Essay Global Warming

Global Warming

Introduction
Reasons for global warming
· Green House Effect
· Green House Gasses
· Pollution
· Volcanoes
· Fossil Fuels
Effects of Global Warming
· Weather
· Glacier Retreat
· Oceans
· Ecosystem
· Forests
· Economics
· Agriculture
· Insurance
· Transport
· Floods
· Migration
· Development
· Environment
· Water Scarcity
· Mountains
· Health
Steps to Stop Global warming
· Renewable energy
· Wind power
· Solar Energy
· Geothermal
· Energy Conservation
· Building on energy Efficiency
· Cutting Fuel costs
· Usage of renewable things

Kyoto protocol
Fact OR Fiction

Conclusion








Global Warming ( Reasons, Effects, Preventive Methods, Research, Controversy, Political Issue, Fact or Fiction )

Introduction

It wouldn’t be an exaggeration if we say that GOD has been most generous to us ( we, human beings) among all his creatures. Whole stage of this universe is set for us. Biggest of his generosity is revealed in the form of this planet, called Earth. All the things that are considered as prerequisite for life were put in place in a peculiar combination and balance so that the existence and flourishing of life ( living beings ) is fully facilitated. These pre-requisites include water, Oxygen, light and temperature etc. All theses things are interlinked with each other and have there importance. But Temperature has its own significance and consequences. The solar system in which we live, our planet earth happens to be only place where life exists ( That’s what we know with full conviction up till this point of time ). Apart from other reasons extreme conditions of temperature don’t allow any possibility of life to nurture, other planet in the solar system are either too hot or too cold, they lack this mild nature of temperature which is one of the basic character of our earth. So it wouldn’t wrong to say that temperature has very important role to play this planet and all its inhabitant are concerned. Earth’s ecosystem is a complete community of living organisms and the nonliving materials of their surroundings. Thus, its components include plants, animals, and microorganisms; soil, rocks, and minerals; as well as surrounding water sources and the local atmosphere, all these things are interlinked with each other and they are directly or indirectly dependent on each other, any change in one can incur positive or negative results of others. All the living being are interacting with this ecosystem ever since this earth was formed and life found its early traces on it, this interaction has lead to various distractions and disasters, we human beings proved to be most the destructive for this earth and its ecosystem. Scientist have observed that over the years average temperature of our earth is rising every day due to various factors, this phenomenon is called global warming. In this essay point of focus would be , why this temperature is rising, what are the factor contributing to this change, what are the implications resulted by this change, what is the historical back of this whole issue, what are other related concepts to this issue, what measures should be taken to stop this carnage, to what extent this whole is based on reality or its just a myth, what are the problems or hindrances in the way of a global consensus about the seriousness of this issue etc.
Sun throws a lot of radiation ( light ) on the earth surface , earth and its atmosphere keep some part of this energy to maintain its temperature levels which is necessary for the effective working of its ecosystem, and excess of this radiation or energy is reflected back in to the space but due to the heavy concentration of green house gasses in the earth’s atmosphere , some of most of this excess energy which is reflected off the earth’s surface gets trapped into earth’s atmosphere, which leads to an increase in the temperature and this increase has its consequences. This whole idea is commonly called ‘ Global Warming ‘.Global Warming can be referred as ‘ the increase in global temperatures brought about by the increased emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Global Warming otherwise known as ‘climate change’ or ‘the greenhouse effect’.
Reasons for this global warming are as under


· Disturbance in the green house effect process
· Excessive deposits of green house gases
· Burning of fossil fuels
· Pollution by industrialization and other means
· Volcanic activities waste
Green house effect refers to the ability of a our earth’s atmosphere to inhabit heat that is reflected back from the earth’s surface to keep earth atmosphere warm enough ,which is mandatory for effective working of its eco system. They are various factor which disturb the set pattern of this a contribute to global warming. For the greenhouse effect to work efficiently, the planet's atmosphere must be relatively transparent to sunlight at visible wavelengths so that significant amounts of solar radiation can penetrate to the ground. Also, the atmosphere must be dense at thermal wavelengths to prevent thermal radiation emitted by the ground from escaping directly to space. The principle is similar to a thermal blanket, which also limits heat loss by conduction ( transmission of heat through a medium) and convection ( heat transfer by upward movement of heated or less dense material ). In recent decades the term has also become associated with the issues of global warming and climate change induced by human activity. Existence of the greenhouse effect as such is not disputed. Naturally occurring greenhouse gases have a mean warming effect of about 33 °C (59 °F), without which Earth would be uninhabitable. Basic understanding of the greenhouse effect dates back to the 1820s, when the French physicist Joseph Fourier performed experiments on atmospheric heat flow and pondered the question of how the Earth stays warm enough for plant and animal life to thrive; and to the 1860s, when the Irish physicist John Tyndall demonstrated that common atmospheric trace gases, such as water vapor, ozone, and carbon dioxide, are strong absorbers and emitters of thermal energy but are transparent to visible sunlight. So it was clear that water vapor was the strongest absorber of thermal radiation and, therefore, the most influential atmospheric gas controlling the Earth's surface temperature. The principal components of air, nitrogen and oxygen, were found to be inactive, instead water vapor and carbon dioxide are more influential. The impact of water vapor behavior was noted by the American geologist Thomas Chamberlin who, in 1905, described the positive role played by water vapor in this whole mechanism of greenhouse effect. Heat captured by the carbon dioxide or methane etc , raises the surface temperature and evaporates more water vapor which, in turn, produces additional heating and further evaporation. When the heat source is taken away, excess water vapor precipitates from the atmosphere, reducing its contribution to the greenhouse effect to produce further cooling. This feedback interaction converges and, in the process, achieves a significantly larger temperature change than would be the case if the amount of atmospheric water vapor had remained constant. The net result is that carbon dioxide becomes the controlling factor of long-term change in the global greenhouse effect, but the resulting change in temperature is magnified by the positive feedback action of water vapor. The Earth receives energy from the Sun in the form of radiation. The Earth reflects about 30% of the incoming solar radiation. The remaining 70% is absorbed, warming the land, atmosphere and oceans. For the Earth's temperature to be in steady state so that the Earth does not rapidly heat or cool, this absorbed solar radiation must be very closely balanced by energy radiated back to space in the infrared wavelengths. Since the intensity of infrared radiation increases with increasing temperature, one can think of the Earth's temperature as being determined by the infrared flux needed to balance the absorbed solar flux. The term "greenhouse effect" is a source of confusion in that actual greenhouses do not warm by this same mechanism ,even though popular expositions often imply they do. The absorption of infrared radiation causes the Earth's surface and lower atmosphere to warm more than they otherwise would, making the Earth's surface habitable. An increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused by widespread combustion of fossil fuels may intensify the greenhouse effect and cause long-term climatic changes. Likewise, an increase in atmospheric concentrations of other trace greenhouse gases such as chlorofluorocarbons, nitrous oxide, and methane resulting from human activities may also intensify the greenhouse effect. From the beginning of the Industrial Revolution through the end of the 20th century, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased 30% and the amount of methane more than doubled. It is also estimated that the U.S. is responsible for about one-fifth of all human-produced greenhouse-gas emissions.
Green House gases also contribute to global warming. Excessive deposits of green house gases are also a reason for global warming. As long as they are there is the right proposition, they will do the role what they are suppose to do for the good of earth’s atmosphere, but out of proportion presence in the atmosphere yields so many bad effects, global warming is one of them. Green house gases are responsible for fixing up of heat in the atmosphere, they have primarily role and importance is these ideas of global warming, green house effect or climate change etc. On Earth, the major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70% of the greenhouse effect (not including clouds); carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9–26%; methane (CH4), which causes 4–9%; and ozone, which causes 3–7%. Some other naturally occurring gases contribute very small fractions of the greenhouse effect; one of these, nitrous oxide (N2O), is increasing in concentration owing to human activity such as agriculture. The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 31% and 149% respectively above pre-industrial levels since 1750. These levels are considerably higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores. From less direct geological evidence it is believed that CO2 values this high were last attained 20 million years ago. Fossil fuel burning has produced about three-quarters of the increase in CO2 from human activity over the past 20 years. Most of the rest is due to land-use change, in particular deforestation. Through human agency, such as the clearance of rain forest, or the increased rearing of livestock, the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing; measurements taken at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, show that the concentration of atmospheric CO2, for example, increased by 8% between 1959 and 1983, mostly because of the increased use of fossil fuels. It would follow, therefore, that increased concentrations of such greenhouse gases would lead to a rise in global temperatures, and, indeed, global mean temperatures have increased by 0.3 to 0.7 °K over the last century, but the cause of this temperature rise has not been unequivocally put down to the increase in greenhouse gases. It may be that the uptake of CO2 by the oceans actually increases with higher temperatures. Others argue that increased concentrations of CO2 foster improved rates of photosynthesis in plants, so that faster-growing trees, for example, might partially offset increased concentrations of carbon dioxide. Thus, general models of the effect of growing greenhouse gas levels do not give unequivocal predictions of future trends in climates. The present atmospheric concentration of CO2 is about 383 parts per million (ppm) by volume. Future CO2 levels are expected to rise due to ongoing burning of fossil fuels and land-use change. The rate of rise will depend on uncertain economic, sociological, technological, and natural developments, but may be ultimately limited by the availability of fossil fuels. Next question comes in the mind that how CO2 other green house gases contribute to the rising temperatures. The answer to this question is bit technical . these green house gases are very good infrared radiation absorbents ,carbon dioxide has a special distinction among. Owing to the its quantity which is present in the atmosphere. The molecular design of CO2 allows it to absorb IR radiation. Collisions between CO2 molecule and infrared radiation will immediately transfer result into the release of energy which would heat the surrounding gas. On the other hand, other CO2 molecules will be vibrationally excited by collisions. Roughly 5% of CO2 molecules are vibrationally excited at room temperature and it is this 5% that radiates. A substantial part of the greenhouse effect due to carbon dioxide exists because this vibration is easily excited by infrared radiation.. The ozone and water’s molecular design allows water vapors to absorb only higher frequency IR radiation but the energy released during this reaction is far less then that of carbon dioxide reaction.
Pollution
Pollution by industrialization and other means ( traffic, wars, Fire incidents, explosions etc) is one of the main reasons for this global warming, since industrialization ( 1750 ) our all earth’s environment has come more polluted , thanks to rapid growth of industry. This growth has given a gift of many poisonous gases to our atmosphere, the air in which we breath in is no more pure or safe, it is contaminated, gases like Carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, methane, sulphur, ammonia etc have become a general ingredient of once fresh and pure air, most of these gases are naturally found in the air but this rapid industrialization has added more quantity of these gases into the atmosphere than what is actually required, they out of proportion presence leads to various climatic complications. These gases disturbs natural cycle of green house effect leading to
some serious consequences. This modern age has given other gift to this already polluted environment and that is nerve hurting tariff pollution. Vehicles using fossil fuel releases harmonious substances into the air and polluting seriously and making it fatally dangerous for human health as well as earth’s atmosphere.
There is always a war on this earth. Everyday somewhere on this earth , guns are being fired, bombs are being exploded, various atomic bomb explosion, massive fire incidents ( oil well being put on fire ), this all is hurting earth’s eco system negatively by building up huge quantities of pollution, which ultimately leads to global warming.
Global warming may loft additional water vapor, and might increase temperature in the tropopause. Both increase the rate of decay of ozone.
Air pollution usually follows with a decrease in ambient oxygen, and ozone is made from oxygen. Additionally some water vapor, and compounds that are not fully oxidized are added to the atmosphere. Some small portion of these will make it to the tropopause, and reduce ozone a bit.
Pollution floats around in the air and eventually gets stuck in the greenhouse gas layer which then builds up and the rays from the sun cant get out which the heats up the earth causing ice caps to melt which then leads to flooding

volcanoes
There are more than ten thousand alive volcanoes on this earth and 10% of this total are active at any point of time, volcanic activities results in emission of lava, poisonous gases like Sulphur oxide, carbon dioxide, HCI fumes, heat and ash. All things contributes to the global warming issue, Heat and gases emitted from this activity causes a direct increase in the temperature of that particular areas as well as our all atmosphere. This volcanic ash has a different effects, it pollutes air but also forms heavy , thick clouds over the area( haze effect ), which seriously effects the process of heat transfer, heavy or dense part of this ash comes down back on the earth but very fine portion of this ash stays up in the atmosphere, making the atmosphere more dense, and hampering the sunlight and radiation flow process slow and ineffective leading atmosphere cooling effect resulting drop in temperatures and other consequences, .
The atmospheric gases originate from the interior of the earth. Most of the material that comes out when the volcano erupts is water vapor, but the rest are gases
Volcanic eruptions can enhance global warming by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. However, a far greater amount of CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere by human activities each year than by volcanic eruptions. But human-made CO2 are dwarfed the estimated global release of CO2 from volcanoes by at least 150 times. The small amount of global warming caused by eruption-generated greenhouse gases is offset by the far greater amount of global cooling caused by eruption-generated particles in the stratosphere
The halide acid HCl has been shown to be effective in destroying ozone; however, the latest studies show that most volcanic HCl is confined to the troposphere (below the stratosphere), where it is washed out by rain. Thus, it never has the opportunity to react with ozone. On the other hand, satellite data after the 1991 eruptions in the Philippines and Chile showed a 15-20% ozone loss at high latitudes, and a greater than 50% loss over the Antarctic! Thus, it appears that volcanic eruptions can play a significant role in reducing ozone levels
Fossil fuels
Fossil fuels are formed through animals and plants being buried in sediment on land*(Dirt and rocks) or in the ooze underwater, over time the sediment fills in where the flesh was until all that is left is the bones and the hard rocky exterior. Fossil fuels come from a variety of things. The major contributor is plant life that has decayed, hence "fossil" fuels. (This makes oil.) Another fossil fuel is coal, formed from trees.
The beginning of the Industrial Revolution brought many new, exciting inventions into our lives to simplify our lives and made them more efficient. Such inventions included cars, household appliances and plants that burn solid waste, fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas, and coal, and wood and wood products for fuel. Before the Industrial Revolution, human activities caused very few gases to be released into the atmosphere, but now scientists say, through the burning of fossil fuels, a large population growth and deforestation, humans are affecting the mixture of gases in the atmosphere
Fossil fuels are one of the largest contributors to global warming worldwide, as several tones of it are burnt every day.
Fossil fuels have very important place in today’s modern world, they are the main source of energy, they pour life into the most of the machine and enable them to perform wonders, but the ugly side of the story is that these fossil fuel release many hazardous gases on burning and most important of them is carbon dioxide.80 % of carbon dioxide that is added to the atmosphere every day is through the courtesy of these fossil fuels. These fuel includes petrol, diesel, natural gas, coal etc. these fuel are used every where from cars to air planes , from industry to power generation houses, ever since industrialization ( 1750 ) these fossil fuel are being more frequently used and statistical data shows since that time fluctuations in the worldwide climate have become more frequent, though this change has not happened over night, it took its time but now we can see that damage done by these fossil fuel has reached to the level where it is making its presence felt. If quantity of carbon dioxide has doubled and other dangerous gases have also reached to the perilous level, it’s the result of burning these fossil fuel for at least two centuries, now things has aggravated and if we continue doing the same what we have been doing, results would be disastrous.

effects of global warming

The net impact of global warming so far has been modest, but near-future effects are likely to become significantly negative, with large-scale extreme impacts possible by the end of the century.
The predicted effects of global warming on the environment and for human life are numerous and varied. It is generally difficult to attribute specific natural phenomena to long-term causes, but some effects of recent climate change may already be occurring. Rising sea levels, glacier retreat, and altered patterns of agriculture are cited as direct consequences, but predictions for secondary and regional effects include extreme weather events, an expansion of tropical diseases, and drastic economic impact. Concerns have led to political activism advocating proposals to mitigate, eliminate, or adapt to it.
Effects on weather


Global warming is responsible in part for some trends in natural disasters such as extreme weather. Extreme weather condition stands for excessive rains, snows storms, storm and hurricanes, droughts , very hot or cold dry conditions etc.
Strong Storm can be a situation that would happen more frequently as if extreme weather conditions prevail. Hurricane power dissipation is highly correlated with temperature, reflecting global warming. Hurricane modeling has produced similar results, finding that hurricanes, simulated under warmer, high-CO2 conditions, are more intense; there is less confidence in projections of a global decrease in numbers of hurricanes. Worldwide, the proportion of hurricanes with wind speeds above 56 meters per second – has risen from 20% in the 1970s to 35% in the 1990s. Precipitation hitting the world from hurricanes increased by 7% over the twentieth century. Increasing extreme weather events to global warming, the increasing number of strong hurricanes is directly linked to increasing temperatures. warming induced by greenhouse gas may lead to increasing occurrence of highly destructive hurricanes, Catastrophes resulting from extreme weather are worsened by increasing population densities.
A substantially higher risk of extreme weather does not necessarily mean a noticeably greater risk of slightly-above-average weather. However, the evidence is clear that severe weather and moderate rainfall are also increasing.
Over the course of the 20th century, evaporation rates have increased worldwide evaporation has increase due to warmer oceans. Because the world is a closed system this will cause heavier rainfall and more erosion. This erosion, in turn, can in vulnerable tropical areas (especially in Africa)
Glacier retreat and disappearance
In historic times, glaciers grew during a cool period from about 1550 to 1850 known as the Little Ice Age. Subsequently, until about 1940, glaciers around the world retreated as the climate warmed. Glacier retreat declined and reversed in many cases from 1950 to 1980 as a slight global cooling occurred. Since 1980, glacier retreat has become increasingly rapid and ubiquitous that it has threatened the existence of many of the glaciers of the world. This process has increased markedly since 1995.
Excluding the ice caps and ice sheets of the Arctic and Antarctic, the total surface area of glaciers worldwide has decreased by 50% since the end of the 19th century. Currently glacier retreat rates and mass balance losses have been increasing in the Alps, Himalayas, Rocky Mountains.
The loss of glaciers not only directly causes landslides, flash floods and glacial lake overflow, but also increases annual variation in water flows in rivers. Glacier runoff declines in the summer as glaciers decrease in size, this decline is already observable in several regions. Glaciers retain water on mountains in high precipitation years, since the snow cover accumulating on glaciers protects the ice from melting. In warmer and drier years, glaciers offset the lower precipitation amounts with a higher melt water input .
Of particular importance are the Hindu Kush and Himalayan glacial melts that comprise the principal dry-season water source of many of the major rivers of the South, East and Southeast Asian mainland. Increased melting would cause greater flow for several decades, after which "some areas of the most populated regions on Earth are likely to 'run out of water'" as source glaciers are depleted.
The sea absorbs heat from the sun, while the ice largely reflects the sun rays back to space. Thus, retreating sea ice will allow the sun to warm the now exposed sea water, contributing to further warming. The mechanism is the same as when a black car heats up faster in sunlight than a white car. This change is also the main reason for this prediction that temperatures to rise up to twice as much as those of the rest of the world. Such a change would bring a substantial change in the sea level leading to other consequential issues.

Oceans
With increasing average global temperature, the water in the oceans expands in volume, and additional water enters them which had previously been locked up on land in glaciers, for example, the Greenland and the Antarctic ice sheets. An increase of 1.5 to 4.5 °C is estimated to lead to an increase of 15 to 95 cm.
Increase in the sea level would led to invasion of dry land which could lead to some serious problems for the ever increasing human population, countries like Bangladesh and Holland can face some serious threats.
The temperature of the oceans world wide by 0.8 °C (0.31 °F) between the 1950s and the 1980s on average. This increase leaves some very serious questions for effects on ecosystem by melting sea ice, affecting algae that grow on its underside, warming could reduce the ocean's ability to absorb CO2. this increase in temperature leads to increased evaporation , causing more rain fall leading to other imbalances in the ecosystem.
Acidification of oceans is also a problem caused by global warming. The world’s oceans soak up much of the carbon dioxide produced by living organisms, either as dissolved gas, or in the skeletons of tiny marine creatures that fall to the bottom to become chalk or limestone. Oceans currently absorb about one tone of CO2 per person per year. It is estimated that the oceans have absorbed around half of all CO2 generated by human activities since 1800 .But in water, carbon dioxide becomes a weak carbonic acid, and the increase in the greenhouse gas since the industrial revolution has already lowered the average pH of seawater by 0.1 units, to 8.2. Predicted emissions could lower it by a further 0.5 by 2100, to a level not seen for millions of years.
There are concerns that increasing acidification could have a particularly detrimental effect on corals, 16% of the world's coral reefs have died from bleaching caused by warm water in 1998, which coincidentally was the warmest year ever recorded, and other marine organisms with calcium carbonate shells. Increased acidity may also directly affect the growth and reproduction of fish as well as the plankton on which they rely for food.

Ecosystems
Earth’s ecosystem is a complete community of living organisms and the nonliving materials of their surroundings. Thus, its components include plants, animals, and microorganisms; soil, rocks, and minerals; as well as surrounding water sources and the local atmosphere, all these things are interlinked with each other and they are directly or indirectly dependent on each other, any change in one can incur positive or negative results of others ,lessened snow cover, rising sea levels, weather changes — provides examples of consequences of global warming that may influence not only human activities but also the ecosystems. Increasing global temperature means that ecosystems will change; some species are being forced out of their habitats (possibly to extinction) because of changing conditions, while others are flourishing.
Species that rely on cold weather conditions such as gyrfalcons, and snowy owls that prey on lemmings that use the cold winter to their advantage will be hit hard. Marine invertebrates enjoy peak growth at the temperatures they have adapted to, regardless of how cold these may be, and cold-blooded animals found at greater latitudes and altitudes generally grow faster to compensate for the short growing season.Warmer-than-ideal conditions result in higher metabolism and consequent reductions in body size despite increased foraging, which in turn elevates the risk of predation. Indeed, even a slight increase in temperature during development impairs growth efficiency and survival rate in rainbow trout..
A scientific study on effects of global warming on the behavior of plant and animal species revealed that over the period of time a new trend among various species is emerging, this change indicates towards the fact that these species ( both animal and plants ) are shifting their ranges towards the poles or higher altitudes, creating "refugee species". Frogs were breeding, flowers blossoming and birds migrating an average 2.3 days earlier each decade; butterflies, birds and plants moving towards the poles by 6.1 km per decade and main reasons for this shift are global warming and human behavior.
Forests
Forests are one of the most important member of the ecosystem, any factor or change effecting the ecosystem would naturally hurt earth’s forests most, extreme weathers like heavy rainfalls, floods, excessive snow falls, hurricanes, sudden or prolonged drop or rise in temperatures etc. have been hampering world forests very badly, this devastation is leading to other consequential changes in the eco system. Pine forests in British Columbia have been devastated by a pine beetle infestation, which has expanded unhindered since 1998 at least in part due to the lack of severe winters since that time; a few days of extreme cold kill most mountain pine beetles and have kept outbreaks in the past naturally contained. The infestation, which will have killed 50% of the lodge pole pines by 2008 has passed to Alberta and will spread further East and eventually into America given continued milder winters. Besides the immediate ecological and economic impact, the huge dead forests provide a fire risk as well.
This global warming has increased risks of forest fires in some parts of the world. Frequency of these fries have increased over the years and seriously effected areas are Indonesia, Australia, America etc.
Many herbs and shrubs have also been eliminated , mainly main because of these forests fires or deforestation or harsh weather conditions, extinction of these herbs and shrubs is a grave tragedy, they have a very vital role to play in the eco system, they play a very important role in the natural food chain cycle. They have a importance for medical research etc.
Economic
This issue of global warming has its economical implications as well. A report issues by world bank states clearly about the potential threats posed by this global warming. Report says that climate change could affect growth which could be cut by one-fifth unless drastic action is taken. One percent of global GDP is required to be invested in order to mitigate the effects of climate change, and that failure to do so could risk a recession worth up to twenty percent of global GDP. Climate change threatens to be the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen. The report has had significant political effects: Australia reported two days after the report was released that they would allocate AU$60 million to projects to help cut greenhouse gas emissions.. Economists are putting in efforts to ascertain the all the possible effect that world economy can receive from this global warming. Some on these studies have suggested that impacts of global warming depend heavily upon initial temperatures (latitude). Countries in the polar region are likely to receive large benefits from warming, countries in the mid-latitudes will at first benefit and only begin to be harmed if temperatures rise above 2.5 C . Only countries in the tropical and subtropical regions are likely to be harmed immediately by warming and be subject to the magnitudes of impacts first thought likely. Summing these regional impacts across the globe implies that warming benefits and damages will likely offset each other until warming passes 2.5C and even then it will be far smaller on net than originally thought.

Effects on agriculture
For some time it was hoped that a positive effect of global warming would be increased agricultural yields, because of the role of carbon dioxide in photosynthesis, especially in preventing photorespiration, which is responsible for significant destruction of several crops. In Iceland, rising temperatures have made possible the widespread sowing of barley, which was untenable twenty years ago. Some of the warming is due to a local (possibly temporary) effect via ocean currents from the Caribbean, which has also affected fish stocks.
While local benefits may be felt in some regions (such as Siberia), recent evidence is that global yields will be negatively affected. "Rising atmospheric temperatures, longer droughts and side-effects of both, such as higher levels of ground-level ozone gas, are likely to bring about a substantial reduction in crop yields in the coming decades, large-scale experiments have shown".
Moreover, the region likely to be worst affected is Africa, both because its geography makes it particularly vulnerable, and because seventy per cent of the population rely on rain-fed agriculture for their livelihoods. Tanzania's official report on climate change suggests that the areas that usually get two rainfalls in the year will probably get more, and those that get only one rainy season will get far less. The net result is expected to be that 33% less maize.
Climate change may be one of the causes of the Darfur conflict. The combination of decades of drought, desertification and overpopulation are among the causes of the conflict, because the Arab Baggara nomads searching for water have to take their livestock further south, to land mainly occupied by farming peoples.
The UNEP report states "The scale of historical climate change, as recorded in Northern Darfur, is almost unprecedented: the reduction in rainfall has turned millions of hectares of already marginal semi-desert grazing land into desert. The impact of climate change is considered to be directly related to the conflict in the region, as desertification has added significantly to the stress on the livelihoods of pastoralist societies, forcing them to move south to find pasture,".
Insurance
An industry very directly affected by the risks is the insurance industry; the number of major natural disasters has tripled since the 1960s, and insured losses increased fifteen fold in real terms (adjusted for inflation). According to one study, 35–40% of the worst catastrophes have been climate change related. Over the past three decades, the proportion of the global population affected by weather-related disasters has doubled in linear trend, rising from roughly 2% in 1975 to 4% in 2001.
According to a 2005 report from the Association of British Insurers, limiting carbon emissions could avoid 80% of the projected additional annual cost of tropical cyclones by the 2080s. A June 2004 report by the Association of British Insurers declared "Climate change is not a remote issue for future generations to deal with. It is, in various forms, here already, impacting on insurers' businesses now." It noted that weather risks for households and property were already increasing by 2-4 % per year due to changing weather, and that claims for storm and flood damages in the UK had doubled to over £6 billion over the period 1998–2003, compared to the previous five years. The results are rising insurance premiums, and the risk that in some areas flood insurance will become unaffordable for some.
In the United States, insurance losses have also greatly increased. each 1% increase in annual precipitation could enlarge catastrophe loss by as much as 2.8%.Gross increases are mostly attributed to increased population and property values in vulnerable coastal areas, though there was also an increase in frequency of weather-related events like heavy rainfalls since the 1950s.
Transport
Roads, airport runways, railway lines and pipelines, (including oil pipelines, sewers, water mains etc) may require increased maintenance and renewal as they become subject to greater temperature variation. Regions already adversely affected include areas of permafrost, which are subject to high levels of subsidence, resulting in buckling roads, sunken foundations, and severely cracked runways.
Flood defense
For historical reasons to do with trade, many of the world's largest and most prosperous cities are on the coast, and the cost of building better coastal defenses (due to the rising sea level) is likely to be considerable. Some countries will be more affected than others — low-lying countries such as Bangladesh and the Netherlands would be worst hit by any sea level rise, in terms of floods or the cost of preventing them.
In developing countries, the poorest often live on flood plains, because it is the only available space, or fertile agricultural land. These settlements often lack infrastructure such as dykes and early warning systems. Poorer communities also tend to lack the insurance, savings or access to credit needed to recover from disasters.
Migration
In the 1990s a variety of estimates placed the number of environmental refugees at around 25 million. (Environmental refugees are not included in the official definition of refugees, which only includes migrants fleeing persecution.) estimates showed that 150 million environmental refugees will exist in the year 2050, due mainly to the effects of coastal flooding, shoreline erosion and agricultural disruption (150 million means 1.5% of 2050’s predicted 10 billion world population).
Development
The combined effects of global warming may impact particularly harshly on people and countries without the resources to mitigate those effects. This may slow economic development and poverty reduction, and make it harder to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.
In October 2004 the Working Group on Climate Change and Development, a coalition of development and environment NGOs, issued a report Up in Smoke on the effects of climate change on development. This report, and the July 2005 report Africa - Up in Smoke? predicted increased hunger and disease due to decreased rainfall and severe weather events, particularly in Africa. These are likely to have severe impacts on development for those affected.
Environmental
Secondary evidence of global warming — reduced snow cover, rising sea levels, weather changes — provides examples of consequences of global warming that may influence not only human activities but also ecosystems. Increasing global temperature means that ecosystems may change; some species may be forced out of their habitats (possibly to extinction) because of changing conditions, while others may flourish. Few of the terrestrial ecoregions on Earth could expect to be unaffected.
Increasing carbon dioxide may increase ecosystems' productivity to a point. Ecosystems' unpredictable interactions with other aspects of climate change makes the possible environmental impact of this is unclear, though. An increase in the total amount of biomass produced may not be necessarily positive: biodiversity can still decrease even though a relatively small number of species are flourishing.
Water scarcity
Positive eustasy may contaminate groundwater, affecting drinking water and agriculture in coastal zones. Increased evaporation will reduce the effectiveness of reservoirs. Increased extreme weather means more water falls on hardened ground unable to absorb it, leading to flash floods instead of a replenishment of soil moisture or groundwater levels. In some areas, shrinking glaciers threaten the water supply. Higher temperatures will also increase the demand for water for the purposes of cooling and hydration.
Mountains
Mountains cover approximately 25 percent of earth's surface and provide a home to more than one-tenth of global human population. Changes in global climate pose a number of potential risks to mountain habitats. Researchers expect that over time, climate change will affect mountain and lowland ecosystems, the frequency and intensity of forest fires, the diversity of wildlife, and the distribution of water.
Studies suggest that a warmer climate in the United States would cause lower-elevation habitats to expand into the higher alpine zone. Such a shift would encroach on the rare alpine meadows and other high-altitude habitats. High-elevation plants and animals have limited space available for new habitat as they move higher on the mountains in order to adapt to long-term changes in regional climate.
Changes in climate will also affect the depth of the mountains snow packs and glaciers. Any changes in their seasonal melting can have powerful impacts on areas that rely on freshwater runoff from mountains. Rising temperature may cause snow to melt earlier and faster in the spring and shift the timing and distribution of runoff. These changes could affect the availability of freshwater for natural systems and human uses.
Health
Direct effects of temperature rise
The most direct effect of climate change would be the impacts of hotter temperatures themselves. Extreme high temperatures increase the number of people who die on a given day for many reasons: people with heart problems are vulnerable because one's cardiovascular system must work harder to keep the body cool during hot weather, heat exhaustion, and some respiratory problems increase. Global warming could mean more cardiovascular diseases, doctors warn. Higher air temperature also increase the concentration of ozone at ground level. In the lower atmosphere, ozone is a harmful pollutant. It damages lung tissues and causes problems for people with asthma and other lung diseases.
Rising temperatures have two opposing direct effects on mortality: higher temperatures in winter reduce deaths from cold; higher temperatures in summer increase heat-related deaths. The European heat wave of 2003 killed 22,000–35,000 people, based on normal mortality rates.However, in the United States, more than 1000 people die from the cold each year, while twice that number die from the heat. Deaths of livestock have not been well-documented.
Spread of disease
Global warming is expected to extend the favorable zones for vectors conveying infectious disease such as dengue fever and malaria. In poorer countries, this may simply lead to higher incidence of such diseases. In richer countries, where such diseases have been eliminated or kept in check by vaccination, draining swamps and using pesticides, the consequences may be felt more in economic than health terms. The World Health Organisation (WHO) says global warming could lead to a major increase in insect-borne diseases in Britain and Europe,
Security
A number of groups have begun calling attention to the security implications of global warming, with particular attention being paid to this issue. Global warming will have significant security implications, in particular serving as a "threat multiplier" in already volatile regions. An unstable climate will exacerbate some of the core drivers of conflict, such as migratory pressures and competition for resources. As we already have discussed the example of Darfur conflict. How global warming together with draught aggravated this grave human tragedy. If proper attention is not paid tothis side of story, it could lead to other incidents like Darfur.
Steps to stop Global Warming
Renewable energy resources
We can help break our addiction to fossil fuels ( as burning of fossil fuels is the root cause of all ills as far as this global warming is concered ) like coal and oil by switching to renewable energy. In fact, with upgrades to our electricity grid, the world could meet all of its power needs, with renewable energy and support a significant portion of our transportation needs, too.
Wind Power:
Worldwide, trend , specially among the developed countries, for the wind energy is growing faster and faster, USA alone in 2007 has invested in wind power project to provide electricity to more than a million homes. Today's efficient wind turbines are sleek and powerful, and can be taller than the Statue of Liberty with blades longer than the wings of a Boeing 737. When connected together through a national grid, wind power could provide at least one-third of our total electricity needs of this ever growing world.

Solar Thermal:
Solar thermal power -- which uses solar energy to drive turbines -- already produces enough electricity for countries like USA, China, Japan etc. In these countries sun light is always in abundance , so they are making full use of this. Solar thermal power plants can store energy to produce electricity at night, they can be a very good substitute for new coal power plants. They can give us clean and cheep energy for our needs with out damaging our environment.
Solar Photovoltaic:
Countries like USA, China, Japan etc are already implementing programs to encourage communities to install solar panels in new homes, buildings, and even on parking lot roofs. Solar photovoltaic, which can now be integrated into roof tiles, have no moving parts and can even produce electricity on cloudy days. It will become more common as global installations of photovoltaic grow by an expected 800% in the next 10 years. If these systems were installed on all sunny buildings in the world, they could supply at least one-quarter of our electricity needs.
Geothermal Power:
Geothermal energy has been effectively in use in many countries of Europe, USA and Australia etc. USA is the leading producer of geothermal power, producing enough electricity from underground hot rocks for more than 2 million homes. Experts say that we could have 15-30 times as much power over the next few decades thanks to recent advances in geothermal technology. Geothermal is the way forward.
These technologies are just a few of the opportunities available today. All across the world, companies, governments, universities, and individuals are working to make renewable energy even more affordable and widely available.
The tide is turning toward renewable energy, but progress has been too slow. Individuals acting alone can't halt the 100+ new coal power plants currently being considered world wide. And they certainly can't build new solar thermal power plants by themselves. That's why we need our leaders at all levels to do more to promote renewable energy.Some government and business leaders are already taking a leadership role and considering the long-term costs of fossil fuels. Recently, three of the nation's largest investment banks -- Citi, JP Morgan Chase and Morgan Stanley -- announced that they will begin using new climate-based principles when considering loans for proposed coal-fired power plants. This is a first step towards investors choosing efficient and clean alternatives -- which will create new jobs in important sectors.To ensure greater adoption of renewable energy, each of us needs to urge our friends, utility companies, and government officials to more aggressively promote and integrate renewable power into all sectors of the economy. Together, we can stop the building of new dirty power plants and instead ensure that future energy projects take advantage of the clean renewable resources available.
Energy conservation
Solving global warming isn't only about installing majestic wind turbines and glistening solar energy systems in the desert. One of the cheapest, most effective, and safest ways to reduce global warming pollution is to increase our energy efficiency. In fact, by using energy efficiency technologies and today's know-how, we could cut our global warming pollution by a third.
So why aren't we?
In the United States , innovation and improvements over the past 30 years have allowed its economy to grow faster than its energy consumption. Unfortunately, in the next 22 years its electricity consumption is expected to grow by 25%. That'll mean an extra 550 million tons of CO2 each year that USA would have to reduce to stop global warming.
The good news is that by aggressively improving their energy efficiency now, USA can nearly eliminate this increase. It'll take leadership, but there are plenty of examples of how energy efficiency has worked. For example, people using energy-efficient appliances in 2007 avoided global warming pollution equivalent to nearly 27 million cars. If everyone did likewise -- and we similarly improved world’s buildings, industry, and transportation -- we could reduce annual emissions equivalent to nearly 400 million cars. That's 2 billion fewer tons of carbon dioxide (more than 6,000 times the weight of the Empire State Building!).
Building for energy-efficiency: In the United States alone, buildings are responsible for 25-35% of greenhouse gas emissions. By making simple changes, like using the proper amount of insulation, we can save half of the energy it takes to heat, cool, light, and otherwise provide power to buildings. And, with buildings lasting for 40-50 years or more, efficiency choices we make now will last at least a generation.
Cutting fuel costs on the road: CO2 emissions from cars and trucks account for about one-third of all energy-related global warming pollution orld wide. Cars bought in the United States last year averaged only 20 miles per gallon (mpg), which is less than half the gas mileage available on the most efficient cars today and about the same as a 1908 Model. We can do better than a car introduced 100 years ago. Innovation and technology, we can offer all cars with much better fuel economy and the same level of safety and features we expect. And the opportunities are not just available for cars: heavy-duty trucks, which transport about 60% of the goods we buy and use 39 billion gallons of fuel every year, can also become more efficient. Effective gas mileage standards and support for innovative technologies will keep our transportation system moving while greatly decreasing our environmental impact.
Making new appliances more energy-efficient: By using energy-efficient products at home and at work, we can significantly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions without sacrificing function, style, or features. Innovation and technology has enabled our appliances to use 10 to 50 percent less energy and water than the past.
6- Reduce-Refuse-Recycle
Recycling is one of the best environmental success stories of the late 20th century. It can really help to support the cause of global warming. Recycling, which includes composting, diverted over 72 million tons of material away from landfills and incinerators in 2003, up from 34 million tons in 1990—doubling in just 10 years. Recycling turns materials that would otherwise become waste into valuable resources. As a matter of fact, collecting recyclable materials is just the first step in a series of actions that generate a host of financial, environmental, and societal returns. There are several key benefits to recycling. Recycling:
Protects and expands manufacturing jobs.
Reduces the need for land filling and incineration.
Saves energy and prevents pollution caused by the extraction and processing of virgin materials and the manufacture of products using virgin materials.
Decreases emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change.
Conserves natural resources such as timber, water, and minerals.
Helps sustain the environment for future generations.
Keep in mind the effects of these common products if they are recycled, this would really help to reduce global warming process:
Glass
Glass packaging is easily recycled, making less energy intensive than the usual alternative plastic. Every ton of glass recycled gallons of oil from being consumed. While many non-disposable glass products like kitchen ware cannot be recycled, they are made from an abundant natural mineral-silica. Some natural food stores sell milk in returnable glass bottles. You can cut down on your consumption of glass by washing and reusing jars and bottles. I’ve us the same e peanut butter jar several times by refilling it with fresh ground peanut butter at a local natural foods store. Glass jars are also great for storing all kinds of things, like nails in the workshop or dried herbs in the kitchen.
Plastic
Plastics are made from a resource not generally known for being environmentally friendly: petroleum. If that isn’t enough to scare you, consider that packaging accounts for one third of all landfill space. More than half that packaging is plastic. While some plastics are readily recyclable (those labeled "1" and "2"), many are not. Plastics are used for an ever in increasing variety of disposable as well as durable goods. Plastics are inexpensive to produce are versatile. But tremendous energy inputs go into making plastics, and they break down slowly.
When grocery shopping, try to avoid plastics, especially "squeezable" bottles that are made of multi-layered plastic and cannot be recycled, Polystyrene (Styrofoam) is another non re-cycleable product. Bring your own cloth bags, so you don’t have to chose between paper or plastic. You might also try reusing plastic bread bags to buy bulk foods the next time you shop. Avoid disposable cameras. Again, the price of convenience is high.
Wood and paper
For every tree cut down, the atmosphere loses another carbon-trapping "sink." That’s not good for global warming. Tropical rainforests are a significant carbon dioxide sink that is being rapidly destroyed. Over two-thirds of the timber shipped from the Amazon comes to the United States. Demand for the wood is so great that even preserves are being illegally logged to meet demand. When you must buy wood, avoid tropical woods, especially mahogany. I play it safe and try not to buy wood products from tropical countries like Indonesia, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Brazil.
Metal
For non-food purchases, the durability of most metal products gives them an advantage over other materials. Although metals must be mined and processed at considerable energy expense, common metals like aluminum, copper and steel are easily recycled, representing energy savings.
Be wary of food products packaged in metal for convenience. The ubiquitous soda can, for instance, accounts for nearly 5 percent of household waste in some regions of the United States. ‘Me good news is recycling aluminum cuts air pollution by 95 percent over processing it from raw materials.
Food
Perhaps the greatest opportunity for cutting global warming gasses through everyday purchases comes with food. Where and how food is grown and processed have a big impact on greenhouse gasses produced. Consider cutting back or eliminating your purchases of beef. Beef production amounts to the equivalent of 1 gallon of gasoline in energy use for every pound produced; cows produce 100 million tons of methane annually; and 220 million acres of land have been deforested for livestock production in the United States alone. Rice paddies also emit much methane, so cutting back on rice purchases helps.
When possible, buy locally grown produce, direct from farmers. Support local bakeries. Avoid out-of-season fruits and vegetables that must be shipped in from the southern hemisphere. I’ve often given in to the temptation of buying what seems like beautiful, harmless fruit out-of-season. It wasn’t until I bought a tomato (in the winter) that had a sticker saying it was grown in a hothouse-in the European Union-that I really stopped to think about the consequences. Buy less-processed foods. Convenience has its price: the Earth.
Kitchen & bath
The typical American kitchen is a showcase of an array caustic chemicals and energy intensive disposable products, from paper napkins to plastic sponges. Cloth towels and napkins can be used hundreds of times. Each member of my household has a different colored cloth napkin, which we each wash as needed. Cloth towels work better than paper ones, and you can use them for rags after they’ve worn out. Natural cellulose or loofah sponges are biodegradable and more sustainable alternatives to plastic ones. Metal coffee filters never need replacing.
Solvents and cleaning products produce more than 36 percent of the ozone depleting substances in the United States annually. In addition, many cleaning supplies come plastic bottles. Many of these products can be replaced in the home through various mixtures of vinegar, baking soda, water and plain soap. A good general-purpose cleaner simply one teaspoon liquid soap mixed with one quart of water. Baking soda with water works well as a tile cleaner. The bathroom is another source of scores of disposable products. Vinyl, plastic and nylon shower curtains can be replaced by glass enclosures, which never need replacing, or cotton. Recycled bath tissue is now readily available.
Clothing
Used clothing has already been produced, transported, used and discarded. Think of the resources you save by purchasing used. When you must buy new, buy timeless, durable clothing made of natural or recycled materials. Most synthetic fabrics such as polyester are made from petroleum. Question everything: What is the source of rubber for the soles of your shoes? Are they re-soleable? What about accessories, jewelry, sunglasses, even watches. I wear a vintage 1950s Swiss watch that never needs a battery-or winding. It keeps perfect time.
Home
Most of us want a comfortable home. I do. But many of the comforts we choose to accept unquestioningly have hidden costs.
Home energy use is one way each of us can really make a difference. Do we really need so many lights on at night? For those lights you can’t eliminate, consider using compact fluorescent bulbs. By replacing each incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescent one, you reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 500 pounds per year. A compact fluorescent has the added benefit of lasting 7,500 to 10,000 hours versus only 750-1,000 hours for an incandescent bulb.
Home carpeting is made almost exclusively of petroleum products. Tile, brick, stone or wood are permanent alternatives. Natural linoleum is biodegradable.
Bedding is another source of high-impact, fossil-fuel dependent manufacturing. Traditional mattresses are made of synthetic petroleum products, which can also emit sleep disrupting chemicals. Futons, made from cotton or wool, require less energy to produce and will break down. For the same reasons, consider buying sheets and blankets made of all natural materials. I find all-cotton sheets more comfortable than cotton-polyester blend. Wool blankets and cotton quilts offer plenty of warmth.
Personal care
Again, try to think about all steps involved in bringing the product to the store shelf materials, manufacturing processes, transportation and recycleability. The simpler the product, the better. Consider these alternatives: refillable razors instead of disposable ones; organically grown herbal shampoos in refillable containers; for deodorant, baking soda in paper-fiber packaging; non-endangered wood and natural bristle tooth and hair brushes instead of plastic non-biodegradable ones.
Office supplies
Paper consumes trees, which are valuable carbon sinks. Tree-free paper made of kenaf, jute, hemp and cereal straw and cotton, and recycled papers, are viable alternatives. Consider using a refillable fountain pen. Ink comes in recycleable glass jars which last for months. I’ve found my fountain pen also make writing a joy.
Major purchases
Although not usually the subject of impulse buying or day-to-day purchases, our selection of major items Eke cars and appliances can have a tremendous effect on the condition of our Consider long-term operating costs, efficiency, durability, and of course, the source of the materials, manufacturing processes, transportation and recycleability.
Many appliances, such as computers, TV and VCRs, and washing machines are becoming available in energy efficient models. Look for the Energy Star logo on computers, TVs and VCRs. When purchasing a car, keep in mind that a fuel-efficient model, with 32 or more miles to the gallon, saves 5,600 pounds of carbon dioxide per year. Although production of ozone-depleting CFCs has been banned in the United States since 1995, stockpiles of CFCs are still being used. If purchasing a new car or car made since 1992, look for CFC-free air conditioners. All vehicles made before 1992 use CFCs in air conditioners. The type of refrigerant is labeled on the air conditioning compressor or elsewhere in the engine compartment.
Kyoto Protocol
The Kyoto Protocol of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is an amendment to the international treaty on climate change, assigning mandatory emission limitations for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to the signatory nations.The objective of the protocol is the "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."[
The Kyoto Protocol now covers more than 160 countries globally and more than 60% of countries in terms of global greenhouse gas emissions. This treaty expires in 2012, and international talks began in May 2007 on a future treaty to succeed the current one.
At its heart, the Kyoto Protocol establishes the following principles:
Kyoto is underwritten by governments and is governed by global legislation enacted under the UN’s aegis;
Governments are separated into two general categories: developed countries, referred to as Annex I countries (who have accepted greenhouse gas emission reduction obligations and must submit an annual greenhouse gas inventory); and developing countries, referred to as Non-Annex I countries (who have no greenhouse gas emission reduction obligations but may participate in the Clean Development Mechanism);
Any Annex I country that fails to meet its Kyoto obligation will be penalized by having to submit 1.3 emission allowances in a second commitment period for every ton of greenhouse gas emissions they exceed their cap in the first commitment period (i.e., 2008-2012);
By 2008-2012, Annex I countries have to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by a collective average of 5% below their 1990 levels (for many countries, such as the EU member states, this corresponds to some 15% below their expected greenhouse gas emissions in 2008). While the average emissions reduction is 5%, national limitations range from 8% reductions for the European Union to a 10% emissions increase for Iceland; but since the EU intends to meet its obligation by distributing different rates among its member states, much larger increases (up to 27%) are allowed for some of the less developed EU countries (see below #Increase in greenhouse gas emission since 1990).Reduction limitations expire in 2013;
Kyoto includes "flexible mechanisms" which allow Annex I economies to meet their greenhouse gas emission limitation by purchasing GHG emission reductions from elsewhere. These can be bought either from financial exchanges, from projects which reduce emissions in non-Annex I economies under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), from other Annex 1 countries under the JI, or from Annex I countries with excess allowances. Only CDM Executive Board-accredited Certified Emission Reductions (CER) can be bought and sold in this manner. Under the aegis of the UN, Kyoto established this Bonn-based Clean Development Mechanism Executive Board to assess and approve projects (“CDM Projects”) in Non-Annex I economies prior to awarding CERs. (A similar scheme called “Joint Implementation” or “JI” applies in transitional economies mainly covering the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe).
All the Annex I economies have established Designated National Authorities to manage their greenhouse gas portfolios under Kyoto. Countries including Japan, Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Spain and many more, are actively promoting government carbon funds and supporting multilateral carbon funds intent on purchasing Carbon Credits from Non-Annex I countries. These government organizations are working closely with their major utility, energy, oil & gas and chemicals conglomerates to try to acquire as many Greenhouse Gas Certificates as cheaply as possible.
Objectives


Kyoto is intended to cut global emissions of greenhouse gases.
The objective is the "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."
Status of the agreement
The treaty was negotiated in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, opened for signature on March 16, 1998, and closed on March 15, 1999. The agreement came into force on February 16, 2005 following ratification by Russia on November 18, 2004. As of December 2006, a total of 169 countries and other governmental entities have ratified the agreement (representing over 61.6% of emissions from Annex I countries).
According to article 25 of the protocol, it enters into force "on the ninetieth day after the date on which not less than 55 Parties to the Convention, incorporating Parties included in Annex I which accounted in total for at least 55% of the total carbon dioxide emissions for 1990 of the Parties included in Annex I, have deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession." Of the two conditions, the "55 parties" clause was reached on May 23 2002 when Iceland ratified. The ratification by Russia on 18 November 2004 satisfied the "55%" clause and brought the treaty into force, effective February 16, 2005.

Details of the agreement
According to a press release from the United Nations Environment Programme:
"The Kyoto Protocol is an agreement under which industrialized countries will reduce their collective emissions of greenhouse gases by 5.2% compared to the year 1990 (but note that, compared to the emissions levels that would be expected by 2010 without the Protocol, this limitation represents a 29% cut). The goal is to lower overall emissions of six greenhouse gases - carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, HFCs, and PFCs - calculated as an average over the five-year period of 2008-12. National limitations range from 8% reductions for the European Union and some others to 7% for the US, 6% for Japan, 0% for Russia, and permitted increases of 8% for Australia and 10% for Iceland.[13]
It is an agreement negotiated as an amendment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, which was adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992). All parties to the UNFCCC can sign or ratify the Kyoto Protocol, while non-parties to the UNFCCC cannot. The Kyoto Protocol was adopted at the third session of the Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC (COP3) in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan.
Most provisions of the Kyoto Protocol apply to developed countries, listed in Annex I to the UNFCCC. Emission figures exclude international aviation and shipping.
Financial commitments
The Protocol also reaffirms the principle that developed countries have to pay billions of dollars, and supply technology to other countries for climate-related studies and projects. This was originally agreed.
Support
Advocates of the Kyoto Protocol state that reducing these emissions is crucially important, as carbon dioxide is causing the earth's atmosphere to heat up. No country has passed national legislation requiring compliance with their treaty obligation. The governments of all of the countries whose parliaments have ratified the Protocol are supporting it. Most prominent among advocates of Kyoto have been the European Union and many environmentalist organizations. The United Nations and some individual nations' scientific advisory bodies (including the G8 national science academies) have also issued reports favoring the Kyoto Protocol. An international day of action was planned for 3 December 2005, to coincide with the Meeting of the Parties in Montreal. The planned demonstrations were endorsed by the Assembly of Movements of the World Social Forum.
Opposition
Some public policy experts who are skeptical of global warming see Kyoto as a scheme to either slow the growth of the world's industrial democracies or to transfer wealth to the third world in what they claim is a global socialism initiative. Others argue the protocol does not go far enough to curb greenhouse emissions. Some environmental economists have been critical of the Kyoto Protocol. Many see the costs of the Kyoto Protocol as outweighing the benefits, some believing the standards which Kyoto sets to be too optimistic, others seeing a highly inequitable and inefficient agreement which would do little to curb greenhouse gas emissions. It should be noted, however, that this opposition is not unanimous, and that the inclusion of emissions trading has led some environmental economists to embrace the treaty.
Further, there is controversy surrounding the use of 1990 as a base year, as well as not using per capita emissions as a basis. Countries had different achievements in energy efficiency in 1990. For example, the former Soviet Union and eastern European countries did little to tackle the problem and their energy efficiency was at its worst level in 1990; the year just before their communist regimes fell. On the other hand, Japan, as a big importer of natural resources, had to improve its efficiency after the 1973 oil crisis and its emissions level in 1990 was better than most developed countries. However, such efforts were set aside, and the inactivity of the former Soviet Union was overlooked and could even generate big income due to the emission trade. There is an argument that the use of per capita emissions as a basis in the following Kyoto-type treaties can reduce the sense of inequality among developed and developing countries alike, as it can reveal inactivities and responsibilities among countries.
Cost-benefit analysis
Economists have been trying to analyse the overall net benefit of Kyoto Protocol through cost-benefit analysis. Just as in the case of climatology, there is disagreement due to large uncertainties in economic variables. Some of the estimates indicate either that observing the Kyoto Protocol is more expensive than not observing the Kyoto Protocol or that the Kyoto Protocol has a marginal net benefit which exceeds the cost of simply adjusting to global warming. However, a study in Nature found that "accounting only for local external costs, together with production costs, to identify energy strategies, compliance with the Kyoto Protocol would imply lower, not higher, overall costs."
The recent Copenhagen consensus project found that the Kyoto Protocol would slow down the process of global warming, but have a superficial overall benefit. Defenders of the Kyoto Protocol argue, however, that while the initial greenhouse gas cuts may have little effect, they set the political precedent for bigger (and more effective) cuts in the future. They also advocate commitment to the precautionary principle. Critics point out that additional higher curbs on carbon emission are likely to cause significantly higher increase in cost, making such defence moot. Moreover, the precautionary principle could apply to any political, social, economic or environmental consequence, which might have equally devastating effect in terms of poverty and environment, making the precautionary argument irrelevant.

Social and political debate
Increased publicity of the scientific findings surrounding global warming has resulted in political and economic debate.Poor regions, particularly Africa, appear at greatest risk from the projected effects of global warming, while their emissions have been small compared to the developed world. At the same time, developing country exemptions from provisions of the Kyoto Protocol have been criticized by the United States and Australia, and used as part of a rationale for continued non-ratification by the U.S. In the Western world, the idea of human influence on climate has gained wider public acceptance in Europe than in the United States.
The issue of climate change has sparked debate weighing the benefits of limiting industrial emissions of greenhouse gases against the costs that such changes would entail. There has been discussion in several countries about the cost and benefits of adopting alternative energy sources in order to reduce carbon emissions. Major Organizations and companies , who are the potential stake holders in this scenario of global warming have emphasized more conservative climate change scenarios while highlighting the potential economic cost of stricter controls. Likewise, various environmental lobbies and a number of public figures have launched campaigns to emphasize the potential risks of climate change and promote the implementation of stricter controls. Some fossil fuel companies have scaled back their efforts in recent years, or called for policies to reduce global warming.
Another point of contention is the degree to which emerging economies such as India and China should be expected to constrain their emissions. According to recent reports, China's gross national CO2 emissions may now exceed those of the U.S. China has contended that it has less of an obligation to reduce emissions since its per capita emissions are roughly one-fifth that of the United States. India, also exempt from Kyoto restrictions and another of the biggest sources of industrial emissions, has made similar assertions. However, the U.S. contends that if they must bear the cost of reducing emissions, then China should do the same.
Reasons for not believing in Global Warming Scam
Concern over “global warming” is overblown and misdirected. What follows are the reasons why we should not follow this misleading and time wasting debate
1. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate. More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.
2. Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend. Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.
3. Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes. All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers’ expectations, modelers resort to “flux adjustments” that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says “climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable.”
4. The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming. Alarmists frequently quote the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organization, to support their predictions. But here is what the IPCC’s latest report, Climate Change 2001, actually says about predicting the future climate: “The Earth’s atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes.”
5. A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization. Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 800 to 1200 AD), which allowed the Vikings to settle presently inhospitable Greenland, were higher than even the worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC. The period from about 5000-3000 BC, known as the “climatic optimum,” was even warmer and marked “a time when mankind began to build its first civilizations,” observe James Plummer and Frances B. Smith in a study for Consumer Alert. “There is good reason to believe that a warmer climate would have a similar effect on the health and welfare of our own far more advanced and adaptable civilization today.”
6. Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earth’s climate from changing. Reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to 7 percent below 1990’s levels by the year 2012--the target set by the Kyoto Protocol--would require higher energy taxes and regulations causing the nation to lose 2.4 million jobs and $300 billion in annual economic output. Average household income nationwide would fall by $2,700, and state tax revenues would decline by $93.1 billion due to less taxable earned income and sales, and lower property values. Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol by all participating nations would reduce global temperature in the year 2100 by a mere 0.14 degrees Celsius.
7. The best strategy to pursue is “no regrets.” The alternative to demands for immediate action to “stop global warming” is not to do nothing. The best strategy is to invest in atmospheric research now and in reducing emissions sometime in the future if the science becomes more compelling. In the meantime, investments should be made to reduce emissions only when such investments make economic sense in their own right.
This strategy is called “no regrets,” and it is roughly what the Bush administration has been doing. The U.S. spends more on global warming research each year than the entire rest of the world combined, and American businesses are leading the way in demonstrating new technologies for reducing and sequestering greenhouse gas emissions

Global Warming: Big Questions, Big ResearchThere is still a lot of controversy revolves around this whole debate of Global warming. There is a great debate over whether or not global warming is a reality. Some activists and researchers have resorted to name-calling or accusing the opposing side of having "sold out" to one special interest or another. As mentioned previously, we have attempted to cut away the personal attacks between the opposing sides, search for the kernel of truth (or logic, where truth cannot be discerned), and get down to the heart of the matter. In order to properly read any of the reports or research on global climate change, one must keep in mind that nothing (or almost nothing) is certain. Everything has a certain degree of uncertainty, a certain flavor of the unknown. There really is no conclusive evidence of global warming, and many scientists in favor of the global warming hypothesis say that it will be a decade or more before it is possible to develop any substantial evidence. As an anonymous senior climate modeler has said about global warming, "The more you learn, the more you understand that you don't understand very much" (Kerr - Greenhouse Forecasting). Global climate is by nature always fluctuating, and that only adds to the confusion about anthropogenic global warming. If there were an anthropogenic global warming, we couldn't be sure what temperature we were supposed to be at, as climate shifts are a natural part of life on Earth. Compounding that confusion is natural variability, which is always working to confuse researchers just as they come close to attributing a perceived change in average temperature to some external factor, such as atmospheric composition (GHGs) or solar variation. One reason for this variability is the long adjustment time of the oceans' heat storage and current systems. It is estimated to take several hundred years for water to circulate from the deepest portions of the oceans back to the surface. This means that if, for example, a pool of extra cold water is singled out and stored in the depths by some freak mechanism, it could stay there a century or two before resurfacing and producing a local, cool climate change (Clarkson, North, and Schmandt). Since no one can create another Earth (let alone one that behaves exactly like ours) and perform atmosphere-altering experiments on it, we are left with the alternative of theorizing based on observations. In other words, the only way we can purport to know anything about what might be changing in our climate is by playing with data, such as records of temperature, borehole measurements, etc., and seeing what scenarios the data will agree with. Most of the body of global warming theory is based on computerized climate models called global circulation models or GCMs, for they are almost the only tools global warming researchers have. GCMs are difficult to make as making them properly involves a deep-rooted understanding of the way the atmosphere works and how its actions are interconnected with other planetary bodies, such as the oceans or the terrestrial biosphere. But our understanding of the inner workings of the atmosphere and the ways it relates to other planetary bodies is not very good. Renowned NASA climate modeler James Hansen, the man whose summer 1988 congressional testimony kicked off the climate change debate, states in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: "The forcings [outside factors] that drive long-term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate changes." One of the fundamental illustrations of chaos, the butterfly effect, displays the interconnectedness of the atmosphere system when it states that a butterfly fluttering through the air in China could cause rain in New York the following spring. GCMs are made by formulating mathematical descriptions of the interrelationships between the atmosphere/ocean/biosphere/cryosphere system and conducting numerical experiments. They certainly are unable to form a mathematical description based on the kind of interconnections, or feedbacks, that the butterfly effect would suggest. Indeed, Michael Schlesinger, modeler at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, tells us that "in the climate system, there are 14 orders of magnitude, from the planetary scale--which is 40 million meters--down to the scale of one of the little aerosol particles on which water vapor can change phase to a liquid [cloud particle]--which is a fraction of a millionth of a millimeter." Of these 14 orders of magnitude, only the two largest (the planetary scale and the scale of weather disturbances) can currently be included in models. Schlesinger notes that, to include the third order of magnitude (the scale of thunderstorms, at about 50 km resolution) a computer a thousand times faster would be necessary, "a teraflops machine that maybe we'll have in 5 years." Including all orders of magnitude would require 1036-1037 times more computing power (Kerr - Greenhouse Forecasting). Because GCMs are so hard to make, often they account for the same processes differently; two models may have two different mathematical descriptions of what effect clouds have on warming, for example. Processes with a resolution smaller than a few hundred kilometers cannot be represented directly in the models, but instead must be parameterized, or expressed in terms of the larger scale motions, since the models do not have the resolution necessary to properly represent the actions of important weather systems such as tropical and extratropical cyclones. To offset this downfall, a few parameterizations (such as horizontal eddy viscosity, large-scale precipitation cumulus convection, gravity wave drag, etc.) are calibrated. Added to these parameterizations are adjustments commonly referred to as flux corrections, and they are an important "fudge factor" for the GCMs. These factors keep the models from floating off into nowhere. As Kerr (Model) stated, "Climate modelers have been 'cheating' for so long it's almost become respectable." Through these parameterizations, GCMs attempt to represent certain climate features reasonably well, but it is possible that they may be getting the right numbers but have the wrong underlying reason for them. As a result, such models' ability to simulate climate change properly would be negatively impacted. Lately, a model has been designed and tested at the National Center for Atmospheric Research to eliminate the flux corrections. This model better incorporates the effects of ocean eddies, not by shrinking the scale, but by parameterization, passing the effects of these invisible eddies onto larger model scales using a more realistic means of mixing hear through the ocean that any earlier model did. This model doesn't drift off into chaos even after 300 years of running. This model gives a 2oC rise in temperature due to a CO2 doubling. (Some of the more popular GCMs assume that the concentration of CO2 will double in 70 years or quadruple in 140 years and use the assumption to try to predict what the climate will be like in decades or even centuries based on that doubling or quadrupling.) This figure is on the low side of estimates and puts the model's sensitivity to greenhouse gases near the low end of current model estimates (Kerr - Model). GCMs are very sensitive to the representations of the effects of clouds and oceans, as their effects are complex and not understood well. While some GCMs are being specially made to simulate water behavior in clouds, limited vertical resolution (i.e., they don't go up far enough) and coarse horizontal resolution (i.e., the cloud activity of large areas of the Earth is averaged together and this average is used for the entire area) prevent even these models from accurately covering thin clouds and some cloud formation processes. Most early simulations were run with fixed cloud distributions based on observed cloud cover data, but these fixed levels didn't allow any feedback between cloud distributions and changing atmospheric/oceanic temperatures and motions. Problems in cloud feedback are seen as the Achilles heel of GCMs. Likewise, ocean representations were initially crude; in some early models, a swamp (stagnant, heat-absorbing, heat and water vapor-releasing body of water) was used as the oceanic model. Later models had a 50 meter thick slab of ocean that allowed summertime heat storage and wintertime heat release. While not including ocean currents (caused by the movement of heat to colder areas of ocean), these models attempted to represent seasonal responses to temperature in the upper ocean, but the lack of currents resulted in tropical oceans being too hot and polar regions too cold. Even today's most sophisticated, computationally-intense climate models are still just numerically experimental approximations of the exceedingly complex atmosphere/ocean/biosphere/cryosphere system. And yet, these GCMs are the basis of global warming theory, if for no other reason than the near-impossibility of conducting physical experiments at the global level (Cotton & Pielke). The main means of testing these mathematical models of the climate involves taking climate data from previous years, running the programs, and seeing if the computer results are close to the actual present climatic data. The problem there is that the data are not exactly accurate. When the predicted global warming ranges from .5oC to 4oC, data accuracy is important, to say the least. Satellite data (view some) is called insubstantial by some researchers for the short length of its records, but Phil Jones states that the shortness even of global-scale surface temperature records (about 100 years) aids the uncertainty in the field. Interestingly enough, current surface temperature measurements have shown a .5oC warming over the past century, but satellite measurements for the past fifteen years (satellite data has only been available for nineteen years) shows a slight downward trend. Satellite trends in temperature vary smoothly, while in some surface data, one region will appear to be warming while those regions around it appear to cool. According to Dr. Roy Spencer, a NASA scientist, "We see major excursions [from the trend] due to volcanic eruptions like [Mount] Pinatubo and ocean current phenomena like El Niño, but overall the trend is about 0.05 degrees Celsius per decade cooling" (Horack and Spencer). Earlier this year, it was realized that the satellite data needed correction for orbital decay, or "downward drift," in the satellites that cause erroneous cooling to show in the data. However, even after a careful readjustment the trend is still 0.01oC per decade of cooling, while weather balloons show -0.02 and -0.07oC per decade in Britain and America respectively, and British surface data show a warming of 0.15oC per decade. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) climate model predictions estimate surface warming to be 0.18oC per decade and warming in the deep layer measured by satellites and weather balloons to be about 30% faster, or +0.23oC per decade. None of the satellites or weather balloons show values anywhere near this, not even when the adjusted satellite record is updated through July 1998 to show a trend of +0.04oC per decade, which is still only 1/6 of the IPCC-predicted rate (Spencer). Even while the satellites may need adjustments in their data for changes in orbit, this data is still more accurate than surface data. Satellites do not have anything in their surroundings to skew the data. On the other hand, many sources of error exist here on Earth. Things as seemingly minuscule as variation in the color and type of paint used for the instrument shelters can skew data slightly, for different types and colors of paint absorb small but differing amounts of solar radiation. As another example, the urban heat island effect is known to make cities warmer at night and milder during the day. The growth of urban areas during this century has resulted in a 0.4oC bias in the US climate record, making the amount of warming appear larger than it was (Cotton and Pielke). Thomas Karl, climatologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), demonstrated in a 1989 paper that, if surface temperatures are corrected for the urban heat island effect, the years around 1940 emerge as the warmest, with readings since then showing a downward trend (Crandall). If this bias exists in the global climate data set, its use to represent a wider geographic record for climate change studies will be misleading. Another largely-ignored factor affecting temperature data is solar variation, or periodic changes in the brightness of the sun based on sunspots and the like. Some climate modelers say that the Sun only varies with an 11-year cycle, and this period is too fast for the climate system to respond to. Hoyt points out that explosive volcanic eruptions have a one to two year long radiative forcing which does appear to affect climate, and so solar variance should have a substantial impact on climate. James Hansen, the famed NASA modeler, put it this way: "Anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs), which are well-measured, cause a strong positive (warming) forcing. But other, poorly measured, anthropogenic forcings, especally changes of atmospheric aerosols, clouds, and other land-use patterns, cause a negative forcing that tends to offset greenhouse warming. One consequence of this partial balance is that the natural forcing due to solar irradiance changes may play a larger role in long-term climate change than inferred from GHGs alone" (NASA's). Current research by Daniel Cayan and Warren White of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography gives evidence that "the waxing and waning of the sun" may be behind current climate change. They studied North Pacific sea surface temperatures for the past 50 years and noticed that their pattern looked remarkably like that of satellite records of solar irradiance (Kerr - New). Based on this, it would seem logical to include these effects in GCMs, but few researchers do. Moreover, any calculated warming would be reduced by this cooling effect of volcanoes. Even though we cannot predict the occurrence of a volcanic eruption, we have sufficient statistical information about past eruptions to estimate their average cooling effect; yet this is one of several factors not specifically considered by the IPCC (Singer - Scientific) and many other models. If these models are wrong in their assumptions about climate, then everything that is thought to be known because of them is wrong. If, however, their assumptions are right, but essential factors or effects within the global system are being omitted from study, then GCMs thought to be wrong may actually need only an enlightened tweaking. Unfortunately, enlightenment is difficult to come by in this field. Many, many things are still unknown.
Fact and Fiction:FICTION: Even if the Earth is warming, we can’t be sure how much, if any, of the warming is caused by human activities.FACT: There is international scientific consensus that most of the warming over the last 50 years is due to human activities, not natural causes. Over millions of years, animals and plants lived, died and were compressed to form huge deposits of oil, gas and coal. In little more than 300 years, however, we have burned a large amount of this storehouse of carbon to supply energy.Today, the by-products of fossil fuel use – billions of tons of carbon (in the form of carbon dioxide), methane, and other greenhouse gases – form a blanket around the Earth, trapping heat from the sun, unnaturally raising temperatures on the ground, and steadily changing our climate.The impacts associated with this deceptively small change in temperature are evident in all corners of the globe. There is heavier rainfall in some areas, and droughts in others. Glaciers are melting, Spring is arriving earlier, oceans are warming, and coral reefs are dying.FICTION: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts an increase in the global average temperature of only 1.4°C to 5.8°C over the coming century.This small change, less than the current daily temperature range for most major cities, is hardly cause for concern.FACT: Global average temperature is calculated from temperature readings around the Earth. While temperature does vary considerably at a daily level in any one place, global average temperature is remarkably constant. According to analyses of ice cores, tree rings, pollen and other “climate proxies,” the average temperature of the Northern Hemisphere had varied up or down by only a few tenths of a degree Celsius between 1000 AD and about 1900, when a rapid warming began.A global average temperature change ranging from 1.4°C to 5.8°C would translate into climate-related impacts that are much larger and faster than any that have occurred during the 10 000-year history of civilization.From scientific analyses of past ages, we know that even small global average temperature changes can lead to large climate shifts. For example, the average global temperature difference between the end of the last ice age (when much of the Northern Hemisphere was buried under thousands of feet of ice) and today’s interglacial climate is only about 5°C .FICTION: Warming cannot be due to greenhouse gases, since changes in temperature and changes in greenhouse gas emissions over the past century did not occur simultaneously.FACT: The slow heating of the oceans creates a significant time lag between when carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are emitted into the atmosphere and when changes in temperature occur.This is one of the main reasons why we don’t see changes in temperature at the same time as changes in greenhouse gas emissions. You can see the same process occur in miniature when you heat up a pot of water on the stove: there is a time lag between the time you turn on the flame and when the water starts to boil.In addition, there are many other factors that affect year-to-year variation in the Earth’s temperature. For example, volcanic eruptions, El Niсo, and small changes in the output of the sun can all affect the global climate on a yearly basis.Therefore, you would not expect the build-up of greenhouse gases to exactly match trends in global climate. Still, scientific evidence points clearly to anthropogenic (or human-made) greenhouse gases as the main culprit for climate change.FICTION: Carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere fairly quickly, so if global warming turns out to be a problem, we can wait to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions until after we start to see the impacts of warming.FACT: Carbon dioxide, a gas created by the burning of fossil fuels (like gasoline and coal), is the most important human-made greenhouse gas.Carbon dioxide from fossil fuel use is produced in huge quantities and can persist in our atmosphere for as long as 200 years.This means that if emissions of carbon dioxide were halted today, it would take centuries for the amount of carbon dioxide now in the atmosphere to come down to what it was in pre-industrial times. Thus we need to act now if we want to avoid the increasingly dangerous consequences of climate change in the future.FICTION: Human activities contribute only a small fraction of carbon dioxide emissions, an amount too small to have a significant effect on climate, particularly since the oceans absorb most of the extra carbon dioxide emissions.FACT: Before human activities began to dramatically increase carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted from natural sources closely matched the amount that was stored or absorbed through natural processes.For example, as forests grow, they absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis; this carbon is then sequestered in wood, leaves, roots and soil. Some carbon is later released back to the atmosphere when leaves, roots and wood die and decay.Carbon dioxide also cycles through the ocean Plankton living at the ocean’s surface absorb carbon dioxide through photosynthesis. The plankton and animals that eat the plankton then die and fall to the bottom of the ocean. As they decay, carbon dioxide is released into the water and returns to the surface via ocean currents. As a result of these natural cycles, the amount of carbon dioxide in the air had changed very little for 10,000 years. But that balance has been upset by man.Since the Industrial Revolution, the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil has put about twice as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than is naturally removed by the oceans and forests. This has resulted in carbon dioxide levels building up in the atmosphere.Today, carbon dioxide levels are 30% higher than pre-industrial levels, higher than they have been in the last 420,000 years and are probably at the highest levels in the past 20 million years. Studies of the Earth’s climate history have shown that even small, natural changes in carbon dioxide levels were generally accompanied by significant shifts in the global average temperature.We have already experienced a 1°F increase in global temperature in the past century, and we can expect significant warming in the next century if we fail to act to decrease greenhouse gas emissions.FICTION: The Earth has warmed rapidly in the past without dire consequences, so society and ecosystems can adapt readily to any foreseeable warming.FACT: The Earth experienced rapid warming in some places at the end of the last glacial period, but for the last 10,000 years our global climate has been relatively stable. During this period, as agriculture and civilization developed, the world’s population has grown tremendously. Now, many heavily populated areas, such as urban centers in low-lying coastal zones, are highly vulnerable to climate shifts.In addition, many ecosystems and species that are already threatened by existing pressures (such as pollution, habitat conversion and degradation) may be further pressured to the point of extinction by a changing climate.FICTION: The buildup of carbon dioxide will lead to a “greening” of the Earth because plants can utilize the extra carbon dioxide to speed their growth.FACT: Carbon dioxide has been shown to act as a fertilizer for some plant species under some conditions. In addition, a longer growing season (due to warmer temperatures) could increase productivity in some regions.However, there is also evidence that plants can acclimatize to higher carbon dioxide levels – that means plants may grow faster for only a short time before returning to previous levels of growth.Another problem is that many of the studies in which plant growth increased due to carbon dioxide fertilization were done in greenhouses where other nutrients, which plants need to survive, were adequately supplied.In nature, plant nutrients like nitrogen as well as water are often in short supply. Thus, even if plants have extra carbon dioxide available, their growth might be limited by a lack of water and nutrients. Finally, climate change itself could lead to decreased plant growth in many areas because of increased drought, flooding and heat waves.Whatever benefit carbon dioxide fertilization may bring, it is unlikely to be anywhere near enough to counteract the adverse impacts of a rapidly changing climate.FICTION: If Earth has warmed since pre-industrial times, it is because the intensity of the sun has increased.FACT: The sun’s intensity does vary. In the late 1970’s, sophisticated technology was developed that can directly measure the sun’s intensity. Measurements from these instruments show that in the past 20 years the sun’s variations have been very small.Indirect measures of changes in sun’s intensity since the beginning of the industrial revolution in 1750 show that variations in the sun’s intensity do not account for all the warming that occurred in the 20th century and that the majority of the warming was caused by an increase in human-made greenhouse gas emissions.FICTION: It is hard enough to predict the weather a few days in advance. How can we have any confidence in projections of climate a hundred years from now?FACT: Climate and weather are different. Weather refers to temperatures, precipitation and storms on a given day at a particular place. Climate reflects a long-term average, sometimes over a very large area, such as a continent or even the entire Earth.Averages over large areas and periods of time are easier to estimate than the specific characteristics of weather.For example, although it is notoriously difficult to predict if it will rain or the exact temperature of any particular day at a specific location, we can predict with relative certainty that on average, in the Northeastern United States, it will be colder in December than in July.In addition, climate models are now sophisticated enough to be able to recreate past climates, including climate change over the last hundred years. This adds to our confidence that projections of future climates are accurate.Finally, when we report climate projections, we use a range of results from climate models that represent the boundaries of our projections (what’s the least global average temperature could change to what’s the most global average temperature could change) and our degree of certainty of the projections.FICTION: The science of global climate change cannot tell us the amount by which man-made emissions of greenhouse gases should be reduced in order to slow global warming.FACT: The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change states that emissions of greenhouse gases should be reduced to avoid “dangerous interference with the climate system.” Scientists have subsequently attempted to define what constitutes “dangerous interference.”One study (O’Neill and Oppenheimer, 2002) supplies three criteria that could be used:1) risk to threatened ecosystems such as coral reefs2) large-scale disruptions caused by changes in the climate system, such as sea-level rise caused by the break-up of the Antarctic Ice Sheet and3) large-scale disruptions of the climate system itself, such as the shutdown of the thermohaline circulation of the Atlantic Ocean (the Gulf stream), which would result in a severe drop in temperature to Europe.This study projects that if C02 concentrations are capped at 450 parts per million (ppm), major disruptions to climate systems may be avoided, although some damage (such as that to coral reefs) may be unavoidable.Current estimates of atmospheric CO2 concentrations likely to be reached without aggressive action to limit greenhouse gas emissions are far higher – from 550 ppm to as much as 1000 ppm in the next hundred years.FICTION: Because of the uncertainty of climate models, it is extremely difficult to predict exactly what regional impacts will result from global climate change.FACT: According to the IPCC, certain climate trends are highly likely to occur if greenhouse gas emissions continue at their current rate or increase: sea level will rise; droughts will increase in some areas, flooding in others; temperatures will rise, leading to heat waves becoming more common and glaciers likely to melt at a more rapid rate.Regional impacts are very likely to occur, but exactly when and what they will be is harder to predict.This is because:1) regional climate models are more computer intensive than global climate models – they take longer to run and are more difficult to calibrate, and2) many non-climate factors contribute to impacts at regional levels. For example, the risk of mosquito-borne illnesses like Dengue fever and malaria may rise due to increased temperatures, but the actual likelihood of infection will depend greatly on the effectiveness of public health measures in place.