75% of Switzerland's glaciers gone by 2050

75% of Switzerland's glaciers gone by 2050, Europe heats up European Environment Agency release November 30, 2005

The four hottest years on record were 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004. Ten percent of Alpine glaciers disappeared during the summer of 2003 alone. At current rates, three quarters of Switzerland's glaciers will have melted by 2050. Europe has not seen climate changes on this scale for 5 000 years, says a new report by the European Environment Agency (EEA), based in Copenhagen.


'The European environment - State and outlook 2005', a five year assessment across 31 countries, provides an overview of Europe's environment and points to challenges of which climate change is just one. Other areas of concern include biodiversity, marine ecosystems, land and water resources, air pollution and health. For the first time, the report has a country by country analysis with performance indicators and comparisons for all of the participants: the EU-25 plus Bulgaria, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Romania, Turkey and including Switzerland.





The report says Europe's average temperature rose by 0.95 °C during the 20th century. This is 35 % higher than the global average increase of 0.7 °C and temperatures will continue to rise. The EU has recognised this and set a target limiting the global temperature increase to 2 °C above pre industrial levels.



'Without effective action over several decades, global warming will see ice sheets melting in the north and the spread of deserts from the south. The continent's population could effectively become concentrated in the centre. Even if we constrain global warming to the EU target of a 2 °C increase, we will be living in atmospheric conditions that human beings have never experienced. Deeper cuts in emissions are needed', says Jacqueline McGlade, Executive director of the EEA.

fig:Glacier coastline

Past EU legislation on environment has worked, says the report. We have cleaned up our water and our air, phased out some ozone depleting substances and have doubled rates of waste recycling. We also have cars that pollute less; without the dramatic improvements made by catalytic converters over the past twenty years, certain emissions would have been ten times the level they are now. Yet, it has taken ten to twenty years for these actions to show results, the report says.


These environmental success stories are now being overtaken by changes in personal consumption patterns. Europeans are living longer and more of us live alone putting greater demands on living space. Between 1990 and 2000, more than 800 000 hectares, of Europe's land was built on. That is an area three times the size of Luxembourg. If this trend continues, our urban area will double in just over a century. Managing urban sprawl is essential if we are to protect our natural resources, says the report. We travel further and more often and are consuming the planet's natural resources at twice the world's average rate. Transport is the fastest growing contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. For example, air travel is expected to double between now and 2030. As a result, we leave a clear footprint outside Europe, depleting natural resources and damaging the world's environment.



Eurobarometer polls show that over 70 per cent of Europeans want decision makers to give equal weight to environmental, economic and social policies. To take these views into account, the report underlines that policy makers must work with each other at European, national and local levels. They must integrate environmental considerations across sectors such as transport, agriculture and energy and set up a framework within which individuals and business can take action.



'Policy makers must be farsighted. We need a gradual shift away from taxes on labour and investment towards taxes on pollution and the inefficient use of materials and land. We also need reforms in the way that subsidies are applied to transport, housing, energy and agriculture. We need subsidies encouraging sustainable practices and efficient technologies', says Professor McGlade.



'With the necessary incentives built in, such reforms will lead to more investment, innovation and competitiveness. We have already seen this in practice in certain countries and sectors. Strong taxation of petrol in Europe and high regulatory standards led to cars that have been almost twice as fuel efficient as cars on America's roads, in recent decades. We have seen the cost of inaction in terms of people's lives and our environment with examples such as the collapse of fish stocks, the use of asbestos in buildings, acid rain and lead in petrol. It pays to act now to secure the long term', says Professor McGlade.

Africa`s Glacier gone by 2025

Africa's glaciers gone by 2025American Geophysical UnionMay 15, 2006



Fabled equatorial icecaps will disappear within two decades, because of global warming, a study British and Ugandan scientists has found. In a paper to be published 17 May in Geophysical Research Letters, they report results from the first survey in a decade of glaciers in the Rwenzori Mountains of East Africa. An increase in air temperature over the last four decades has contributed to a substantial reduction in glacial cover, they say.



The Rwenzori Mountains--also known as the Mountains of the Moon--straddle the border between the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Republic of Uganda. They are home to one of four remaining tropical ice fields outside of the Andes and are renowned for their spectacular and rare flora and fauna. The mountains' legendary status was set during the second century, when the Greek geographer Ptolemy made a seemingly preposterous but ultimately accurate statement about snow-capped mountains at the equator in Africa: "The Mountains of the Moon whose snows feed the lakes, sources of the Nile."



The glaciers were first surveyed a century ago when glacial cover over the entire range was estimated to be 6.5 square kilometers [2.5 square miles]. Recent field surveys and satellite mapping of glaciers conducted by researchers from University College London, Uganda's Makerere University, and the Ugandan Water Resources Management Department show that some glaciers are receding tens of metres [yards] each year and that the area covered by glaciers halved between 1987 and 2003. With less than one square kilometer [half a square mile] of glacier ice remaining, the researchers expect these glaciers to disappear within the next twenty years.


Richard Taylor of the University College London Department of Geography, who led the study, says: "Recession of these tropical glaciers sends an unambiguous message of a changing climate in this region of the tropics. Considerable scientific debate exists, however, as to whether changes in temperature or precipitation are responsible for the shrinking of glaciers in the East African Highlands that also include Kilimanjaro [in Tanzania] and Mount Kenya." Taylor and his colleagues found that in the Rwenzori Mountains since the 1960s, there are clear trends toward increased air temperature without significant changes in precipitation. A key focus of the research is the impact of climate change on water resources in Africa. Glacial recession in Rwenzori Mountains is not expected to affect alpine river flow, the scientists say, due to the small size of the remaining glaciers. It remains unclear, however, how the projected loss of the glaciers will affect tourism and local traditional belief systems that are based upon the snow and ice, known locally as "Nzururu." "Considering the continent's negligible contribution to global greenhouse-gas emissions, it is a terrible irony that Africa, according to current predictions, will be most affected by climate change," added Taylor. "Furthermore, the rise in air temperature is consistent with other regional studies that show how dramatic increases in malaria in the East African Highlands may arise, in part, from warmer temperatures, as mosquitoes are able to colonize previously inhospitable highland areas."

GreenLands Glaciers

Fig:Greenlands Glaciers

Greenland's Glaciers: Melting and On The Move

The glaciers in southern Greenland are melting and moving. In fact, Kangerdlugssuaq Glacier went from standing still in 1996 to flowing at a rate of 14 kilometers a year by 2005, making it one of the fastest moving glaciers in the world. According to a new study, all of Greenland's coastal glaciers are already experiencing or may soon experience such speedups, meaning that Greenland's ice will contribute even more than expected to the world's rising seas.
"It takes a long time to build and melt an ice sheet, but glaciers can react quickly to temperature changes," notes Eric Rignot, a glaciologist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. "Greenland is probably going to contribute more and faster to sea level rise than predicted by current models."
Rignot partnered with Pannir Kanagaratnam of the University of Kansas to look at satellite data on Greenland's glaciers. New satellites and new techniques allowed the two to figure out how fast the glaciers were moving, thinning and even what the bedrock beneath them looked like. Based on this data, the researchers found that the glaciers were traveling faster than anyone had predicted. They also determined that even more northerly glaciers were on the move and that in just 10 years the amount of fresh water lost by all the glaciers had more than doubled from 90 cubic kilometers of ice loss a year to 224 cubic kilometers. "The amount of water Los Angeles uses over one year is about one cubic kilometer," Rignot points out. "Two hundred cubic kilometers is a lot of fresh water."

Fig:melting glacier(Greenland)

Current climate models do not take into account glacial flow and therefore underestimate the impact of glacial melt and the calving of ice flows, the researchers argue in a paper detailing the findings in today's Science. According to climate records stretching back a century, southern Greenland has warmed three degrees Celsius in just the past 20 years, driving melting that may help lubricate glacial flow along the bedrock, the two speculate. With the higher glacier speeds in mind, they calculate that Greenland currently contributes 0.57 millimeter of ocean level rise every year out of a total of three millimeters.
But Greenland contains an ice sheet that covers 1.7 million square kilometers--an area nearly the size of Mexico--and is as much as three kilometers thick in places. If it all melted, it would raise the world's oceans by seven meters, though that is not likely to happen anytime soon. "The southern half of Greenland is reacting to what we think is climate warming," Rignot adds. "The northern half is waiting, but I don't think it's going to take long."

Greenland`s melting ice sheets may speed rise in sea level

Greenland's Melting Ice Sheet May Speed Rise in Sea Level
Study Finds No Boost in Antarctic Snowfall to Mitigate Problem

Two new scientific studies measuring Greenland's rapidly melting ice sheet and the pace of Antarctic snowfall suggest that the sea level may be rising faster than researchers previously assumed.
University of Texas at Austin researchers, using twin satellites, determined that the Greenland ice sheet, Earth's second-largest reservoir of fresh water, is melting at three times the rate at which it had been melting over the previous five years. A separate study by 16 international scientists concluded that Antarctic snowfall accumulation has remained steady over the past 50 years, with no increases that

might have mitigated the melting of the ice shelf, as some researchers had assumed would occur.
Taken together, the two reports indicate that global sea level rise may increase more rapidly in the coming years, though the Greenland study is based on only 2 1/2 years of data. The melting of 57 cubic miles a year from Greenland's ice sheet could add 0.6 millimeters alone, which is higher than any previously published measurement for Greenland, according to University of Texas Center for Space Research scientist Jianli Chen.
"It's a very big number," Chen said, noting that for at least a hundred years the sea level has increased an average of 1.8 millimeters annually.
Byron Tapley, one of Chen's co-authors, said the ice loss along the sheet's eastern shoreline is particularly significant because it could help weaken the counterclockwise flow of the North Atlantic Current. The more buoyant fresh water from the ice melt could lower water temperatures and ultimately make Western European winters colder, he said.
"If enough fresh water enters the Norwegian Current and you interrupt return flow, then there could be climate effects in Europe," Tapley said.
But Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy at the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute, questioned why scientists are drawing broad conclusions from data covering such a short time span.
"We now have 'the sky is falling down' on the basis of a few years of data," said Ebell, whose group is partly funded by the fossil-fuel industry.
The paper, written by 16 scientists from seven countries, challenges computer projections that higher temperatures in the southernmost continent will spur greater snowfall accumulation and compensate for the world's melting ice sheets. Using satellite data that looked at both the West and East Antarctic ice sheets, the researchers concluded there has been no real increase in precipitation in the region in the past five decades.
Andrew J. Monaghan, a meteorologist at Ohio State University's Byrd Polar Research Center, said in an interview that his findings suggest the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2001 prediction that Antarctic snowfall would increase 15 to 20 percent by the end of the century may not be borne out. Some researchers had hoped increased snowfall in the region would thicken the Antarctic ice sheets and help counterbalance any future melt.
"It's a much more complex situation than assuming a temperature rise is going to lead to a commensurate increase in precipitation," Monaghan said.

Distribution & Habitat

Distribution



Polar bears occur only in the Northern Hemisphere. Their range is limited to areas in which the sea is ice covered for much of the year. Over most of their range, polar bears remain on the sea-ice year-round or visit land only for short periods. Polar bears are common in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas north of Alaska. They occur throughout the East Siberian, Laptev, and Kara Seas of Russia and the Barent's Sea of northern Europe. They are found in the northern part of the Greenland Sea, and are common in Baffin Bay, which separates Canada and Greenland, as well as through most of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. Because their principal habitat is the sea-ice surface rather than adjacent land masses, they are classified as marine mammals. In most areas, pregnant females come ashore to create a den in which to give birth to young. Even then, however, they are quick to return to the sea ice as soon as cubs are able. In some areas, notably the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas of the polar basin, many females den and give birth to their young on drifting pack ice.





Polar bears are most abundant in shallow-water areas near shore and in other areas where currents and upwellings increase productivity and keep the ice cover from becoming too solidified in winter.Despite apparent preferences for the more productive waters near shorelines and polynyas (areas of persistent open water), polar bears occur throughout the polar basin including latitudes >88.



Because they derive their sustenance from the sea, the distribution of polar bears in most areas changes with the seasonal extent of sea-ice cover. In winter, for example, sea-ice extends as much as 400 km south of the Bering Strait, which separates Asia from North America, and polar bears extend their range to the southernmost extreme of the ice . Sea-ice disappears from most of the Bering and Chukchi Seas in summer, and polar bears occupying these areas may migrate as much as 1000 km to stay with the southern edge of the pack ice.Throughout the polar basin, polar bears spend their summers concentrated along the edge of the persistent pack ice. Significant northerly and southerly movements appear to be dependent on seasonal melting and refreezing of ice near shore .In other areas, for example, Hudson Bay, James Bay, and portions of the Canadian High Arctic, when the sea-ice melts, polar bears are forced onto land for up to several months while they wait for winter and new ice.





Until the 1960s, the prevalent belief was that polar bears wandered throughout the Arctic. Some naturalists felt that individual polar bears were carried passively with the predominant currents of the polar basin.Researchers have known for some time that is not the case. However the advent of radiotelemetry, including the use of satellites,detailed knowledge of polar bear movements was not available.





Habitat





1. Polar bears inhabit arctic sea ice, water, islands, and continental coastlines.



2.Polar bears prefer sea ice habitat with leads and polynyas, next to continental coastlines or islands.



•Leads are water channels or cracks through ice which may remain open (ice free) for only a few minutes to several months, depending upon weather conditions and water currents. Polar bears hunt seals in the leads, using sea ice as a platform.



•Polynyas are areas of water, surrounded by ice, that remain open throughout the year due to winds, upwellings, and tidal currents. Polynyas are important breathing and feeding areas for wintering or migrating marine mammals and birds.



3. Some polar bears follow the lower edge of the ice pack year-round, making extensive migrations as the ice recedes and advances.



4. Some polar bears spend part of the year on land. They have been found as far inland as 200 km (124 mi.).



•Polar bears in warmer climates may become stranded on land. In summer, sea ice melts along the coastlines, and pack ice (floating sea ice, or floes, not connected to land) moves north.



•Most pregnant females spend the autumn and winter on land in maternity dens.



5. Air temperatures in the Arctic average -34°C (-29°F) in winter and 0°C (32°F) in summer. The coldest area in winter is northeastern Siberia, where the temperature has been recorded as low as -69°C (-92°F). The warmest areas in summer are inland regions of Siberia, Alaska, and Canada where temperatures can reach as high as 32°C (90°F).



6. The ocean temperatures in the Arctic are about -1.5°C (29°F) in summer. In winter the ocean temperatures can drop to -2°C (28°F), at which point seawater begins to freeze.

Migration

1. Polar bears travel throughout the year within individual home ranges.

a. Home range size varies among individuals depending upon access to food, mates, and dens.

b. Home ranges tend to be larger than for other mammal species because sea ice habitat changes from season to season and year to year.

(1) A small home range may be 50,000 to 60,000 square km (19,305/23,166 square m.). Small home ranges can be found near Canadian Arctic islands.

(2)A large home range may be in excess of 350,000 square km (135,135 square mi.). Large home ranges can be found in the Bering or Chukchi Seas.

c. Polar bears don't mark or defend their home ranges.

2. Polar bears show "seasonal fidelity": they remain in the same area during the same season.

3. Polar bears are capable of traveling 30 km (19 mi.) or more per day for several days.One polar bear was tracked traveling 80 km (50 mi.) in 24 hours. Another polar bear traveled 1,119 km (695 mi.) in one year.

Population

1. The world polar bear population is estimated to be between 21,000 and 28,000 individuals.

2. Due to governmental regulations on hunting, the population has increased from an estimated 10,000 polar bears in 1968.

3. The ratio of males to females is approximately one to one.

r

Senses

A. Hearing.
A polar bear's hearing is probably as sensitive as human hearing. Humans can hear sounds with frequencies as low as 0.02 kHz and as high as 20 kHz.

B. Eyesight.
The eyesight of polar bears appears to be similar to human's. Polar bears have a protective membrane over their eyes, that may help shield the eyes from ultraviolet light.

C. Tactile.
Little is known about a polar bear's sense of touch; however, polar bears have been observed delicately moving or touching objects with the nose, tongue, and claws.

D. Taste.
Polar bears prefer certain foods, but researchers don't know how acute the sense of taste is or how important it is in food preference.

E. Smell.
A polar bear's sense of smell is acute, and it is the most important sense for detecting prey on land. A polar bear can smell a seal more than 32 km (20 mi.) away .

Longevity & Cause of death

Longevity and Causes of Death.

A. Longevity.
1.Polar bears can live 20 to 30 years, but only a small proportion of polar bears live past 15 to 18 years .
2.The oldest known polar bear in the Arctic lived 32 years. The oldest known polar bear in a zoological park lived 41 years.

B. Aging studies.
Each year as a polar bear grows, a thin layer of cementum is added to the outside of each tooth. Age can be estimated by examining a thin slice of tooth and counting the layers. To estimate the age of a live polar bear, researchers can extract one small, vestigial premolar tooth.

C.Predator and Prey
1.Adult polar bears have no natural predators. Males occasionally kill other males competing for mates. Males periodically kill females protecting cubs.
2.Cubs less than one year old sometimes are prey to adult male polar bears and other carnivores, such as wolves.
3.Newborn cubs may be cannibalized by malnourished mothers.

D. Human interaction.
1.Hunting.
a. Polar bears have been hunted for thousands of years.
(1)Evidence of human polar bear hunts have been found in 2,500- to 3,000-year-old ruins. Arctic peoples have traditionally hunted polar bears for food, clothing, bedding, and religious purposes.
(2)Commercial hunting of polar bears for hides began as early as the 1500s and flourished by the 1700s.
(3)Kills increased substantially in the 1950s and 1960s when hunters began using snowmobiles, boats, and airplanes to hunt polar bears. Public concern about these hunting methods led to an international agreement in 1973 banning the use of aircraft or large motorized boats for polar bear hunts. b. Hunting is the greatest single cause of polar bear mortality.
(1)Today, polar bears are hunted by native Arctic populations primarily for food, clothing, handicrafts, and sale of skins. Polar bears are also killed in defense of people or property.
(2)Hunting is government-regulated in Canada, Greenland, and the United States. Hunting is currently banned in Norway and Russia.

2. Environmental threats.
a. Oil spills from drilling platforms or tankers potentially threaten polar bears.
(1)A polar bear's fur loses its insulating properties when covered with oil.
(2)Oil spills could diminish or contaminate polar bear food sources.
b. The presence of toxic chemicals in polar bears may have long-term effects on their health and longevity.
(1)Toxic chemicals from worldwide industrial activities are carried to the Arctic by air, rivers, and oceans.
(2)Arctic animals in higher food chain levels concentrate greater amounts of toxic chemicals in their tissues than those below them. Polar bears, at the top of the food chain, develop the highest concentrations of all.
(3)Human-made toxic chemicals such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), and chlordanes are present in the Arctic. These chemicals have been found in significantly high levels in the tissues of polar bears.
(4)Scientists continue to monitor the levels of toxic chemicals in polar bears to determine their long-term effects. c.Radionuclides, from nuclear waste dumping in the Russian Arctic, may have detrimental effects on polar bears, and the Arctic ecosystem as a whole.

E. Starvation.
1.Starvation is the greatest threat to subadult polar bears. Subadults are inexperienced hunters, and often are chased from kills by larger adults.
2.Older, weaker bears also are susceptible to starvation.

F. Disease and parasitism.
As in any animal population, a variety of diseases and parasites can be responsible for polar bear illnesses. Polar bears are especially susceptible to the parasitic worm Trichinella, which they contract by feeding on infected seals. Trichinella larvae encyst in various parts of the polar bear's body, usually muscle tissue. If enough larvae encyst in one area, such as the heart, the tissue becomes severely damaged. Death may result.

Feeding Habits

Diet and Eating Habits.

A. Food preferences and resources.
1. Polar bears feed mainly on ringed seals and bearded seals. Depending upon their location, they also eat harp and hooded seals and scavenge on carcasses of beluga whales, walruses, narwhals, and bowhead whales.

2. Aquatic stalk.
a. The aquatic stalk is a method also used in summer when seals haul out on sea ice.
b. The polar bear swims toward a hauled-out seal. Once the polar bear reaches the ice edge, the bear quickly emerges from the water and grabs the seal with its claws or teeth.


3. Stalking birth lairs.
a. Stalking ringed seals at their birth lairs is a hunting method polar bears use in spring, when ringed seals give birth to their pups.
b. Ringed seal birth lairs are caves built under snow drifts next to a hole in the ice. The snow drifts are on stable sea ice attached to land.
c. Once a polar bear identifies a birth lair, it slowly and quietly positions itself next to the lair. If a polar bear smells or hears a seal in the lair, it slowly raises up on its hind legs and crashes down with its front paws to break through the lair roof.
d. To break the roof's hard surface, several tries are sometimes needed, which may allow the seal to escape into the water.
e. This method is most commonly used by polar bear females with cubs under one year old.
(1) Mother seals and pups have the high fat content needed for hungry polar bear mothers and their growing cubs.
(2) Male polar bears that may attack young polar bear cubs don't normally hunt seals in birth lairs.
(3) Birth lairs are usually on sea ice attached to land, allowing young cubs (who have little protective blubber) to avoid crossing water.



4. Eating.
a. Once a seal is captured, a polar bear bites it several times on the head and neck before dragging it several meters from the water to feed.
b. The skin and fat are eaten first, followed by the meat.
c. Polar bears often stop to wash during feeding, using water nearby or rubbing in the snow.
d. Polar bears don't always eat the entire kill. Carcass remains are scavenged by other bears, arctic foxes, and gulls.

Reproduction

A. Sexual maturity.

1. Female polar bears reach sexual maturity at about 4 years .
2. Male polar bears reach sexual maturity at about 6 years .
3. Most male polar bears don't successfully mate until 8 to 10 years and older.

B. Mating activity.
1. Breeding takes place in April and May on the sea ice.
2. During the breeding season, males and females find each other by congregating in the best seal-hunting habitats.
3. Male polar bears have been seen following the tracks of breeding female polar bears for more than 100 km (62 mi.). Scientists are uncertain what signals males use to track breeding females.
4. Competition for females is intense. Females breed about once every three years; therefore, there are about three adult males to every breeding female.
5. Before mating, a female polar bear may be accompanied by several males. The males fight fiercely among themselves until the strongest or largest male succeeds in chasing the others away.

FPRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT=fights"

a. A polar bear threatening to attack another polar bear usually lowers its head, flattens its ears back, and gives an open mouth threat with a hisslike roar.
b. Fights are rarely fatal, but do result in broken canines and scars on the head, neck, and shoulders.
6. Dominant males may succeed in breeding several females in a season.
7. Once paired, the male and female stay together for a week or more.
a. Females are induced ovulators, which means the act of mating causes a female to release an egg for fertilization.
b. Several days of mating interactions may be required to stimulate ovulation and guarantee fertilization of the egg.
8. Polar bears may have many different mates over their lifetime.

Physical Characteristic

Physical Characteristics.

A. Size.
1. Polar bears are the largest land carnivore.

2. Male polar bears (boars) grow two to three times the size of female polar bears (sows). Boars weigh about 350 to more than 650 kg (772-1,433 lb.) and are about 2.5 to 3 m (8.2-9.8 ft.) long (Stirling, 1988).

3. Sows weigh about 150 to 250 kg (331-551 lb.) and are about 2 to 2.5 m (6.6-8.2 ft.) long. Pregnant females can weigh as much as 500 kg (1,102 lb.) (Stirling, 1988).

4. The largest polar bear ever recorded was a male weighing 1,002 kg (2,209 lb.) and measuring 3.7 m (12 ft.) long (Domico, 1988).

B. Body shape.
Compared to other bears, polar bears have elongated bodies and long slender necks.

C. Coloration.

A polar bear's coat is about 2.5 to 5 cm (1-2 in.) thick. A dense, wooly, insulating layer of underhair is covered by a relatively thin layer of stiff, shiny, clear guard hairs.

Adaptation-polar bear

Adaptations for an Aquatic Environment.

A. polar bear's front paws propel it through the water dog-paddle style. The hind feet and legs are held flat and are used as rudders.

B. Diving.
1. Polar bears make shallow dives when stalking prey, navigating ice floes, or searching for kelp.
2. Polar bears usually swim under water at depths of only about 3 to 4.5 m (9.8-14.8 ft.). They can remain submerged for as long as two minutes (Domico, 1988).
3. No one knows how deep a polar bear can dive. One researcher estimates that polar bears dive no deeper than 6 m (20 ft.).

C. Thermoregulation.
1. Body temperature, which is normally 37C (98.6F), is maintained through a thick layer of fur, a tough hide, and an insulating layer of blubber. This excellent insulation keeps a polar bear warm even when air temperatures drop to -37C (-34F) (Stirling, 1988).
2. Overheating.
a. Polar bears are so well insulated they tend to overheat.
b. Polar bears move slowly and rest often to avoid overheating.
c. Excess heat is released from the body through areas where fur is absent or blood vessels are close to the skin. These areas include the muzzle, nose, ears, footpads, inner thighs, and shoulders.
d. Polar bears will also swim to cool down on warm days or after physical activity.

POLAR BEARS

Scientific Classification
A. Order - Carnivora.\

The scientific order Carnivora includes bears, dogs, cats, raccoons, otters, weasels, and their relatives. All typical carnivores have well developed claws and a pair of specialized cheek teeth for cutting hard foods.

B. Family - Ursidae.

All bears belong to this family. The family is divided into three subfamilies, Ursinae (black bears, brown bears, polar bears, sloth bears, and sun bears), Tremarctinae (spectacled bears), and Ailuropodinae (giant pandas).

C. Genus, species - Ursus maritimus.
1. There are five other species in the genus Ursus: brown bears, American black bears, Asiatic black bears, sun bears, and sloth bears. Species can be distinguished by size, build, coloration, and habitat.
2. Ursus maritimus is Latin for "sea bear".

D. Fossil record.

The oldest known polar bear fossil is less than 100,000 years old. Polar bears probably developed during the Pleistocene era from an ancestral brown bear. Polar bears and brown bears are still closely related; when cross-bred, they produce fertile offspring.

short

Kingdom: Animalia

Phylum: Chordata

Class: Mammalia

Order: Carnivora

Family: Ursidae

Genus: Ursus

Species: Ursus maritimus

CONTENTS:

1.EVOLUTION

2.PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

3.HABITAT & DISTRIBUTION

4.ADAPTATION

5.BEHAVIOUR

6.FEEDING HABITS

7.SENSES

8.COMMUNICATION

9.REPRODUCTION

10.BIRTH AND CARE OF YOUNG ONES

11.LONGEVITY & CAUSE OF DEATH

12.SURVIVAL

13.EXTINCTION

ARTICLES ON GLACIERS

1.NASA:-warming is causing greenland to melt faster than expected
Warming air temperatures are causing Greenland's ice sheet to melt faster than
previously anticipated, reported NASA. Though unlikely, the complete melting of
Greenland's ice sheet would raise global sea level by 23 feet.
Data gathered by a pair of NASA satellites orbiting Earth show Greenland continued to lose ice mass at a significant rate through April 2006, and that the rate of loss is accelerating, according to a new University of Colorado at Boulder study.

2.Future Ice Age Put on the Back Burner
Dr Toby Tyrrell of the University of Southampton's School of Ocean and Earth Science at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton has published a report in the latest edition of New Scientist magazine laying out his research that future ice-ages -- an evolutionary imperative for the planet earth -- could be pushed back some half a million years.

3.Melting glaciers and ice cap will drive sea level rise
Melting glaciers and ice caps will contribute more to global sea level rise this century than the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, reports a study published in the current issue of Science. Also mentioned about the the largest tropical glaciers-peru.
Peru's largest glacier is melting rapidly and could complete disappear by 2012 says a glaciologist from Ohio State University. Speaking at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Francisco last week, Dr. Lonnie Thompson said that Peru's Qori Kalis glacier is melting at a rate of some 60 meters (200 feet) per year. Qori Kalis glacier is part of the Quelccaya Ice Cap, the largest body of ice in the tropics.

4.Glaciers in western China shrank 20% in 40 years
Glaciers in Western China have melted at "alarming" rates over the past 40 years, according to Chinese state media.

5.Glaciers speed up due to global warming
Antarctic glaciers are moving faster due to global warming.Many researchers made their conclusions about the speeding up of the glaciers of the places like Africa & Switzerland and others.
1-Africa's glaciers gone by 2025
Fabled equatorial icecaps will disappear within two decades, because of global warming, a study British and Ugandan scientists has found. They report results from the first survey in a decade of glaciers in the Rwenzori Mountains of East Africa. An increase in air temperature over the last four decades has contributed to a substantial reduction in glacial cover, they say.
2-75% of Switzerland's glaciers gone by 2050, Europe heats up
The four hottest years on record were 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004. Ten percent of Alpine glaciers disappeared during the summer of 2003 alone. At current rates, three quarters of Switzerland's glaciers will have melted by 2050. Europe has not seen climate changes on this scale for 5000 years, says a new report by the European Environment Agency. )

6.Greenpeace pressures China on global warming
Greenpeace stepped up the pressure on China to do something about its surging greenhouse gas emissions, launching a campaign that warns melting glaciers could hurt Chinese agriculture and hydroelectric projects. The environmental group cited a Chinese Academy of Sciences' projection that 80 percent of the glaciers in Tibet and the surrounding region could melt by 2035, though other research suggests more moderate melting.


7.Why some Himalayan glacies aren't melting due to climate change
New research into climate change in the Western Himalaya and the surrounding Karakoram and Hindu Kush mountains could explain why many glaciers there are growing and not melting. The findings suggest this area, known as the Upper Indus Basin, could be reacting differently to global warming, the phenomenon blamed for causing glaciers in the Eastern Himalaya, Nepal and India, to melt and shrink.

8.Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are melting find new studies
Scientists have confirmed that climate warming is changing how much water remains locked in the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, according to an article published in the Journal of Glaciology.

EXAGGERATED SCIENCE

How global warming research is creating a climate of fear

by Hans von storch and nico stehr

The polar ice caps are disappearing! The Gulf Stream is soon to reverse! Right? Well, maybe. But calling such apocalyptic theories into question is becoming more and more difficult for skeptical scientists. Meanwhile, the public is getting tired of being fed a diet of fear.
Gone are the days when climate researchers would be content to sit in their ivory towers, packed to the gills with supercomputers, crunching numbers. Nowadays, their field is more likely to deliver the material of thrillers, and they themselves have acquired the leading roles. The issue has become so hotly contested and the forecasts so spectacular that they are no longer merely the stuff of media reports. And professionals who make their daily bread staging the apocalypse have taken the bait. Last year, filmmaker Roland Emmerich portrayed a global climate collapse triggered by human activity in his film "The Day After Tomorrow". In January, the film's literary counterpart, the novel State of Fear by bestselling author Michael Crichton, appeared in German bookstores, six month after having been published in English.

Crichton's thriller deals with the violent conflict between sober-minded realists and radical idealists when it comes to the subject of climate. The idealists' weapon is organized fear of abrupt climate change, and they interpret any out-of-the-ordinary weather event as evidence of global warming caused by humans. PR consultants deliver the following advice to environmental groups: "You have to structure your information in such a way that it can always be corroborated, no matter what kind of weather we have." The realists, who claim that there is little evidence that meteorological extremes are caused by human activity, are fighting a losing battle. Their dry scientific facts don't stand a chance in a PR battle with the horrific scenarios painted in Technicolor by the climate idealists.

The film and the novel are similar in some respects. While the impending catastrophe in Emmerich's film is climatic, Crichton predicts an economic collapse in his novel. In both cases, however, the culprits are the greenhouse gases produced by human beings. In the film, it's the emissions themselves that lead to disaster, whereas the novel deals with the effects of fear of an impending climatic catastrophe. In Crichton's book, the idealists are so obsessed by their mission that, in a last-ditch effort to shake up public opinion, they finally trigger the catastrophes they themselves have predicted.

Overselling to get attention

Despite some artful fictionalization of the facts, Crichton has certainly delivered an accurate portrayal of the dynamics of communication among the scientific community, environmental organizations, government and civil society. The scientific community does in fact face a serious problem when it comes to public understanding and perception of climate change. Scientific research faces a crisis because its public figures are overselling the issues to gain attention in a hotly contested market for newsworthy information.

The climate change caused by human activity is an important issue. But is it really what one US senator calls the "most important problem on the planet?" Don't global conflicts and poverty present challenges of a similar magnitude? And what about population growth, demographic changes and more common natural disasters?

Nowadays, there are few people in the United States who are interested in the Greenhouse Effect. At the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s it was a different story. There was the great drought of 1988 and then the 1993 Mississippi floods -- both events that really should have provided a wake-up call to the public vis-à-vis climate change. But it failed to materialize in the United States, and interest in the subject quickly waned. According to a survey conducted by CBS in May 2003, environmental problems were no longer ranked among the six hottest topics. Even among environmental problems, the issue of climate change was only ranked seventh. Although public opinion in Germany has taken a somewhat different course, how much longer will that be the case?

Catastrophe is interesting: Sober analysis boring

Like the protagonists in Crichton's thriller, the general belief is that in order to keep public attention focused on the issue of "climate catastrophe" (a term, incidentally, that doesn't exist outside of German-speaking countries), it has to be presented "somewhat more attractively." In the early 1990s, just as Germany was being hit by severe wind storms, the German media were reporting that the storms were becoming more and more severe. Since then, storms of this magnitude have once again become less common in northern Europe, a fact now ignored by the media. They have also ignored the fact that changes in barometric pressure measured in Stockholm since the days of Napoleon reveal no systematic change in the frequency and severity of storms. Instead, the media are now filled with stories of heat waves and floods. Like the characters in Crichton's novel who incite public fear, the media are now claiming that all kinds of extreme events are increasing in frequency. Using this logic, a drought in the German state of Brandenburg fits together seamlessly with a catastrophic flood of the Oder River and the two events don't contradict each other.

In addition to normal floods and storms, other more dramatic threat scenarios -- such as a reversal of the Gulf Stream that would lead to a drop in temperatures in large parts of Europe or the rapid melting of the Greenland ice shelf -- are being added to the image of approaching disaster. There was even public speculation as to whether the Asian tsunamis could somehow be attributed to the disastrous work of the human race.


Public attention won't remain focused on these issues for long. Soon people will become inured to climate warnings and return to more everyday matters: joblessness, trans-Atlantic enmity, Turkey's joining the European Union or Prince Charles's marriage to Camilla Parker Bowles. Because of our short attention spans, we will experience how the prophets of doom paint the dangers of climate change in ever more lurid detail. One can already imagine the future images of horror: a breaking off of the western Antarctic ice shelf, which would cause sea levels to rise dramatically, and, after a few decades of unbridled carbon dioxide emissions, an abrupt temperature shift that would make the earth's atmosphere as incompatible with human life as that of Venus. Can such predictions, which have been known to the public for a long time, readily compete with the Hollywood images created by directors like Emmerich?

The price for provoking fear is high, because it's a practice that sacrifices the otherwise prized principle of caution. A scarce resource -- public attention and confidence in the reliability of science -- is being consumed without being renewed by a practice of offering positive examples.

But what do climate researchers themselves think about the issue, and how do they interact with the media and the public at large?

Is there scientific consensus?

The public statements made by well-known German climate researchers create the impression that the scientific fundamentals of the climate problems have essentially been solved. They claim that the scientific community has already established the conditions for taking concerted action. In this case, concerted action means reducing greenhouse gases as much as possible.

This is a view that in fact does not correspond to the situation in the scientific community. That's because a significant number of climatologists are by no means convinced that the underlying issues have been adequately addressed. Last year, for example, a survey of climate researchers from all over the world revealed that a quarter of respondents still question whether human activity is responsible for the most recent climatic changes.


But most researchers do believe that a shift in global climate caused by human activity is already occurring, and that it will accelerate in the future and become even more apparent. Higher temperatures and higher sea levels will accompany this shift. Scientists predict that in the more distant future, that is, in about 100 years, a substantial rise in greenhouse gas levels in the Earth's atmosphere will lead to more severe precipitation events in the northern hemisphere; some regions could experience more severe and others weaker storms.

But there are always scientists for whom, in keeping with the maxims of the alarmists in Crichton's book, these scenarios are insufficiently dramatic. For this reason, they are increasingly drawing connections between current extreme weather events and the climate shift caused by human activity. They do, it is true, tend to use cautious language in drawing such parallels and interviews become exercises in understatement. When asked such questions as: "Are high water levels on the Elbe River, the hurricanes in Florida and this year's mild winter evidence of climate catastrophe?" they respond that while this cannot be proven scientifically, some believe it to be the case. None of these statements is incorrect, but when combined they lead to the obvious conclusion that of course these weather events are proof of climate catastrophe, a statement so explicit that no one would venture to volunteer it.

Always choose the most dramatic figure

The pattern is always the same. The significance of individual events is turned into material suitable for media presentation and is then cleverly dramatized. When the outlook for the future is discussed, the scenario that predicts the highest growth rates for greenhouse gas emissions -- which, of course, comes with the most dramatic climatic consequences -- is always selected from among all possible scenarios. Those predicting significantly smaller increases in greenhouse gas levels are not mentioned.


Who benefits from this? The assumption is made that fear compels people to act, but we forget that it also produces a rather short-lived reaction. Climate change, on the other hand, requires a long-term response. The impact on the public may be "better" in the short term, thereby also positively affecting reputations and research funding. But to ensure that the entire system continues to function in the long term, each new claim about the future of our climate and of the planet must be just a little more dramatic than the last. It's difficult to attract the public's attention to the climate-related extinction of animal species following reports on apocalyptic heat waves. The only kind of news that can trump these kinds of reports would be something on the order of a reversal of the Gulf Stream.

All of this leads to a spiral of exaggeration. Each individual step in this process may seem harmless, but on the whole, the knowledge imparted to the public about climate, climatic fluctuations, climate shift and climatic effects is dramatically distorted.

Unfortunately, the corrective mechanisms in science are failing. Public reservations with regard to the standard evidence of climate catastrophe are often viewed as unfortunate within the scientific community, since they harm the "worthy cause," especially because, as scientists claim, they could be "misused by skeptics." Dramatization on a small scale is considered acceptable, whereas correcting exaggeration is viewed as dangerous because it is politically inopportune. This means that doubts are not voiced publicly. Instead, the scientific community creates the impression that the scientific underpinnings of climate change research are solid and only require minor additions and adjustments.

Science losing objectivity

This self-censorship in the minds of scientists ultimately leads to a sort of deafness toward new, surprising insights that compete with or even contradict the conventional explanatory models. Science is deteriorating into a repair shop for conventional, politically opportune scientific claims. Not only does science become impotent; it also loses its ability to objectively inform the public.

An example of this phenomenon is the discussion surrounding the so-called hockey stick, a temperature curve that supposedly portrays developments of the last 1,000 years. The curve derives its name from its hockey stick-like shape. In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a panel of climate researchers established by the United Nations, rashly institutionalized the hockey stick curve as an iconic symbol of human-induced climate change. In the curve, the upward-tilting blade of the hockey stick that follows decades of stable temperatures represents human influence.

In an article we published in the professional journal "Science" in October 2004, we were able to demonstrate that the underlying methodology that led to this hockey stick curve is flawed. Our intention was to turn back the spiral of exaggerations somewhat, but without calling the core statement into question, which is that human-induced climate change does exist. Prominent members of the climate research community did not respond to the article by engaging use in a dispute over the facts. Instead, they were concerned that the worthy cause of climate protection had been harmed.

Other scientists are succumbing to a form of fanaticism almost reminiscent of the McCarthy era. In their minds, criticism of methodology is nothing but the monstrous product of "conservative think-tanks and misinformation campaigns by the oil and coal lobby," which they believe is their duty to expose. In contrast, dramatization of climate shift is defended as being useful from the standpoint of educating the public.

The principle that drives other branches of science should be equally applicable to climate research: dissent drives continued development, and differences of opinion are not unfortunate matters to be kept within the community. Silencing dissent and uncertainty for the benefit of a politically worthy cause reduces credibility, because the public is more well-informed than generally assumed. In the long term, the supposedly useful dramatizations achieve exactly the opposite of what they are intended to achieve. If this happens, both science and society will have missed an opportunity.

Hans von Storch, 55, is the director of the GKSS Institute for Coastal Research (IfK) in Geesthacht, Germany, which researches water and climate in coastal areas. Together with Nico Stehr, 62, a sociologist at Zeppelin University in Friedrichshafen, Germany, is a long-time researcher of public attitudes about climate change.

Reference; International Spiegel Online news

EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING

THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING
"Global warming will be the greatest environmental challenge in the 21st century."
One of the most current and widely discussed factor which could lead to the ultimate end of existence of Earth and man is global warming and its devastating effects. Scientists have asked how fast the Earth is heating up, and how the warming effects on Earth may effect crops and climatic conditions. Several current trends clearly demonstrate that global warming is directly impacting on; rising sea levels, the melting of icecaps, and significant worldwide climatic changes. This paper will discuss the degree of destruction caused by global warming, contributing factors to warming, and finally, discuss what we can do to decrease the current rate of global warming. I would also like to present opposing viewpoints to the effects of the warming process. In my understanding, global warming represents a fundamental threat to all living things on earth.
WHAT IS THE "GREENHOUSE EFFECT" ALL ABOUT?
It is important to understand and discuss the significance of global warming. Global warming is also known as the "Greenhouse effect". The "Greenhouse Earth" is surrounded by a shield of atmospheric gases, rather than a glass or a plastic cover. The air that makes up our atmosphere consists primarily of nitrogen and oxygen molecules (N2 at 78% and O2 at 21%). A large number of "trace gases" make up the remainder of air's composition. Many of these, including carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) are the so called "greenhouse" gases. If you have ever felt the piercing cold of the clear winter night sky and wondered why you feel warmer on a cloudy winter night, you have experienced the atmospheric greenhouse effect firsthand. Physics tell us that any object warmer than absolute zero will radiate energy. Cooler objects emit longer waves (in the infrared region) while hotter ones radiate shorter wavelengths. Our sun, powered by its hot, nuclear fusion reaction, produces radiant energy in the visible and ultraviolet regions with relatively short wavelengths. Of the sunlight that strikes the earth, about 70% is absorbed by the planet and its atmosphere, while the other 30% is immediately reflected. If the earth did not re-radiate most of this newly absorbed energy back into space the world would continue to get warmer. Instead, an energy balance is maintained.
The earth is about 60 degrees Fahrenheit (33 degrees Celsius) warmer than it would be if it did not have the atmospheric blanket of greenhouse gases and clouds around it. Clouds and greenhouse gases keep the earth warm. Once warmed, their molecules then radiate a portion of this heat energy back to earth, creating more warming on the surface of our planet. It is this radiation which causes atmospheric gases to move back to earth that scientists call the "greenhouse effect".
Carbon dioxide (CO2) gas generated by man's burning of fossil fuels and the forests is responsible for about half the greenhouse gas warming. Other gases (CFCs,

methane, nitrous oxide, tropospheric ozone) are responsible for the rest. Increases in all these gases are due to mankind's explosive population growth over the last century, and increased industrial expansion. Approximately 80% of atmospheric CO2 increases are due to man's use of fossil fuels: oil, coal, and gas. These petroleum-based energy sources first came into use with the burning of coal during Since 1945 petroleum consumption has increased dramatically, due in large part to increased usage of automobiles worldwide, and the substitution of mechanized farm machinery for animal power. "Mankind is in the process of conducting a major, unintentional experiment, that of feeding back into the atmosphere in a short space of geological time the fossils fuels that have slowly accumulated over the past 500 million years."
In 1958, scientists began to measure carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. The site selected for these measurements was on top of the volcanic mountain of Mauna Loa, in Hawaii. CO2 measurements at the Hawaiian site have continued. The instruments show the level of CO2 has been steadily increasing (about 0.4% per year) from a level of 315 parts per million (ppm) in 1958 to 353 ppm in 1990. Clearly, Earth's natural mechanisms for absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere cannot handle the large quantities of CO2 being added by modern man. Scientists believe nearly 1/2 of the CO2 being emitted each year remains in the atmosphere, while the rest is being absorbed by trees and the oceans. As a result, CO2 measurements show a continuing build-up of CO2 greenhouse gases in the air, gases that will eventually lead to more global warming.

HOW FAST IS THE EARTH HEATING UP?
Much debate in the last five years about the greenhouse effect has centered on interpreting temperature numbers generated at weather stations all over the world. The data from these thermometers are averaged and plotted in attempts to determine just how fast the earth has heated up since the measurements began. There is now no doubt the world is getting warmer. The thermometers show that the world is warmer now than at any time since the measurements started. The year 1990 was the hottest year in the last century. Together with 1991, the years of 1983, 1987, 1988, and 1989, have been measured to be the warmest 6 years in the last hundred years. 1991 was the second warmest year of the past century, perhaps due to the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo during that year. The ash from the volcano in the upper atmosphere blocks some sunlight to earth, and is expected to generate a temporary two or three year cooling effect. After that time, most ash particles will have settled back to earth, and most scientists expect to see the global warming trend continue.
According to scientists, we can with "99% confidence conclude that current temperatures represent a real warming trend rather than a chance fluctuation over the 30-year period." Most scientists agree that the planet's temperature has risen 0.5 degrees Celsius since 1900, and will continue to increase at an increasing rate. The environment is responding to this warming. For instance, a study of mountain plants in the Alps (Europe), shows that some cold-loving plants are starting to move to higher and cooler altitudes. That is a possible response to increasing temperatures.

CURRENT TRENDS.
The global effects of the greenhouse effect cannot be directly predicted simply because we do not have enough knowledge in the subject. However, we have been able to draw direct connections between certain natural phenomenon that supports the idea that something is changing.
Global warming has great effect on crops and weather conditions around the world. The northern hemisphere contains more land area than the southern hemisphere, and conversely, a lower percentage of the world's oceans. Since oceans absorb more heat than land areas, it is not surprising that most climate models predict faster heating over the northern hemisphere than the global average. In addition, models predict faster temperature increases at higher latitudes. If global warming trends continue, high temperatures everywhere in the US may reduce US agricultural productivity. Northern continental areas are projected to have drier summer soils, due in part to earlier snow melts in the spring, and hotter, more cloudless summers, causing extensive evaporation of ground moisture. In addition, if the inland areas of the northern hemisphere are expected to receive less moisture, then, lake and river levels will be lower. Some reports predict the level of the Great Lakes will drop between 2 and 8 feet. River flows in the western US may be very vulnerable to increase temperatures expected as result of the greenhouse effect.
When many people think of global warming, their first concern is the possible rise of sea levels. With a large number of the world's cities in coastal areas, this is a significant problem. There are two major causes of rising sea levels. First, extra water is produced when ice melts. Secondly, the natural expansion of sea water as it becomes warmer. The range of sea ice around both poles continues to shrink, as it melts. Even with the level of greenhouse gases present today, the earth may warm enough in the next 50 years or so to completely melt the sea ice located on the poles.
Damage from rising seas is very diverse. Buildings and roads close to the water could be flooded and they could suffer damage from hurricanes and tropical storms. "There are good physical reasons to suggest that more intense storms (hurricanes) could result from global warming." Warmer oceans cause more intense storms. Experts believe that global warming could increase the intensity of hurricanes by over 50 percent. Hurricane Andrew's devastation in 1992 set new records. According to the National Hurricane Center in Miami, the 1990 season was the most active year on their records for combined Atlantic and Pacific hurricanes. Damage caused by future hurricanes to populated areas will be more severe since higher sea levels are predicted for the next century. In addition, as the sea rises, beach erosion takes place, particularly on steep banks. Wetlands are lost as sea levels rise. Another serious problem is the threat of salt water intruding into underground fresh water reserves in coastal areas.
In 1992, a report was published by the United Nations, which proposes that if CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions continue with present trends (which is the case), the coastal plains of Bangladesh and the Netherlands will flood by the year 2100. Furthermore, the islands of the Maldives would completely disappear. This would happen if only a two foot increase in sea level occured.

FOREST DESTRUCTION CREATES MORE HEAT:
Trees play a unique role in the global carbon cycle. They are the largest land-based natural mechanism for removing CO2 from the air. (CO2 is also removed by the oceans and ocean organisms.)
Trees are able to store a large amount of CO2 in their structures. An acre of forest will absorb about 10 times the CO2 amount absorbed by an acre of crop land or grassland. One tree absorbs about 13 pounds of CO2 per year, and each one acre of forest absorbs about 2.8 tons of CO2. However, when trees are burned, the carbon locked in the structure is released into the air in the form of CO2. Today, the shrinking world forests are not able to absorb all the CO2 created by human beings while burning fossil fuels. Everyday over 5500 acres of rain forest are destroyed, and over 50 million acres are destroyed every year. Global CO2 levels rise approximately 0.4 percent each year, to levels not experienced on this planet for millions of years. Planting more trees and reducing timber cuts world-wide will help restore the imbalance, and perhaps buy time as ways are found to reduce world greenhouse gas emissions.

POPULATION GROWTH CONTRIBUTES TO GLOBAL WARMING.
The intellectual powers that we enjoy has enabled us to make effective use of technology and thereby changed the environment. Technology is partly responsible for explosive population growth and responsible for the resulting damage to Earth's resources. The industrial revolution caused a rapid increase in the Population growth, as oil and gas fuels were exploited for our use. There is a clear link between the problems of global warming and overpopulation, as increases in CO2 levels follows growth in population. Presently, we have too many people on Earth, who are using technologies that are destructive for the Earth. We cannot continue to grow, and make use of limited natural resources.

ECONOMIC ASPECTS:
Global warming is big business. Some economists argue that a warmer climate could benefit certain crops and the farming communities. However, property insurers are predicting that worsening storms caused by global warming could eventually bankrupt the insurance industry. Insurance companies are now trying to form strategic alliances, and pool resources which could cover severe economic loss from climatic changes.
In addition, the costs to implement a worldwide plan to cut the production of CO2 and other gases which contribute to global warming would cost approximately 3 percent of the World's total GDP. However, there is a dispute whether the industrialized world should be responsible for the main economic contributions to clean up this planet. It is important to realize that many less industrialized nations are unable to afford actions to prevent an increase in CO2, and the fact that they have no incentive to reduce the carbon emissions that cause the "greenhouse" effect. Several less industrialized nations argue that the developed world was allowed to use of the nature in creating welfare, and that it is now morally right for them to do the same. I believe that funds dedicated to the former Cold war should be used for world ecology.

OPPOSING VIEW POINTS IS GLOBAL WARMING A THREAT?
Certain scientists believe that global warming is not a threat and the planet is essentially cooling off. They argue that the factors causing the phenomenon and the measurements are not fully understood, and that it is impossible to draw any conclusions whether the warming of the earth is a purely natural occurrence. These people, believe that the trend is a false alarm and that it is not a sign of a fore coming global disaster. In addition, Industrial forces argue that human beings can adapt to the changes caused by global warming, but they refuse to mention anything about the environmental impact of climatic changes.
Other opponents to the Global warming theory believes that most changes are due to the energy of the sun is fluctuating. Large sunspot activity is thought to be partially responsible for the "Little Ice Age" from 1450 to 1850. This climate change is well documented in history with many impacts on civilization in Europe, including famines. The temperature fluctuation was only about 2 degrees Fahrenheit. Also, some researchers believe that smoke from the burning of tropical forests and grasslands causes a strong cooling force on the climate. This cooling effect could nearly equal the warming power built by greenhouse gases created by the fires.
Furthermore, in the issue regarding rising sea levels, It is important to realize that the elevations of various coastal land areas are rising and sinking due to geological factors. Thus, the ocean levels may not rise as much as we think, as continents may be sinking.
In addition, some researchers believe that global warming is foreshadowing a coming ice-age. The last ice age occurred as the Earth's climate was warming. In the Arctic regions, more water would evaporate in summer, and fall onto the land as snow in winter. The winters would not be so warm as to melt all of this snow, thus glaciers would grow. Also, some carbon compounds released in the atmosphere may help prevent global warming. These particles reflects sunshine, which is redirected into space.

WHAT YOU CAN DO TO DECREASE GLOBAL WARMING.
There are several things which you can do directly after reading this paper. However, some of the actions which we all have to take will slightly decrease your present standards of living.
First, since the largest portion of electricity in the US is produced by burning coal, we should try to cut-down on our demand for electricity. Coal combustion creates the largest amount of CO2 per energy unit of any fossil fuel. Coal and oil together represent 80% of the US fuel supply used to generate electricity. When we reduce electric power use, we save money, breathe cleaner air, and help to reduce the global warming problem. Every kilowatt-hour of electricity saved keeps 1.5 to 2 pounds of CO2 out of the atmosphere. Americans waste more energy than any other nation. I believe it is time to make our lives, factories, and homes more efficient. Look around at home, and at your work place, and you will find several ways in which you can decrease the use of electricity. For instance, plant several trees on the south side of your house where they can give shade during the hot summer months. Also, install an energy efficient thermostat, with a day and night timer.
Second, decrease the use of your car. If you can't afford to buy a new fuel-efficient car in the next few years, consider selling or junking your gas demanding car and buying a smaller, efficient used car. Besides saving money on gas, oil, tires, parts, and repairs, you can help reduce greenhouse gases. Furthermore, no matter what type of car you drive, be sure to operate it efficiently, try to carpool to work or ride the bus, keep the car tuned up, walk or ride your bike for short distances, park and walk do not use "drive thru" services.
Third, try to follow the following environmental policy of "Reduce....Reuse.....Recycle." Reuse of anything is the easiest and best way to recycle. Save containers, bags, everything that you may be able to use in the future. Also, use cloth towels and napkins instead of paper ones, and use rechargeable batteries instead of disposable ones.
Furthermore, you can reduce the need to recycle paper by getting off the junk mail lists. Why should trees be destroyed for mail you do not even want to receive? In addition, always remember that recycling is only effective when you buy products made from recycled materials. Otherwise, what is the point of recycling?
Also, remember that each time you make a purchase, you either reinforce a bad environmental product, or you encourage a good one. I believe that people should try to buy quality products that can be used for a long time, buy products with minimal packaging, and not buy disposable products. We certainly have to make-up our minds whether our success as an individual should not be based on the quantity of our consumption, or on the quality of our natural environment.
I believe that It is time to examine our moral values. Examine our attitudes as they relate to our natural world. Each of us needs to ask ourselves: What makes us really happy? What makes us feel secure? It is highly questionable if money and tangible objects make us more happy, it is even possible that we tend to be less happy with our life's when we have a lot of tangible objects and money to care for. Has our striving for more and more materialistic consumption caused us to forget that we are living human beings? We have to realize that we have much more in common with the plants, animals, air and water than we have with the mechanical, chemical and electronic world we have created around us.
Unfortunately, the disbalance which we have created between our life's and the Earth is already showing the signs of disaster. "Earth in the Balance" is moving to the Earth in imbalance, which, in the long run will cease to exist. Remember, we are all in the greenhouse together, nobody can stop the world and get off.