How To Prevent Global Warming

The big debate in the global warming world at the moment is whether global warming is man made or completely natural. A combination of both, I think is the logical and clear answer. There is no denying that the natural cycle of the planets environment has bought on extreme weather conditions in the past but never as bad as predicted this time. Studies show that man made influences are adding to the cycle considerably.

So, how to prevent global warming? Many ways are being pushed upon society. Turn your lights off, turn your T.V. off, walk to the shop, and buy a greener car. But can all these little things actually add up to make a difference? Or do we need to put pressure on the corporations. This is where the real emissions are coming from. Yes of course we need to do all the little things ourselves. Lead by example right? But big pressure from the public and the governments on the large companies and corporations really is the answer.

That being said, it needs to happen now. Studies show that we’ve almost gone past the point of no return. Our planet has been abused to the point that it can’t take anymore. So we need to turn the lights off, TVs off, PCs off, walk and take the bus. But we need to find a way to rally together now; this threat is 10 fold the threat of nuclear war or even the past threats of world wars. It is a subtle enemy sneaking up on us from behind, and it is an enemy with great power.

Once Again, How to prevent global warming? We need our governments to implement emergency laws, use the power of the media to influence those who are not aware or are too stubborn or selfish to do anything about it. We need to take a stand now!

Please goto my website http://www.squidoo.com/how-to-prevent-global-warming to read some great ideas and information about preventing global warming

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Lewis_Waller

:: How To Prevent Global Warming In Your Home ::

The first thing for you to do is to understand which areas you should focus on the most. Preventing global warming in your home requires using less energy to stay warm in the winter and cool in the summer, which means you need to find the places your home leaks air and plug those holes, making this the easiest way to help prevent global warming in your own home.

Learning how to prevent global warming in your on home is simple. The recomendations above will help reduce your homes contribution to global warming a little bit, but if you really want to make a big dent in your carbon footprint, then you should consider doing more significant remodeling of your home to increase the insulation in your walls and roof.

-Using Less Electricity : The first thing to understand is that anything that heats up by using electricity requires a lot of energy, and it's best to find alternatives. Turning off lights and appliancs when they are not in use is also a very simple, and basic act that helps prevent global warming. Try to remind you and others to turn things of when they are not in use. To deal with this you can get power strips and plug your appliances into those and then turn off your power strips and you'll insure that now power is going to light a digital display.

**********************************

Greenland Melting More Than Any Time in 50+ Years

Scientists Link Thaw to Global Warming, Not Regional Weather

Greenland's massive ice sheet could begin to melt this century and may disappear completely within the next thousand years if global warming continues at its present rate.

Greenland has melted more in recent summers than at any time in at least 50 years, a finding that supports the link between global warming, the melting of the Arctic and Greenland and sea level rise.

According to a new climate change study, the melting of Greenland's ice sheet would raise the oceans by seven meters (23 feet), threatening to submerge cities located at sea level, from London to Los Angeles.

The international research team was led by Edward Hanna of the University of Sheffield, and the study published the results of their climate and glacier data analysis in the Journal of Climate Jan 15.

Whereas melting in the 1960s through the early 1990s corresponded with regional variations in temperature, the melting since then has corresponded with global changes in temperatures, the scientists wrote.

Three recent summers – 2003, 2005 and 2007 – have topped the list of seasons that caused the most melting. Arctic sea ice also hit new record-lows during those years, though the records were set in different years – 2003 for Greenland and 2007 for the Arctic.

Scientists have previously calculated that if the annual average temperature in Greenland increases by almost 3° Celsius (5.4° Fahrenheit), its ice sheet will begin to melt.

Many experts believe the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will have reached levels around the year 2100 that would cause the temperature to rise that much.

"We're not saying how long it will take to get to the three degrees or how long it will take to lose the ice sheet," Gregory said. "We're saying there's a high likelihood of passing this threshold of viability with the carbon dioxide levels that are currently being considered."

Some of the world's top experts and institutions worked on this study: the Free University of Brussels, the University of Colorado, the Danish Meteorological Institute and the NASA Goddard Earth Science and Technology Center, the University of Maryland Baltimore County.

"Our work shows that global warming is beginning to take its toll on the Greenland Ice Sheet which, as a relict feature of the last Ice Age, has already been living on borrowed time and seems now to be in inexorable decline," Hanna said. "The question is can we reduce greenhouse-gas emissions in time to make enough of a difference to curb this decay?"

At stake is the level of sea levels around the world, and the rapidity with which they will increase. The melting of the Greenland ice sheet is a key factor in sea levels. It could take centuries, but the melting of Greenland could increase sea levels more than 20 feet – enough to swamp coastal cities like Los Angeles, New York and New Orleans.

Also, replacing snow and ice in Greenland and the Arctic would allow water and land to absorb more sunlight, leading to increasingly warm temperatures that could have a major influence on world weather patterns. Turn off the air conditioner, and a hot day seems hotter.

Global Warming May Have Shifted Jet Stream

By Dan Shapley
In a change that is consistent with global warming computer models, the jet streams that govern weather patterns around the world are shifting their course, according to a new analysis by the Carnegie Institution published in Geophysical Research Letters।

From 1979 to 2001, "the jet streams in both hemispheres have risen in altitude and shifted toward the poles। The jet stream in the northern hemisphere has also weakened," the institution reported.
The jet stream guides weather patterns across the globe। The reason that El Niño and La Niña – warming and cooling patterns in the Southern Pacific Ocean – play such a large role in world weather, for instance, is because the temperature of the distant ocean affects the flow of the jet stream.

The migration of the jet stream is small – just 12 miles poleward per decade – but the scientists warned that "if the trend continues the impact could be significant." For instance, hurricanes might become more frequent or intense, as the jet stream ushers more tropical and subtropical storms into North America.

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts? By Timothy Ball

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.
I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.