Paul Eckert Thought Provoking Articles

Please enjoy this informative article by Dr.  Oswald J.  Eppers placed by Paul Eckert.

Global Warming Scientists Dispute Man-made Greenhouse Effects

In February 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) stated in their Fourth Assessment Report that human actions are “very likely” (i.e. with 90% or greater probability) the cause of global warming,  indicated by an increase of 0.75 degrees in average global temperatures over the last 100 years. This statement is the result of very tough discussions on a worldwide scale between thousands of climate researchers whether human activity is the main cause of global warming. The results of this discussion were presented to the public in many publications, for instance in Martin Durkin´s documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, presented in March 2007 at UK´s Channel 4. The main message of this production was that man-made global warming is “a lie” and “the biggest scam of modern times.” Martin Durkin and coworkers argue that the scientific consensus on climate change is the product of “a multibillion-dollar worldwide industry, created by fanatically anti-industrial environmentalists, supported by scientists peddling scare stories to chase funding and propped up by complicit politicians and the media”. The documentary showcases scientists, politicians, economists, writers, and others who are sceptical of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic (or man-made) global warming. Some of the scientists, opposing the main stream of greenhouse gas theories, simply argue that it has not yet been ascertained whether humans are the primary cause of global warming or if there are other natural variations responsible for this phenomenon like increased solar activity, cosmic rays or variations in natural climatic cycles. There is also a series of scientists questioning the temperature records used in the databases as temperature differences attributed to the greenhouse effect are reasonable small (fractions of a ºC). The so-called “urban heat island” effect leads to a local warming in more populated areas, showing slightly higher temperatures due to to increased heat generated by cities, rather than a global temperature rise. Anyhow, this argument was confuted by the IPPC, indicating that the effect of the urban heat island on the global temperature trend is no more than 0.05 °C (0.09 °F) degrees through 1990.

Other facts presented by the film were shown to be incorrect or misinterpreted. The film asserts for instance that records of atmospheric CO2 levels since 1940 show a continuing increase, but during this period, global temperature decreased until 1975, and has increased since then. Anyhow, it is well recognized that this cooling was driven mostly by aerosols (i.e. pollution) in the atmosphere. There is nothing contradictory about this cooling when all sources of radiation changes are considered. A second argument that easily can be invalidated is the impact of the so-called “solar variation theory” on global warming. According to the authors, solar activity (and involving cosmic rays as well as heat from the sun aiding cloud formation) is currently at an extremely high level and directly linked to changes in global temperature. The film argues that solar activity is far more influential on global warming than any other anthropogenic or natural activity on Earth. What the film does not mention is that solar activity has declined over the last 30 years – at the same time as the major spike in global temperature.

But there are some statements related to the influence of the oceanic mass and water vapour on climate change which are more difficult to confute. Water vapour makes up about 98% of the greenhouse gases by volume and provides something between 40 to 80 percent of the natural greenhouse effect. It probably has the largest impact on the planet’s temperature and climatic conditions, much larger than CO2. Water particles in the form of clouds act to reflect incoming solar heat, but the film argues that the effects of clouds cannot be accurately simulated by scientists attempting to predict future weather patterns and their effects on global warming. This argument probably is correct and it is well recognized that water vapor is responsible for the natural warming up of the surface temperature to approximately 30-35ºC. Anthropogenic greenhouse effect, according to the film’s argumentation, is only about 2% of the total “natural” greenhouse effect, which corresponds to a 0.6-0.7 ºC increase in temperature. This estimate is somewhat smaller compared to the results of much more sophisticated simulations (0.9 – 2.7ºC), but there is undoubtedly an anthropogenic effect of CO2 increasing the average surface temperature.

One example of the complexity of climatic simulations is the prediction of future storm events considering global warming effects. According to a recently published study, published online by research meteorologist Tom Knutson in the journal Nature Geoscience and resumed in the New York Times (May 18, 2008), global warming isn’t to blame for the recent jump in hurricanes in the Atlantic. The study predicts that by the end of the century the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic will fall by 18 percent. In the past, Knutson has raised concerns about the effects of climate change on storms. His new paper has the potential to heat up a simmering debate among meteorologists about current and future effects of global warming in the Atlantic. And Knutson is not alone with this view. Another group of experts, those who study hurricanes and who are more often skeptical about global warming, also say there is no link between global warming and hurricane frequency. They attribute the recent increase to a natural multi-decade cycle. According to the prediction, the number of hurricanes touching land in the US and its neighbors will drop by about 30 percent because of wind factors. However, the biggest storms, those with winds of more than 110 mph, would only decrease in frequency by 8 percent. The biggest decrease is forecasted for storms with winds between 39 and 73 mph (normal tropical storms), who would decrease by 27 percent.

It’s not all good news from Knutson’s study, however. His computer model also forecasts that “hurricanes and tropical storms will be wetter and fiercer. Rainfall within 30 miles of a hurricane should jump by 37 percent and wind strength should increase by about 2 percent”, Knutson’s study says.

There are already critical reactions on this new publication. MIT hurricane meteorologist Kerry Emanuel claims that the computer model used by Knutson is not adequate enough to look at storms and according to Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist from the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., Knutson’s computer model is poor at assessing tropical weather and ”fail to replicate storms with any kind of fidelity.” It also does not considering well enough the intensity, duration and size of the storm events, as not only the number of hurricanes is important to evaluate.

Positive feedback comes from NOAA hurricane meteorologist Chris Landsea , who wasn’t part of this study, praised Knutson’s work as ”very consistent with what’s being said all along.” ”I think global warming is a big concern, but when it comes to hurricanes the evidence for changes is pretty darn tiny,” Landsea said.

Tags: Warming Paul Eckert

Climate Change In Our Magnetic Environment

Our Magnetic Environment from Paul Eckert by Dr Sarah Tavy.

Tags: Magnetic Environment from Paul Eckert

Tackling Climate Change In The Home

In the Home with Paul Eckert by Paul McIndoe.

With the serious environmental issues faced with today, many think it’s unlikely that a single household can make a big difference. But the truth is that every household has the ability to significantly cut back on negative environmental impact. Moreover, if every household took steps to become more environmentally conscious, the collective effect would be truly remarkable.

However, when considering ‘environmentally responsible’ measures, many people envision having to make major lifestyle changes. However, taking on an eco-friendly attitude does not entail switching your entire life around. There are a number of simple steps anyone can take around the house to ultimately make a big difference to their environmental impact.

First and foremost, ensure you start shutting off lights and electrical items – from the television to your computer – when they are not in use. Many people are in the habit of leaving things on when they leave the room or even the house – and it ultimately makes a massive difference, not only to the environment, but to their power bill. You can even take this action a step further by switching off any standby functions on electrical items, such as your television.

Another simple step you can take to save energy around the house is to replace all your regular light bulbs with energy efficient bulbs. Sure, you’ll need to spend money on them up front – but they’ll save you a fortune in the long run, and the measure will certainly impact the environment in a good way. Similarly, you might want to think about replacing inefficient appliances around the house, as well as to fit a jacket around your hot water tank to ensure all the heat isn’t escaping.

Find you’re using too much heat during the winter? Lower your gas usage – and bills – by shutting your curtains. Keeping your curtains closed traps heat inside – and the thicker the curtains, the more effective they’ll be in keeping the heat in. And whilst on the topic of heat, don’t overfill the kettle when heating up water for tea or coffee. Only place as much water as you need in the kettle, foregoing superfluous energy use in the kitchen.

Last, but not least, try to take showers instead of baths. Studies show that taking a five minute shower uses only one fifth of the water that a bath does. And if you pair your shorter showers with an A-rated gas boiler, you’ll save even more energy and reduce your bills.

While looking after the environment is ultimately a huge task, we can all do our part at home to ensure we save energy. Indeed, it is possible for anyone to cut energy usage in their home, and contribute to a happier, healthier planet.
Paul McIndoe writes for a digital marketing agency. This article has been commissioned by a client of said agency. This article is not designed to promote, but should be considered professional content.

Tags: Home with Paul Eckert

The Effect of Green House Gases
Paul Eckert Greenhouse Gases By Eleanor B. Jhonsons.

Earth, the only planet in our solar system or as far as evidence indicates the only planet in the whole Universe that supports life, was not like as we see it now since its beginning. Earth has been able to give a safe home to life because of its unique place in the solar system; it’s neither too close to the Sun nor too far away. As Earth is situated away from the Sun preventing it from being a hell of a warm place, there was the possibility that it may have been freezing cold for life to form and flourish here. But thanks to the greenhouse gases present in Earth’s atmosphere that play their role in keeping it warm enough.

Greenhouse gases are those gases residing in Earth’s atmosphere that absorb and emit radiation and thus, keep Earth warmer. The ‘Greenhouse Effect’ is the natural process through which these atmospheric constituents absorb sunlight. Sun, the only star in our Solar System, emits light that reaches Earth’s atmosphere. The greenhouse gases in the atmosphere absorb the long wave radiation emitted by Sun which warms the atmosphere and these long wave radiations are emitted both upward and downward; the downward emission of radiation by atmosphere is called the ‘Greenhouse Effect’.

The greenhouse gases present in Earth’s atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane and ozone. Water vapor is the most abundant gas and plays the lead role in warming earth causing 36-70% of ‘greenhouse effect’. Carbon dioxide contributes 9-26%, methane 4-9% while ozone’s share is about 3-7%. Some of the other greenhouse gases present in much smaller quantities are sulfur hexafluoride, hydro fluorocarbons, chlorofluorocarbons, per fluorocarbons and nitrous oxide. Two of the major components of Earth’s atmosphere, oxygen and nitrogen are thankfully not greenhouse gases otherwise earth’s atmosphere would have been far warmer than it is now.

Although, these greenhouse gases have been playing a major role in providing life on Earth the perfect temperature to survive, since the Industrial Revolution human activities have caused increase in quantity of green house gases in the atmosphere. More greenhouse gases will trap more and more heat from Sun giving rise to the Global Warming phenomenon. Rising temperatures can be potentially hazardous to all kinds of life forms on Earth and a major cause for rapid melting of glaciers which in turn will cause sea level to rise submerging many coastlines worldwide. Although, environmentalists are forcing the issue and many Governments are taking steps in the right direction, it is not the greenhouse gases but human intervention in nature that is to be blamed.

Tags: Paul Eckert Gases

Climate Change – The Coming Crisis

Paul Eckert Coming Crisis By: Jonathon Hardcastle.

While many contend that there are different reasons behind the changing of our climate, few can deny that our planet is going through a period of immense changes. While some may discredit the science, global warming is one of the main hypothesis for why our planet is heating up. In this article, we’ll try to explain some of the science behind global warming so that you can understand the problem more clearly.

According to numerous scientific studies, our planet’s surface temperature has increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit within the last century. Most of this change has occurred in the past two decades, prompting the question: are our lifestyles accelerating this global change? The evidence definitely seems to point in that direction.

Many scientists point to the emission of greenhouse gases as one of the leading reasons that we are undergoing this global change. Carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are some of the main compounds that we are releasing more and more, causing something known as the ‘Greenhouse Effect’. This occurs due to the fact that these gases tend to trap heat, and when they are released into our upper atmosphere, they trap some of the heat energy that would normally be reflected by our earth’s natural processes.

It’s an undisputed fact that there is more greenhouse gas in our atmosphere due to humanity. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, it is estimated that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by as much as thirty percent. While a little greenhouse gas helps to keep our planet warm, the more and more that we release, the hotter the planet is going to get. That is an important fact to consider, being that our biosphere is finely tuned to live at the temperatures at which our planet currently operates. Many forms of both plant and animal life run the risk of extinction should the temperature change be accelerated. Fossil fuels are primarily responsible for the amount of greenhouse gases that we are releasing, and to help fix the problem, we are going to need to find an alternate source of energy, and quick. Research into alternative fuels has yielded several possible options, including the use of corn in the production of ethanol, which has already had proven usage in places such as Venezuela. The most accelerated period of temperature change has occurred in the past twenty years, and it’s clearly evident that we need to address this problem while we still can.

Tags: Paul Eckert Crisis

The Air We Breathe

Paul Eckert Greenhouse  By: Gary Tooth.

We don’t need scientists to tell us we require ‘air’ to survive. The air we breathe has a gas called oxygen and without it there would be no life period. Humans, plants and animals all need oxygen to survive but although oxygen is a colorless, odorless, and tasteless, there are a lot of pollutants in the air which are not. Worse still, there are a whole bunch of impurities indoors as well as outdoors, which is why ionic air purifiers have become all the rage these days. But just how bad is bad when we talk about the quality of the air we breathe?

Air pollution first got my attention when I was visiting Hong Kong last year. My first impressions of this small country was that it was clean, efficient, and very well organized despite the fact that its buildings and residents were so tightly packed in. As I walked around the city areas, it was pretty noisy and certainly bustling, but I didn’t think for one minute that there were any real issues with pollution. That was until I read an article in a local magazine which reported that there were over 2000 deaths caused last year through air pollution alone.

I found this an incredible read. What does it say for places like Bangkok in Thailand where you can almost chew on the air it’s that thick. My Thai physician here in the USA, explained that Bangkok has lung cancer rates which are about three times higher than the rest of the country, and its air pollution levels are some 14 times higher than international health standards. He went on to say that the city now has the sharpest decline in life expectancy within South East Asia. The price of pollution in the Asia region seems to indicate these Eastern cities are suffocating on their own economic prosperity. Quite a price to pay wouldn’t you say!

But air pollution doesn’t stop in developing countries. Here at home in the US, we are often accused by the international community as being the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases worldwide. In addition to industrial pollution, millions of us have these big automobiles which are all spewing out air contaminants and affecting the quality of the air breathed as we walk around outside. President George W bush has not agreed to reduce emissions at the time of writing this article. He said it would be damaging to the US economy. He also went on to say that developing countries were not required to cut their emissions so didn’t see why the US had to do so at this time.

Governments play a huge role in protecting its citizens and the planet as a whole, but we the little people, also have a duty to do what we can in order to help improve the quality of the air we breathe, and that goes for inside as well as out. In actual fact, our home and work environments may be damaging our health without us even realizing it. So many of us spend a high percentage of our time indoors, so the quality of the air we breathe inside is very important.

Article published by Paul Eckert

Tags: Paul Eckert Greenhouse

Nitric Acid – Intensifying Climate Change and Furthering Its Impact to the Environment

Paul Eckert About Climate Change By Jo Alelsto.

Nitric acid is one of the top chemicals in production around the world. Its primary application is in the manufacture of nitrogen-based fertilizers. It is also used in explosives, metallurgy, dyes, plastics, and pharmaceuticals. Other minor applications include water treatment, fibers and polymers manufacture, liquid-propellant for rockets, printmaking, and nuclear fuel reprocessing.

Human-influenced sources may account for as much as 40% of the total NOx released into the atmosphere. The laughing gas, nitrous oxide (N2O), is approximately accountable to 7% of the greenhouse gases. The concentration of nitrous oxide in the atmosphere has significantly increased from the pre-industrial period as compared in the last two decades.

As a waste by-product of nitric acid production, oxides of nitrogen (NOx) are very harmful to the environment and they can also aggravate the effects of climate change. Emissions from nitric acid manufacturing plants may not be as significant as those of combustion of fossil fuels but a small difference in the levels of nitrogen oxides released into the atmosphere will mean a big difference since they are very harmful greenhouse gases.

Biofuels are also contributors to nitrous oxide. Contrary to popular belief, a report from the International Council for Science (ICSU) concludes that biofuel production can aggravate global warming rather than alleviating its effects. The theory is that annual plants and crops such as corn, wheat and sugar cane take up carbon dioxide during their growth. Hence, fuels burned from them have no significant carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere.

The same study also supported an earlier finding which determined that nitrous oxide has a more harmful effect on the environment and the climate change phenomenon than previously believed. The ability of nitrous oxide in warming up the planet is 300 times more than carbon dioxide. It also stays longer in the atmosphere.

Nitrous oxide is a natural occurring gas in the atmosphere as a result of the nitrogen cycle but it is the rate at which its concentration increases and the factors which contribute to this increase that worries scientists and environmentalists. One of the greatest factors which most of them have seen is the anthropogenic sources such as nitric acid manufacturing plants.

Greenhouse effects cannot be ignored anymore. Climate change is upon us. The weather has become even more unpredictable than before. Studies have also identified that the main cause of this phenomenon are unchecked and negligent human practices.

As a result of industrialization, comforts have been afforded to us, such as electricity, transport, and other luxuries we now enjoy. But this comes with a price, the warming up of the planet.

Is this really worth it? Can we really afford the unpredictability of the weather today, the increase in intensity of natural disasters? The world has certainly begun to experience the effects of the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by the higher than normal temperatures, the melting of the polar ice caps and the rising sea levels.

We have to make a move now. A move to reduce our impacts on the environment, this especially goes to those who are in the position to make a significant change in reducing nitric acid production by-products. Owners and managers of plants and companies which use nitric acid must have proper processing and disposal strategies which are environment friendly.

But the responsibility doesn’t stop there. We must do our part as well. We are also stakeholders therefore we have to take responsibility. One thing is for sure though, we have to start today. This is because of the fact that the planet will continue to warm up for no less than 150 years due residence time of carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It will take a long, long time before the climate becomes stable.

Tags: Paul Eckert Climate Change

How Much Green House?

Paul Eckert About Greenhouse By: Ken Charnly.

Lately, we have all been talking about the greenhouse effect. This effect relates to the expected warming of our planet resulting from changes to the composition of our atmosphere. There is mounting evidence that our own activities, most significantly the burning of fossil fuels, are a major contributor to this effect.

The predicted consequences are quite sever, including major changes in climate which will have impact on food production, and rising sea levels which will submerge coastal and other low lying communities. Lurking in the background hauntingly are the facts we have discovered about our near neighbor, the planet Venus. Because of its dense atmospheric gases, Venus has what has been described as having a runaway greenhouse effect, giving surface temperatures of about 8000F. Now I love the warm summer weather, but that is a little too hot for me.

The usual villains in the greenhouse scenario are gases such as carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide, which, incidentally, we all exhale, has the unusual habit of absorbing infra-red radiation. Infra-red radiation for those of you less scientifically minded is actually heat radiating away from a warm object. During the day, sunlight warms the earth and during the night the Earth cools by radiating heat into space in the form of infra-red radiation. Carbon dioxide, and to a lesser extent other gases, absorb this radiation, limiting its exit out into space, and thus limiting the natural cooling effect.

Would it be safer if we had no greenhouse effect at all? Well, no, we do not want that either. There is another member of the heat absorbing clan. This is water vapor. There is a large amount of water vapor in the atmosphere at any time, which is why we have rain. The presence of water vapor as a heart absorbing gas keeps the Earth comfortably warm. Without this warmth, the planet would freeze, and life as we know it would not be possible. We therefore do need some greenhouse effect, just not too much. Mother Nature is again telling us what we should already know; in any situation, both of the extremes are harmful.

Tags: Paul Eckert Greenhouse Effect

The Important Differences Between “Climate Change” and “Global Warming”

Paul Eckert Climate Change and Global Warming By: James Nash.

Many people in the media (and elsewhere) use the terms “climate change” and “global warming” interchangeably, as if they were the same thing. But there are differences between the meanings of the two terms.

Getting a better handle on the definitions of and differences between “global warming” and “climate change” will help us understand why the threat caused by continued warming of the planet is so serious.
Planet Earth’s current warming trend is based largely on natural warming and cooling cycles that have been happening for eons; as well as human-caused additions to greenhouse gases, which are boosting the atmosphere’s ability to trap heat in the biosphere. Minor factors like an overall increase in the sun’s solar intensity play a smaller role.

While greenhouse gases are an essential component of a livable planet – they’re what keep Earth from being a lifeless ball of ice – humans are causing greenhouse gas levels to increase so quickly that it’s causing the average global temperature to rise much faster than it would naturally. This warming is predicted to lead to a variety of negative effects, including:

1) Melting (and possible disappearance) of glaciers and mountain snow caps that feed the world’s rivers and supply a large portion of the fresh water used for drinking and irrigation.

2) A rise in sea levels due to the melting of the land-based ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, with many islands and coastal areas ending up more exposed to storm damage or even underwater.

3) Increasingly costly “bad weather” events such as heat waves, droughts, floods, and severe storms.

4) Lowered agricultural productivity due to less favorable weather conditions, less available irrigation water, increased heat stress to plants, and an increase in pest activity due to warmer temperatures.

5) Increases in vector-borne infectious diseases like malaria and Lyme Disease.

6) Large numbers of extinctions of higher-level species due to their inability to adapt to rapidly changing climate and habitat conditions.

The first two of these effects are mostly related to increasing average temperatures. Items 3-6 are related to heat too, but also playing a role are non-temperature factors – i.e. “climate-change factors.”

Climate change is about much more than how warm or cool our temperatures are. Whereas “global warming” refers to increasing global temperatures, “climate change” refers to regional conditions. Climate is defined by a number of factors, including:

1) Average regional temperature as well as day/night temperature patterns and seasonal temperature patterns.

2) Humidity.

3) Precipitation (average amounts and seasonal patterns).

4) Average amount of sunshine and level of cloudiness.

5) Air pressure and winds.

6) Storm events (type, average number per year, and seasonal patterns).

To a great extent, this is what we think of as “weather.” Indeed, weather patterns are predicted to change in response to global warming:

1) Some areas will become drier, some will become wetter.

2) Many areas will experience an increase in severe weather events like killer heat waves, hurricanes, flood-level rains, and hail storms.

It’s tempting to think that all of these changes to the world’s climate regions will average out over time and geography and things will be fine. In fact, colder climates like Canada may even see improved agricultural yields as their seasonal temperatures rise. But overall, humanity has made a huge investment in “things as they are now, where they are now.”

Tags: Paul Eckert Climate Change and Global Warming

The Impact of Climate Change
Paul Eckert Impact of Climate Change By: Paul Hata.
The planet was once protected with ancient forests; it has been a shelter to almost 50% of all the animals and plants confined in lands. Also, the worldwide population depends on them for survival.

The most diverse ecological units exist in these forests, and they serve essential help to our planet especially in matters regulating the climate. This is the very reason why deforestation and climate changes go hand in hand. Where deforestation is, climate alteration always follows.

Unfortunately, the forests that should be the world’s shield to the growing global warming are now under threat; almost 80% of the vast land areas all over the earth have been wiped out. Everything went by in a matter of 30 years, and the foundation is due to human doings such as destructive logging and agricultural land transformations. The fact that deforestation is the second cause to climate change should alert every human being in order to put to a stop to anything that may interrupt our normal ecosystem. If no moves would be done, further retaliation of nature would surely come to pass.

Major Carbon Storehouses
It is increasingly clear that our ancient forests play a crucial role in the regulation of world climate through carbon storage and water recycle back into the atmosphere. It is a fact that the green areas of the earth are regulators of climate, and destruction of that area means contributing to a climate change. Eighteen percent of all carbon emissions come from deforestation. Instead of the forest protecting us from disastrous effects, man made phenomenon make them our source of devastation instead.

Full grown forests are the greatest keepers of carbon dioxide. Other “keepers” include: the earth soil, the plant life, and the smallest and biggest trees. Some popular forests such that of Congo represent one of the planet’s enormous carbon sources on land, and destruction of it may cause more greenhouse gas to get trapped in the atmosphere.

The carbon is emitted from the green life through logging, burning and rotting. If these illegal activities happen frequently and continuously in all parts of the world, then the levels of carbon trapped in our environment is exceedingly augmented. Climate changes happen abruptly and changes in the world environment would slowly take place.

Deforestation and Its Effect On Climate Change
When deforestation is made, climate changes begin to progress over a period of time. The gradual modification in climate show insignificant numbers, but it affects the earth in great ways. The following are some examples of global changes after massive deforestation: temperature of global surface has increased to 1F, precipitation events happen around the world and in extreme cases, snow capped mountains have decreased in cover, sea levels have risen, and thawing of permafrost has slowly been happening over the years.

It is said that in a matter of 50 decades, the world may be in an irreversible state already. If things could be prevented now, then it is highly suggested that every human take part in preserving the world.

Tags: Paul Eckert Impact of Climate Change