12 page Essay on global Warming

Anyone have resources to point me in the right direction that would be helpful? Books/Web sites/E-Books, anything that would be helpful for research that i could also cite confortably. I have the Kyot protocal and all the 40+ something "Articles" drafted atthe convention.

Thanks inadvance

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, first of all it's the Kyoto Protocol, not the "Kyot protocal". Altho spelling may not generally "count" on Internet forums, it will on a formal paper.

You can start with Wikipedia's article on the Kyoto Protocol, which will give you plenty of references to follow up on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_protocol

Since you're doing a comprehensive paper, be sure to check out Bjorn Lomborg's book _The Skeptical Environmentalist_, which argues that adopting the Protocol will have little impact on global warming but will be an economic disaster. Of course you shouldn't accept everything he says, but the debate over his objections is quite enlightning, as you'll quickly discover if you google on

lomborg + "kyoto protocol"

National Geographic magazine had as the focus of an issue within the past year or two the subject of global warming, and I thought it gave fairly comprehensive coverage of the subject. Most of what you'll find on the Internet will be from advocacy groups, arguing either that mankind has caused the entire thing and we're all doomed unless we drastically cut greenhouse gas emissions, or else claiming it's entirely a natural occurrence, and debunking those concerned about global warming as a bunch of rabid environmentalists more concerned with politics than in real science. Surprisingly, Nat'l Geo seemed to have a fairly balanced coverage.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

L:

I expect you to next advocate National Enquirer.

"Altho" is, in spellingly correct circles, spelled "although".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please do continue to keep us entertained, Cangas. Is a "spellingly correct circle" where you learned your grammar? *Snort*

 

doesn't your college library have an articles index where you can search for "scholarly" journals?

 

Finally found online the paper by Lomborg that I thought was significant:

image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2001/08/14/warming.pdf

There's been a very large amount of verbiage and ignoring the facts on both sides of the controversy. The truth is that Earth's climate is not stable in either the short term or the long term. Another truth is our understanding of Earth's weather and climate is so limited that we have no idea how much mankind is contributing to Global Warming. Maybe a negligible amount, maybe a lot.

A more pertinant question is: How will global warming affect us? It's basic psychology to think that conditions we grew up with are "normal". It's also wrong. Earth's climate changes over time. Sometimes it changes a *lot*. Thinking we can change that is not only ignorant, it's *arrogant*. We should look past that and see what the advantages and disadvantages of Global Warming are. It will benefit Canada and Siberia. Arguably it will benefit Siberia a *lot*, both in increased food production and also opening up areas for mining and other exploitation of natural resources.

Of course there is a big downside. If the sea level rises significantly, all the major ports of the world will be inundated. And most of the largest cities are major ports.

 

You might want to rethink your statement "global warming will benefit Siberia a *lot*". Google "mass extinction methane hydrate".

 

Thanks alot! Global warming will help a few industrialized nations due to the cost of fossil fuels to heat houses in very populated northern areas, such as New England and Canada.

 

you should look into the absorbtion spectrum of the greenhouse gasses. you will discover that methane, at earth's normal temperatures, absorb next to no infared radiation. carbon dioxide absorbs a decent amount, but that doesn't compare to the absorbtion ammount of the greatest greenhouse gas! water. water absorbs more radiation that any of the supposes "greenhouse gasses", and there is much more water in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide or methane.

you may also notice that the kyoto protocol allows underprilaledged countries to emit more greenhouse gasses, while industrialized nations are forced to commit resources into cleaner systems. China is one of the countries that gets to boost their output, meaning they get to cheaply boost their industry in comparission to "developed" nations. perhaps this is why america has not ratified this protocol? yes, this is a conspiracy theory, but i can't help making that connection when i saw two magazines sitting next to each other on the rack at a supermarket. one was a national geographic talking about global warming, the other was a businessweek talking about china's booming prosperity.

i'll see if i can't find a source for that absorbtion spectrum claim, i just can't remember where i found those charts...

 

I suppose I would be more worried about the undersea methane deposits if I didn't know that the earth has been hotter in the past than it is now, without triggering any mass extinction.

As it is, I think it just another case of someone crying "The sky is falling!" to get attention.

 

If your going to do a paper on global warming, don't forget to mention that natural climatic cycles may also be the cause, and that antartic temperature testing didn't start till the 50's. (1958 i think)

Agreement seems to have been reached that it is happening, but why is another question.

You get alot of credit for pointing out the multiple arguments as to why, and for asking/answering questions many people do not consider.

for example,
if certain countries have evidence that climate warming is due to a natural cycle and not man made, (they might have a major research base on antartica) then do they gain industrial advantage by not signing up to kyoto.
Are ice sample tests accurate, what exactly do they show?
why do the computer models all show a runaway effect, is it an inability to model the climate system correctly?
What is the industrial output of the planet over 10 years compared to a single volcanic erruption?
Is the hole in the ozone layer supposed to fluctuate in size?
and last but not least...
Could we lower the sea level by killing all the whales?

can you tell i'm of the opinion it's due to natural climatic cycles ?

 

You'd do best to search the latest volumes of Science and Nature through you local library. I think the most resent issues of the journal Science had some interesting research on the topic. Journal articles will often have rich bibliographies where you can track down the citations to other articles and scholarly works.

Stay away from websites except to get citations for scholarly sources. The internet is full of poppycock and very little is peer reviewed, though some is very good. Unfortunately its just too time-consuming to weed through the bad to find the good in most cases and its never a good idea to cite secondary and tertiary sources that websites often are.

 

What are fossil fuels?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel

 

Why would you call hydrocarbons "fossil fuels?"

 

Fossil is defined as "a renmant, impression, or trace of an organism of past geologic ages that has been preserved in the earth's crust"

Petroleum is one such remnant, the remains of plants and animals of eons past.