Excess Ozone Chokes Plants, Accelerates Global Warming

(NaturalNews) The chemical known as ozone may be making a much more significant contribution to global warming than scientists had previously thought, according to a new study published in the journal Nature.

"Ozone could be twice as important as we previously thought as a driver of climate change," said study co-author Peter Cox.

Ozone occurs naturally in the upper atmosphere, but is produced in the lower atmosphere when sunlight strikes industrial pollutants such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrogen oxides.

Scientists have long known that ozone is a greenhouse gas, trapping radiation within the atmosphere and leading to rising global temperatures. But the new study suggests that ozone may have a much more significant climate impact by adversely affecting plants' ability to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

According to the researchers, high concentrations of ozone and carbon dioxide damage plants' ability to engage in photosynthesis. This weakens the plants, causing their stomata (pores in the leaves) to close. In turn, this reduces that amount of carbon dioxide or ozone that the plants are able to absorb.

Because of this complex interaction, scientists previously did not know how significant of an effect ozone pollution had on plants' ability to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. To answer the question, researchers designed two computer models to test how plants would be affected by ozone if they had either high or low sensitivity. They then used these models to estimate the predicted effect of ozone on plants' ability to filter out carbon dioxide using projected ozone levels from 1900 to 2100.

Under the high-sensitivity model, plants' ability to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere was reduced by 23 percent. Even under the low-sensitivity model, it was reduced by 14 percent.

"Calculations of the efficiency of land ecosystems to take up carbon would be less efficient than we thought previously," Cox said. "The indirect effect is of a similar magnitude, or even larger, than the direct effect. Arguably, we have been looking in the wrong place for the key impacts of ozone."

Global Warming Could Severely Disrupt U.S. Oil Refineries, Warns Government Report

NaturalNews) Weather changes caused by global warming could seriously disrupt the United States' ability to extract, refine and transport oil, according to a new government report. The study, conducted by climate change researchers at seven different Department of Energy labs, was the first to examine global warming's anticipated effects on the U.S. energy supply.

According to the report, global-warming-driven storms are likely to severely damage oil extracting, refining and producing infrastructure. This occurred in 2005, when Hurricanes Katrina and Rita destroyed more than 100 offshore oil drilling platforms and damaged nearly 600 oil and natural gas pipelines. The resulting drop in production led to record high fuel prices throughout the United States. Such damage will become more common as the planet warms further, the report warned.

"Increases in storm intensity could threaten further (energy supply) disruptions of the sorts experienced in 2005," it said.

Adding to the impact, rising sea levels due to melting polar ice are expected to destroy coastal energy infrastructure, everything from oil refineries and liquid natural gas terminals to the ports where coal is imported and exported.

"Rising sea levels could [also] lead to direct losses such as equipment damage from flooding or erosion or indirect effects such as the costs of raising vulnerable assets to higher levels or building future energy projects further inland, thus increasing transportation costs," the report said.

Hydroelectricity production could be threatened in the West, the report said, because rivers there are fed by seasonal snowmelt that will cease once the snow stops returning every winter. But in regions where rivers are fed by rainwater, the report speculated, hydropower capacity might increase.

The report also noted that rising temperatures will lead to increased electricity demand, because electricity is nearly always used for cooling -- as opposed to gas, which is used only for heat.

Finally, the report noted that oil extracting capacity in Alaska might increase as polar ice melts and northern oceans become more navigable.

Global Cooling or Global Warming - Which Is It and How Can We Know?

(NaturalNews) There is huge disagreement in the scientific community about global warming. Researchers on either side have no trouble finding data to support their chosen theory. Recent climatic events highlight the importance of not over interpreting short-term data - temperature fluctuations either up or down. The environmental alarmists who have been overstating connections between extreme weather conditions and a man-made warming trend are on the opposite side of other researchers who are sounding the warning bell about global cooling. Both sides of the issue must be careful to avoid distortion of facts to support beliefs.The key to interpretation is long-term trends. To focus on a few years or months of climatic data and present any evidence of either cooling or warming as been called a waste of time and perhaps even a harmful distraction.Over the past year, informal evidence has begun to stack up supporting a global cooling trend. For example, recently Baghdad saw its first snowfall ever, China has recorded its coldest winter in 100 years, and North America has more snow cover this year than it has had in the last 50 years. Additionally, record low temperatures have been recorded in Texas, Florida, Minnesota, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greenland, South Africa, Greece, Argentina, and Chile, to name a few.Recently, supporters of a global cooling theory were boosted with the release of data from all four global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, GISS, UAH, and RSS). All agree that over the past year temperatures have dropped abruptly over the entire earth.The entire cooling amount ranges from 0.65C to 0.75C . This amount is significant enough to eliminate almost all of the warming recorded over the last 100 years. Most significant is the fact that this cooling occurred over one year. All four tracking outlets confirmed that this is the fastest temperature shift ever recorded, either up or down.It is important to note that this new data does not disprove the greenhouse emission theory; however, it does demonstrate that another more powerful driver may now be cooling the earth.Some researchers are linking the cooling to a reduction of solar activity. Solar activity has a much more significant effect on temperatures than man-made greenhouse emissions. Research has shown that solar activity occurs in regular cycles. The one expected to begin at this time has not begun, however. Sunspots have disappeared and all activity seems to be alarmingly quiet. The last time circumstances were similar to this was right before the beginning of the “Little Ice Age.” Some scientists now fear a similar sequence of events may be beginning.The Little Ice Age occurred roughly 400 years ago. During this period, global temperatures dropped alarmingly. New York Harbor froze solid and glaciers in Norway increased by 100 meters a year.Scientists on either side of the global cooling/warming debate have begun to agree on one thing. Long term data interpretation is the key to beginning to understand the climatic changes our earth may be experiencing.

Global Warming

Newspaper articles about global warming tell the story of the Earth's climate and the diverse opinions and scientific discoveries surrounding the theory of global warming. From the Industrial Revolution to the Kyoto treaty and the advent of hybrid technology, the topic of global climate change has enthralled readers and sparked debate for centuries. Though many people argue over the theory's validity, global warming is a subject that affects us all and newspapers chronicle its discovery and the debate surrounding the issue. Since ancient times, people have believed that human activity could affect the environment. The discovery of past ice ages shows that Earth's climate is in constant flux and that throughout history, scientists have searched for the cause of these changes. Though scientists discovered the greenhouse effect in the late 19th century, the theory of global warming wasn't accepted as a scientifically proven fact until 1992 when the United Nations held a Conference on Environment and Development. Today, global warming is a widely accepted reality and speculation about its effects range from the hysteria to the acceptance. Newspapers chronicle the slowly changing climate and the actions that have affected that change. The Global Warming Archive provides access to thousands of articles on the environment and the scientists who documented its change. From developing nations to industrial countries, global climate affects everyone and newspaper articles tell the story of nature's dramatic impact on history. NewspaperARCHIVE.com, the largest newspaper database available online, has provided a free archive on the history of global warming granting access to thousands of original newspaper articles. The archive includes articles on the early discoveries of scientists, the development of technology, pollution, the greenhouse effect and global summits and treaties dedicated to the topic of global warming. Click on the timeline above to view newspapers in chronological order or begin searching newspaper articles with your own key words.

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.
In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.
I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.
Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.
I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.
Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.
I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.