cars - to get there. So, before you can forecast how warm it will be in 2100 - and whether it's worth a trillion-dollar investment not to have that outcome - you've got to know a bunch of social factors.


What kinds of social factors?
How many people are in the world? What standards of living do they have? That's population times GDP per capita - a typical measure of standard of living. Then you have to multiply that by how much energy per unit of GDP they consume. We call that energy intensity. It's critically important. And how do we know if people are going to take this problem seriously?

What are the possible climate scenarios for the end of this century?
Greenhouse gas concentrations double pre-industrial levels and then come down like a steep ski slope because we've invented our way out of the problem with new high technology, and we deploy it starting in 2020. By the end of the century we mearly increased carbon dioxide by, say, 80 percent of pre-industrial levels. That, I'm sorry to say, is a good scenario.

The bad scenario is business as usual. We keep getting richer as fast as we can. We do what we did in the Victorian Industrial Revolution in the rich countries: sweat shops, coal-burning internal combustion engines. Well, what do you think China and India are doing?


Which scenario is likely?
The estimate (for increased temperatures) is between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius during the next 25 years. Very recently, the IPCC narrowed it to between 2 and 4.5 degrees. They call that "likely." Well, likely means two-thirds to ninety percent. So, that still means there's a 5-7 percent chance it could be "lucky" - below two degrees - or "really unlucky" - above 4.5.

The worst of all worlds is an increase of more than seven degrees. That's an astronomically large number, because an ice age is about six degrees cooler than an interglacial that we're now in. And we're talking about a ten-percent chance it's as large a temperature difference as an ice age to an interglacial cycle, but happening in a century; not in five thousand years.

That's an easy prescription for a catastrophic outcome with regard to species extinction, coastal damage, fires, heat waves, droughts, and floods. As Bill Clinton said when I first presented this in the White House in 1997, "all the biblical stuff."


editor: Valdis Wish

publishing date: June 2, 2008

Source: www.knowledge.allianz.com
Seen from space, our atmosphere is but a tiny layer of gas around a huge bulky planet. But it is this gaseous outer ring and its misleadingly called greenhouse effect that makes life on Earth possible – and that could destroy life as we know it.

The sun is the Earth’s primary energy source, a burning star so hot that we can feel its heat from over 150 million kilometers away. Its rays enter our atmosphere and shower upon on our planet. About one third of this solar energy is reflected back into the universe by shimmering glaciers, water and other bright surfaces. Two thirds, however, are absorbed by the Earth, thus warming land, oceans, and atmosphere.

Much of this heat radiates back out into space, but some of it is stored in the atmosphere. This process is called the greenhouse effect. Without it, the Earth’s average temperature would be a chilling -18 degrees Celsius, even despite the sun’s constant energy supply.

In a world like this, life on Earth would probably have never emerged from the sea. Thanks to the greenhouse effect, however, heat emitted from the Earth is trapped in the atmosphere, providing us with a comfortable average temperature of 14 degrees.

So, how does it work? Sunrays enter the glass roof and walls of a greenhouse. But once they heat up the ground, which, in turn, heats up the air inside the greenhouse, the glass panels trap that warm air and temperatures increase.

Our planet, however, has no glass walls; the only thing that comes close to acting as such is our atmosphere. But in here, processes are way more complicated than in a real greenhouse.

Like a radiator in space
Only about half of all solar energy that reaches the Earth is infrared radiation and causes immediate warming when passing the atmosphere. The other half is of a higher frequency, and only translates into heat once it hits Earth and is later reflected back into space as waves of infrared radiation.

This transformation of solar radiation in to infrared radiation is crucial, because infrared radiation can be absorbed by the atmosphere. So, on a cold and clear night for example, parts of this infrared radiation that would normally dissipate into space get caught up in the Earth’s atmosphere. And like a radiator in the middle of a room, our atmosphere radiates this heat into all directions.

Parts of this heat are finally sent out in the frozen nothingness of space, parts of it are sent back to Earth where they step up global temperatures. Just how much warmer it gets down here depends on how much energy is absorbed up there– and this, in turn, depends on the atmosphere’s composition.

The switch from carbon dioxide to oxygen

Nitrogen, oxygen, and argon make up 98 percent of the Earth’s atmosphere. But they do not absorb significant amounts of infrared radiation, and thus do not contribute to the greenhouse effect. It is the more exotic components like water vapour, carbon dioxide, ozone,methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons that absorb heat and thus increase atmospheric temperatures.

Studies indicate that until some 2.7 billion years ago, there was so much carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane in our atmosphere that average temperatures on Earth were as high as 70 degrees. But bacteria and plants slowly turned CO2 into oxygen and the concentration of CO2 in our current atmosphere dropped to just about 0.038 percent or 383 parts per million (ppm), a unit of measurement used for very low concentrations of gases that has become a kind of currency in climate change debates.

Minuscule changes – global impact

But while we are still far from seeing major concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere, slight changes already alter the way our celestial heating system works. Measurements of carbon dioxide amounts from Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii show that CO2 has increased from about 313 ppm in 1960 to about 375 ppm in 2005.

That means for every million particles in our atmosphere, there are now 62 CO2-particles more than in 1960. Even if this does not seem like much, scientists say this increase – most probably caused by human activities – is mainly responsible for rising global temperaturesthroughout the last decades.

Even if the term “greenhouse effect” is somewhat of a misnomer, it still might be a useful handle from which the public can grasp an otherwise intricate natural process. Most people can relate to how hot and stuffy a greenhouse can get. Now that the Earth has started to heat up, we realize that our own global greenhouse has no window that we can open to catch some fresh air.

editor: Thilo Kunzemann
last updated: August 20, 2009

Source: www.knowledge.allianz.com

Global Warming is defined as the increase of the average temperature on Earth. As the Earth is getting hotter, disasters like hurricanes, droughts and floods are getting more frequent.

Over the last 100 years, the average temperature of the air near the Earth´s surface has risen a little less than 1° Celsius (0.74 ± 0.18°C, or 1.3 ± 0.32° Fahrenheit). Does not seem all that much? It is responsible for the conspicuous increase in stormsfloods and raging forest fires we have seen in the last ten years, though, say scientists.

Their data show that an increase of one degree Celsius makes the Earth warmer now than it has been for at least a thousand years. Out of the 20 warmest years on record, 19 have occurred since 1980. The three hottest years ever observed have all occurred in the last eight years, even.


Earth should be in cool-down-period 

But it is not only about how much the Earth is warming, it is also about how fast it is warming. There have always been natural climate changes – Ice Ages and the warm intermediate times between them – but those evolved over periods of 50,000 to 100,000 years.


A temperature rise as fast as the one we have seen over the last 30 years has never happened before, as far as scientists can ascertain. Moreover, normally the Earth should now be in a cool-down-period, according to natural effects like solar cycles and volcano activity, not in a heating-up phase.


All these facts lead scientists to infer that the global warming we now experience is not a natural occurrence and that it is not brought on by natural causes. Man is responsible, they say. What did we do? Read more about the man-made causes and impacts of global warming in the following articles.


editor: Karin Lindinger

latest update: August 20, 2009


Source: timesofmalta.com



British High Commissioner Louise Stanton showing Minister George Pullicino a map illustrating the consequences of a 4°C rise in average temperature from global warming.
Science is telling us loud and clear that we have to stop climate change, said British High Commissioner Louise Stanton, backed by a map illustrating the consequences of a 4°C rise in average temperature as a result of global warming.
"If we do not act immediately, this map will become a stark reality by 2060," she appealed, adding that this is a global problem that requires a global solution.
"The stakes could not be any higher at Copenhagen: Failure is not an option; we need to take action now to reduce carbon emissions and minimise the risk of the very severest impacts," Ms Stanton said.
The map illustrates some of the human impact of a 4°C rise in temperature above pre-industrial levels if climate change remains unmitigated.
Countries like Malta, which already have warm climates, will suffer greatly as the hottest days across Europe could be as much as 8°C warmer. Malta would also be badly affected if droughts occur twice as frequently in the Mediterranean basin.
The map, produced by the Met Office Hadley Centre, using cutting-edge scientific results, has been launched ahead of December's climate change negotiations in Copenhagen and shows this is an issue that will affect everyone.
The UK government is aiming for an agreement that limits the effects of climate change to a rise in global temperature of 2°C. Higher increases will have huge impacts on the world, including a shift in mass migration and even loss of livelihood. Europe, for example, will suffer the effects of increased water scarcity, more frequent and intense droughts and forest fires.
The map was launched at the Science Museum in London by UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband and the UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Ed Miliband.
Ms Stanton yesterday presented it to Resources Minister George Pullicino, who promised that the information it contained would be conveyed to the public, in particular schoolchildren.
The minister expressed optimism that, notwithstanding the numerous hurdles, a satisfactory international agreement that would replace the Kyoto protocol could be agreed upon in Copenhagen.
The online version of the four degree world map allows the user to focus on certain impacts, geographies and to access more information about the science behind it.
It is available to be embedded on any website and the embed code can be accessed atwww.actoncopenhagen.decc.gov.uk/4degrees.

It's never seemed truly American to worry extravagantly. We embrace diversity, of course, but gloomy, weepy types have customarily been relegated to the margins. They are not the content of our character, which is famously optimistic.

This could be a reason why authors Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner report in their new book "Super Freakonomics" that the country's fears of global warming have been subsiding.

Curtailing carbon dioxide emissions boils down to prohibiting many uses of fire. Fire has been popular since prehistoric peoples started using it for warmth, tool-making and rendering food safer and yummier. Nowadays, vilifying oil companies and coal-powered industries, kicking car companies that are already down and tiptoeing guiltily through your carbon footprints doesn't always satisfy cravings for guilt. How about real changes in lifestyle?

A correspondent recently wondered if global warmists should punish the bread industry because yeast makes all those CO2 bubbles. He thought the peasants should eat cake instead of bread. I reminded him that baking powder makes bubbles, too. That's why cake is light and fluffy instead of tasting like sweetened glue.

The EPA now has authority to require large bakeries to scrub their smokestacks of yeast-created ethanol that escapes from dough when bread is baked. Maybe the Carrie Nations of global warming will take up their figurative hatchets and commence demolishing pizza shops. Then if CO2 doesn't worry you enough, there's good old Elsie the Cow.

Bovine flatulence contains methane, a greenhouse gas far more potent than CO2. With billions of cattle roaming the globe, we've got plenty to fret about. Hollywood, that temple of self-restraint, fields numerous animal rights activists who insist that humanity needs to cure yet another dangerous addiction and quit meat and dairy products in favor of veggies; eschew wool, leather and fur.

Doubters facing sham readily exclaim, "That's bull——!" Is the passing of gas by domestic cows destroying the biosphere as we know it? If so, methane control might require a "Blaapp tax" added to cap-and-trade greenhouse gas management. Who wants the job of methane monitor in the milking parlor? Dairy farmers already endure condemnation from the new asceticism. Do they need enviro-cops running past lines of cows' backsides with high-tech toot meters recording violations on their BlackBerries?

Supposedly, around one-third of anthropogenic methane issues from domestic cattle. But before restricting the side effects of cud-chewing by another tedious, administrative bureaucracy, we might consider whether our wretched species has actually accelerated the global breaking of wind by keeping herds of domestic animals. If punishing felonious flatulence is a necessity for saving the planet, we should know if the billions of wild animals that predated the emergence of homo sapiens are any better than the critters we have now. Maybe someone should investigate the hinterlands to see if raccoons, weasels and woodchucks are tooting more than their rightful share.

We know how tough it is to prod humanity to act on its collective conscience. What if we all vanished in a plague or migrated to another planet with better surf, cuter beachgoers, redder convertibles and a more forgiving atmosphere? Or checked our entire sinful species into Ethical Suicide Parlors and returned this biosphere to our noble predecessors? Presumably domestic animals would die off, since they're no longer adaptable to wild, natural conditions. Wouldn't the world be repopulated by the critters that predated Holsteins and Merinos? Don't buffalo, antelopes and giraffes pass gas? Haven't they always? What about camels? They sure look like they do.

Then there's elephants. I wouldn't want to stand downwind of one of them, even on a lucrative dare. For all we know, there's no hope for the stratosphere until we make the remaining herd into piano keys and umbrella stands and get it over with.

People produce methane, too, especially if they eschew pork chops in favor of beans. Uh-oh! The list of enviro-criminals is getting huge.

Tom Gelsthorpe, a sailor and former farmer, lives in Cataumet. Call him at 508-564-4919 or e-mail him at gels_adelphia1@comcast.net.

Reasons to go meatless

Posted by Atlantis Tuesday, November 3, 2009 0 comments

When it comes to our diets, we put a lot of emphasis on calories and cholesterol levels. We're concerned about how diet affects our personal health.

But should we also be considering how what we eat affects the planet?

There's plenty of evidence demonstrating that production of certain foods contributes substantially to the amount of gases believed to be causing global warming.

The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization in 2006 reported that meat production accounts for about one-fifth of the world's greenhouse gas production. That's more than the greenhouse gases produced by all of the world's cars, trucks, planes, trains and boats.

Meat production and distribution promote climate change in other ways, according to the report:

They lead to deforestation. Vast areas of Earth's land mass are used for cattle grazing. Fewer trees mean less carbon dioxide can be absorbed from the atmosphere, and more carbon dioxide is released when trees are burned to clear grazing land.

They promote noxious emissions. Animals raised for food produce manure that sends nitrous oxide into the atmosphere, a gas with nearly 300 times the warming power of carbon dioxide. Then there's the other kind of gas. When cows pass gas - and they pass a lot of it - the methane has a more powerful warming effect than carbon dioxide.

They make intensive use of resources. A large share of the grain and soybeans grown around the world is fed to animals rather than being eaten by people. Only a fraction of those food calories are returned in the form of meat. Fossil fuels and huge quantities of water are needed for meat production and distribution. Industrial feedlots drain water supplies and pollute the air, water and soil.

When you consider that diets heavy in animal products promote obesity, coronary artery disease, cancer and other chronic diseases, you have to wonder why meat production is on the rise worldwide.

Last week, Lord Stern, an economist at the London School of Economics and former chief economist at the World Bank, told the Times of London that as people become aware of the carbon content of their food, meat-eating will become less acceptable.

Although not a vegetarian himself, he advocated that people switch to more meatless meals to help preserve the environment.

Contact Suzanne Havala Hobbs at suzanne@onthetable.net.

African nations walk out in Spain; GOP absent from debate in Washington

By Arthur Max 
Associated Press 

Boycotts on either side of the Atlantic on Tuesday showed just how difficult it will be to clinch an agreement on global warming next month.

At U.N. climate talks in Barcelona, Spain, African nations walked out of meetings to protest rich nations' reluctance to make substantial carbon-cutting commitments. In Washington, some conservative Republicans boycotted the start of committee debate on a bill to curb greenhouse gases, fearful of the cost to the U.S. economy.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in a bid to support the Democratic-sponsored climate bill, told a rare joint session of Congress ''there is no time to lose'' in tackling climate change.

But the lukewarm response to her comments on global warming — in contrast to the ovations she received at other times — only underscored the skeptical mood in the U.S. about climate action, which would require a shift away from fossil fuels to wind and solar power, smaller cars and — the Republicans argue — more expense to consumers.

GOP senators on the Environment and Public Works Committee shunned the planned startup of voting on amendments to the bill. Only Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, showed up to give the reasons for the Republicans' absence.

African countries ended a boycott of meetings in Spain at U.N. climate negotiations, having reset the talks' agenda to spend more time on complaints that industrial countries had set carbon-cutting targets too low for reducing global greenhouse gas emissions.

The parallel actions were elements of a dramatic finale leading up to the 192-nation conference in Copenhagen Dec. 7-18, which is meant to adopt a treaty regulating carbon emissions that will shake economies around the globe.

The African revolt was largely symbolic, because it was clear that industrial countries cannot alter their positions without high-level political decisions by governments.

It was a signal that hard-liners would dominate negotiations by the developing countries at the decisive Copenhagen forum, and marked the 50-nation African group as an influential player on the global stage.

The Africans, supported by about 70 other developing countries, including China, say the industrial world is failing to live up to pledges of deep cuts in emissions, while droughts and floods already are causing death and devastation on the badly hit continent.

''I don't think we can get to a result in the way we're going now,'' said Algerian negotiator Kamel Djemouai, who chairs the Africa group.

The White House and Democratic leaders in Congress have essentially abandoned prospects of getting a climate bill to President Barack Obama's desk before the Copenhagen meeting. But they hope a show of progress in the Senate — along with the House having passed a bill and Obama's call for more fuel-efficient cars — will show the world the U.S. is taking climate change seriously.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon acknowledged the climate change treaty may not be resolved this year, adding that nations might be unable to commit to firm emissions limits at Copenhagen.

''We may not be able to agree [on] all the words,'' Ban said after meeting in London with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Ban said he would push leaders to strike a pact in Copenhagen, but that it was more likely to be an agreement on principles — rather than specific targets for cuts.

By IANS

NEW DELHI - Temperatures are expected to rise here as well as in other north Indian states in the coming few days, India Meteorological Department said Wednesday, adding that temperature fluctuations could go on till mid-November.

Western Disturbances over the Jammu and Kashmir region are leading to the rise in temperature in Delhi and other northern states. The maximum temperature for Wednesday is expected to be 29 degrees Celsius and the minimum 15 degrees Celsius, an IMD official told IANS.

The minimum temperature recorded in the capital Wednesday was 15.6 degrees Celsius, two degrees above the average. The maximum temperature Tuesday touched 31 degrees Celsius, a notch above the average.

The official added that the sky would be partly cloudy during the day but the western disturbances would clear by evening.

The IMD website updates indicated that the minimum temperatures in most parts of Rajasthan were three to six degrees above average.