US Features
US investor drumbeat grows loud on global warming
By Pat Reber Apr 6, 2007, 7:30 GMT
Washington - It wasn't the hand wringing over disappearing species, the Kyoto Protocol warnings on carbon emissions or even the spectre of human extinction that finally moved them.
What has brought a flood of US venture capital and institutional investors to clean technology is simply this: there's money to be made there - and even more to lose otherwise.
As the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change prepares to release a report on April 6 in Brussels that is expected to project dire economic and social consequences of global warming, the world's major carbon polluter - the United States, with 25 per cent of world emissions - remains the only industrialized economy without a unified policy of reduction.
But a head of steam is building in the private sector and among individual states to change that. Fed up with lack of action by Washington, at least 20 states and 218 cities have enacted their own climate action plans. Car emission limits by California and 10 other states could affect one-third of the nation's cars and light trucks.
Alarmed by the financial risks of global warming, the Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR) flexed its 4 trillion dollars of combined asset muscle recently to demand that US Congress pass a law that would reduce emissions by 60 to 90 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050. The 65-member group of large institutional and other investors includes California's state pension system and German-based Allianz SE.
'Global warming presents enormous risks and opportunities for US businesses and investors,' said Fred Buenrostro, who heads California's public pension fund. 'To tap American ingenuity and drive business to a leadership position in the low-carbon future, we need regulations to enable the markets to deploy capital and spur innovation.'
Whether or not the new Democratic-controlled Congress will tackle the issue remains to be seen. Democrats have introduced a Safe Climate bill that would freeze emissions until 2010, then start reducing them so that by 2050, emissions would be 80 per cent lower than in 1990 - in line with INCR's demands.
The bill would put a mandatory cap on emissions and provide for trading in carbon units for industrial polluters.
Republican US President George W Bush, who for six years has rejected the international Kyoto agreement on reducing emissions, has also signalled an openness to change - both for environmental and energy security reasons.
Meanwhile, on the cutting edge of US investment, venture capital, there has been a huge surge of interest in clean technology. The 3.6 billion dollars invested in solar, wind, ethanol and other carbon-reducing technologies in 2006 in North America and the European Union represented a doubling over 2004, according to the Cleantech Venture Network.
The 2006 amount in the US alone - more than 2 billion dollars - represented about 10 per cent of all US venture capital investments last year.
In the US economy, venture capitalists provide start-up capital in anticipation of turning a profit in five to seven years, and the companies they invest in are considered a leading indicator of where industry is going.
Many venture capitalists turning to clean technology are the same investors who powered the dot com boom in the 1990s. A fare share of the money is flowing into California's Silicon Valley to revive the economy from the dot com bust.
'Investors aren't making investments as subsidies,' says Craig Cuddeback, Cleantech Venture's chief operating officer. 'It's all about money ... They're looking at this for the first time where they can make money and do good at the same time.'
Cleantech, founded in 2002, developed standards to describe clean technology and collects data on venture capital investments in the field. The company retroactively researched such investments going back to 1999 in the US, added Europe in 2003 and just this year started tracking clean tech investments in China.
The research group is supported by membership fees from about 6,000 companies, 1,300 investors and 3,5000 professional service companies. It also sponsors annual forums in the US, Europe and now in China.
The field of clean technology has become more attractive as prices come down 'to where technology is feasible, for example solar energy and wind energy, and ethanol,' Cuddeback said.
One of the newest arrivals is a cylindrical windmill that can be installed on the roof of a home, instead of on a backyard tower. NanoSolar, another US-based company, can now roll-print solar cells on an absorber that is only one-hundredth as thick as a silicon waver cell, yet deliver top performance at lower cost. The company's motto is a 'solar panel on every building.'
A combination of factors has generated the belated US interest in clean technology. In the Mid-West, winters are getting shorter, temperatures warmer, snow storms more disastrous, and summers more drought-plagued.
Hurricane Katrina, which caused 45 billion dollars of insured losses in 2005 along the US Gulf Coast, helped push the National Association of Insurance Commissioners which regulates the industry to set up a task force on climate change.
'Good corporate governance demands company directors and CEOs make climate change risk a top priority,' wrote INCR head Mindy Lubber and Tim Wagner, director of the Nebraska Department of Insurance, recently. They said corporate leaders and boards have 'fiduciary duties' to rise to the challenge.
The groundswell of investor demands, dissatisfaction by states and growing grassroots consciousness appears to have convinced America that it can no longer spew carbon emissions with impunity, Cuddeback said.
'Daily lives are being affected,' Cuddeback said. 'Everybody is singing the same song right now.'
The opposite side of the coin is this. Companies that don't pay attention to clean technology could end up on lists like the INCR's 'Climate Watch' index. Shareholders are urged to push the issue on companies such as ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Wells Fargo banking, and the retailer Bed Bath And Beyond.
Companies with significant greenhouse gas emissions or energy- intensive operations face risks from new regulations, says INCR, which wants climate change risk to be included on the corporate balance sheet just like other financial risks.
© 2007 dpa - Deutsche Presse-AgenturCOMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in US
- 1. Mitt Romney Addresses Tea Party Summit Pictures
- 2. Seven injured as US Navy plane crashes into apartments
- 3. At least three injured in US Navy plane crash
- 4. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, others to face death penalty trial
- 5. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, four others to face death penalty trial
Older Talkback
page: 1
Most Americans aren't quite sure what to believe. It looks as though a lot of politics has crept into the science and they are right--it has. As for me personally, I think that we ARE experiencing a warming period. What I do NOT believe is that it has an anthropogenic origin. To me, the evidence suggests that the sun has warmed up a bit and THAT is why we are warmer now than when I was a child.
This is not the first time we have experienced a cooler-to-warmer cycle. When my grandfather was in his twenties, oranges were a reliable crop in South Texas and even New Orleans. When I was growing up, the orange growers in Texas were wiped out by freezes. Now it is becoming warm enough to grow oranges in Texas again.
Absent conclusive proof that this warming period is caused by humans, I ain't buyin' the politics.
....In Investing:
Fear
Greed
Impatience
It is true the sun has warmed up marginally over the past 2 or 3 decades - and interestingly, the effect has been masked to some extent by the amount of pollution in the atmosphere and/or additional cloud cover which prevented some of the extra radiation reaching the earth's surface. I read about this a few months back, where measurements of evaporation rates at salt pans in Australia provided the data. Unfortunately I can't now find the reference.
This means, perversely, that as we clean up the atmosphere by reducing carbon particle and similar emissions, this shielding will diminish and the rate of energy impact will increase. (One interesting subsidiary piece of information here - immediately after 9/11, when all flights were stopped for a couple of days, the reduction in particle emissions from aircraft in the upper atmosphere was sufficient to provide a measureable increase in radiation reaching the ground - after only this short period of cessation !)
However, on top of this is the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, which by the so-called greenhouse effect, reduces the amount of heat radiated back into space, which thus leads to further energy retention and consequently heating
Certainly the sun's energy reaching the earth varies over time and may well account for warming/freezing effects in the past, but the additional effect of CO2 can be measured on top of this longer term trait and is producing temperature changes over a very short time scale
Unfortunately a lot of people were misled by the 'global warming swindle' programme which claimed that the CO2 increase was a result, rather than a cause, of warming, and also which claimed that there had been a cooling effect in the 1950s - 70's just at the point when pollution was increasing. Since being broadcast in the UK (I don't know the situation elsewhere), several of the scientists featured in the programme have withdrawn their support because they were misled or misquoted by the programme makers. Furthermore, the producers themselves have admitted that some of the graphs they used were incorrect and it has also been shown that the supposed cooling in 1950+ was from wrong interpretation of data.
In conclusion we may not know precisely which effect - sun or CO2 - is having the most effect or the precise scale of each, but we do know that the increasing temperatures in the past 2 decades are far more rapid than at any time in several million years and it is a very real threat to mankind's continmuing existence. We may be lucky and the sun will suddenly decline slightly in intensity, but I wouldn't bet on it. What we can do is have some marginal influence by trying to mitigate the CO2 effect with as many measures as possible to reduce these emissions
Al: Good morning folks
staff: good moring sir
Al: great news moneys coming in for global heat control
staffer: sir, isn't this kind of misleading?
Al; How so, tommy?
Tommy: well sir, we don't actually know if these measures will have any effect, after all, it takes 50 years to establish any realizable trend.
Al: Tommy, you're new here, so let me explain:
I know this is all crap, but, sheit boy, I need a f--kin power base. I can't run again for office on the up-and-up, because that boob Bush actually beat me!
Tommy, I need an edge and god handed me this lemon to sell. It's a great deal.
Tommy, I 'll be dead when any real science can prove itself either way. By doing this, I have given the Trial Lawyers a grub stake for the nex 100 years! They'll owe me big!
Tommy: but sir, what about the emissons credits?
Al: Tom, that's the best part! We create an invisible tax.
Tom: But sir, industry will jst pass it on, like with cigarettes.
AL; Sure! But the government gets the money, and I'm a big hero!
Tom: But the pollution never stops...
Al: Sheeit no! How will we ever stay in power if the problem goes away?
Tom: oh...I think I see it now.
Al: That's it! You're getting it now, right?
'Is the message about global warming finally sinking in to Americans ?? The rest of the world has known this for years'
Go watch 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' on Google video.
I haven't seen the video you mentioned, Fred. What I noticed is that the polar caps of Mars have been shrinking for about the same length of time that we have been seeing our glaciers retreat.
We have absolutely no impact whatsoever on the climate of Mars and Mars is quite bit farther out from the sun than Earth is. Given the inverse square law, this says that we are getting quite a bit more heat here on Earth than Mars is.
Since I am already on the subject, I will elaborate on my opinion. I think for it to have any serious impact on global climate, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would have to be high enough to cause other rather more acute problems for us. The lower atmosphere is rather like the water in a heated kettle. When you add heat, it becomes more active and the convection cells become more vigorous. That added vigor dumps billions of extra BTU's of heat back into space on a daily basis. Sooner or later, we'll have a cooling trend and everyone will start worry about another ice age.
We may well get another ice age. The cool periods tend to be longer than the warm periods.
To: What the rest of the world knows is BS -- If you had bothered to read my item above, you would have seen that the Great Global Warming Swindle programme has been shown as a false analysis - not, I might add, by any particular group of people opposed to the findings but by the programme makers themselves. I am sorry that you appear to be one of the people taken in by the programme, but you can now start looking at the actual situation
Hi Noharness - I accept the Mars also warming argument, and this does support the increased warming affect of the sun on both planets. I do not dispute that the sun my well responsible for some of the Earth's warming through its increased output, but I am also saying that there are other effects on top of this.
The convection argument is fine, but convection needs a medium in which to operate - so it works to move heat around within the atmosphere of Earth but cannot act as a mechanism for transfering heat from the atmosphere to a non-medium. i.e the vacuum of Space
it has been between 0 and 12 degrees here in mich.and we got all our snow back.
we have over 2 feet now.and these idiots are going to tell us there is global warming.when we normaly are in the 50's and 60.s this time of year .i think they fell on their heads .to that i say b.s. just another way to screw the american people over
Hank - if you did just the minimum of research you would find that all the predictions are that fluctuations from 'normal' patterns of weather will become wider and more marked. The snow that you are currently experiencing is an example of these predictions, so instead of calling others idiots, you have shown yourself to be an idiot by not understanding that what you are experiencing is actually clear evidence that global warming IS happening
Fred,
If convection had not been pumping heat back into space all along, we would already be baked like potatoes. I assume the heat is irradiated back into space, through the stratosphere where CO2 blocks it very little simply because the air so thin. Barring a sudden increase in density in at the stratosphere level, there is no reason that mechanism should not continue working.
What it does mean, of course, is that the troposphere must become quite a bit more active to dump the heat, and that activity is a negative feedback mechanism. I think that by the time we get enough CO2 in the atmosphere to cause that feedback mechanism to fail, we'll have other rather more acute problems.
Now, no one should construe this to mean that I think we should continue to burn coal at the rate we are burning it, or that we should be happy with current vehicle designs, we should not. Burning the quantities of hydrocarbons we do just for transport puts us at an extreme strategic disadvantage. Burning coal dumps dangerous quantities of mercury into the environment.
What worries me is that this stuff about 'global warming' is going to lead to an avalanche of unnecessary and obtrusive legislation that will give governments entirely too much control over people's lives. Governments already do too much of that.
For what it is worth, folks, I am just a few miles north of Houston, Texas and it just started snowing this morning at 1114 hours.
Noharness - basically yes - the incoming radiation from the sun is ultra violet (as in tanning danger) which isn't stopped by very much except the ozone layer (hence danger from ozone holes over antarctica/arctic caused by CFCs) or lots of dust etc as when a volcano goes off.
When this ultra violet reaches the earth's surface, some is reflected (now decreasing as ice caps get smaller and are replaced by dark, good absorbing, sea)and the remainder warms whatever it hits. Then the new radiation to consider is infra-red (as in heat). [And other heat, of course, comes from man made sources, natural fires, colcanoes etc]
This infra red tries to radiate heat back into space but is blocked to some extent by the atmosphere. The degree of this blockage is dependent on CO2 to a surprising extent (so I understand) even though CO2 is a pretty small part of the total atmosphere. The convection of heat into the upper atmosphere doesn't make that much difference since the atmosphere is relatively low density (thus heat capacity)compared with rocks and water radiating heat.
I'm only a scientist in the sense that I studied it about 50 years ago and vaguely kept up to date, but I hope this helps
I note your snow - I'm afraid I have no idea whether this is unusual, extremely unusual or what ?
so we all burn up from the heat or freeze to death from the cold.
better that way than at the hands of geo.w. bush
wake up people ...this is another bully bush scare tactic
hey pete .here's whising your family burns up in a house fire ...lol
Fred,
Here is the problem I have with the greenhouse gas theory. Heat is damnably difficult to hang onto by any means. The best you can do is to slow down its dissipation. What happened in Kuwait when all those oil wells were set on fire? The smoke shaded the ground and the temperature fell into the fifties. Without a source of heat, things cool down very rapidly despite the greenhouse gas claims.
The heat escapes at the top of the troposphere, perhaps not as quickly as it would if the atmosphere were at sea level pressure right out to its edge, but it still escapes and it escapes at a prodigious rate despite what is postulated by the greenhouse gas theory. Now, it may be leaving the troposphere as infrared or microwave or something in between, but you can bet it is leaving.
Remember the big problem aboard Apollo 13 once the fuel cells died? Loss of heat. Vacuum does NOT stop infrared or other types of radiative energy from departing the system.
Helen - frankly I am puzzled - I was exchanging factual information with another person, I am not an american nor would I want to be quite honestly. So why introduce your political ramblings. Bush will be gone in another couple of years, some other dumbo politician will doubtless be elected, and the world will continue with very liitle interest in your political events. Global warming will however be a reality. Get real and face up to the problems
Hank - thank you for the obvious intellectual effort which has gone into composing you succinct and erudite replies. (Thats irony by the way - something which I understand americans have difficulty in recognising).
When someone has to resort to personal abuse rather that facts, one can be sure they have lost the argument, so I'm glad you now agree with my earlier points)
Morning (at least it is here) Noharness.
The Kuwait cooling is because incoming ultra violet radiation was blocked by the smoke clouds and thus failed to heat the ground. But the ground was still warm enough to radiate heat as infra red and thus cool. The same happens when the sun's energy is cut off during a solar eclipse
The Apollo loss of heat was infra red RADIATING into space (no problem with radiation - ultra violet, infra red or whatever passing through a vacuum). Our earlier discusssion was about CONVECTION in the atmosphere, and convection doesn't work in a vacuum
I agree the Earth loses a prodigious amount of heat through radiation and it also receives a huge amount from the sun. Added to this is man made and natural heating from the Earth. The whole question of global warming revolves around the balance between incoming and outgoing. Measurements supporting the global warming scenary show that the difference between loss and gain is slightly (and increasingly) in favour of retained heat so the temperature of earth is rising
I've enjoyed our exchange of views, but I am about to leave for a couple of weeks holiday in South Africa, and then a fews days after returning I have another couple of weeks in Poland and Kaliningrad (Russian Baltic state), so I shall effectively be out of circulation for the next 5 weeks. (Don't worry - my carbon footprint will be offset by contributions to tree planting funds)
Regards
Have a safe trip, Bill. Good 'talking' to you.
Does anyone know of anything that can be mixed with water to make it boil faster?
You Iiots like Fred and the rest of the morons,
There is no point arguing with dead brain slik eyou. You will not believe in global warming anyway until unless Jesus comes and tells you about it.
Oh the bible does not say anything about global warming so it is must a left wing liberal conspiracy.
Have you ever realized that what a bunch of idiots you are!!
Is it normal to let someone like Sams out of the asylum at Easter ?
tinfoil hats my boy ...tinfoil hats
Dearest Sams,
I am an atheist. Perhaps that's why I have such a hard time worshiping at Al Gore's alters.
With that out of the way, I'll ask again. Anyone know of something that can be put in water to make boil faster? How about something to make it boil slower? No cheating, hot water and ice not allowed.
Now i'm no weather man or scientist, but i believe we, as humans, have a profound effect on this planet in everything we do. There's no doubt that the planet is in a warming cycle. But is it so hard to believe that humans help speed up the process? Sure, we may not see it at home. Sometimes it's hard to believe that with all the snow and ice i see (living in upstate NY, and I don't mean Albany), how could it be true? But when the surface temperature of one of Lake Michigan has risen nearly 5 degrees, in about 30 years, there's no doubt in my mind. Warmer waters means more snow. and, in my short life time, to see winters go from almost lasting 5 or 6 months (Oct. to March), to now about 3 or 4 (Dec. to March), also leaves no doubt in my mind that global warming is an issue. We may not be the root cause, but we certainly don't help the matter. If steps are not taken now to reduce this effect, what kind of world will there be for generations 100 years from now?
Lake Superior...my bad.
The heating of Lake Michigan is a new item to me, but I'm stunned by the figures - just imagine how much extra energy is required to heat a body of water that size. Global warming really is moving fast
Be advised, the atmosphere cannot heat the water. I'll ask again, what can you put into water to make it boil faster. There is only one thing I know of that will do that.
It is impossible for a single human brain to make out if global warming is a fact or a myth.There are just too many parameters involved in it.Even with supercomputers it takes a lot of time to predict your daily ceather .Those are derived from observation and application of the elementary laws of nature.THese are quantifiable and can be fed into computers .Howaver we have little experience with global warming so all the work is derived from less repetitive observations and calculations during a much larger timescale.Sometimes phenomena which seem not to fit the pattern occur and they can be hard to explain.But we do know the rate at which we are feeding the atmosphere with emissions of carbondioxide from burning fossil fuels .These figures are gigantic even on a yearly basis ,and they accumulate time after time .
As nobody can contain the knowledge to make decisions on these matters you will eventually have to rely on sources to make the decision for you.That is what politics are meant for .THere is this tendency in the US that the administration needs to meddle as little as possible with the lives of its citizens.That is part of what you commonly understand as freedom .
That is one of the reasons why some people refuse to act against global warming .To them I can only say that there is an urgent need to change your perspective as the human race is threatened in its very existence .
Find all the information you need to get the basic idea and choose in which hands you will lay your future . But you must educate yourself and not rely on opinions only.
Putting increased amounts of energy into water makes it boil faster. The inclusion of some minerals can also make a difference, but only a very marginal one. External factors can also have an effect - lower pressure, lowers the boiling point (the temperature) at which water boils
The atmosphere CAN heat water - energy can be transfered from one to the other by conduction (contact). Thus a warm wind will warm water. Conversely warm water can heat the atmosphere - if you don't believe this, look up the mechanism by which hurricanes are formed over the sea
Bingo! Will got it right on the head! However, I would hasten to point out that absent a heat source, the atmosphere on its own cannot heat water. In the case of the Earth, which really should be named 'the Sea', the only significant heat source heats both the water and the atmosphere at one and the same time.
Now, which retains heat longer, atmospheric gas, or water?
Water retains heat longer, but only in the sense that being more dense it has a greater heat capacity to lose
The statement about the incoming energy heating the atmosphere and water at the same rate is not accurate - the incoming radiation passes through the atmosphere fairly easily - moisture in clouds will pick up some of it, clouds will reflect some of it back into space - but the greater part of the energy continues through and hits the sea (or land) which being denser, stops and absorbs a lot of it. Some is reflected back by the ice at the poles and other snow/ice covered regions - but as this melts then more dark sea or land is revealed (primarily in the Arctic) and will increase the amount of energy absorbed
RE: 'Water retains heat longer, but only in the sense that being more dense it has a greater heat capacity to lose.'
Water just by God takes up more heat than any gas. In fact, it soaks up more heat than just about any other known substance prior to changing phases. It has little to do with the density of water and a lot to do with its inherent characteristics.
RE:'The statement about the incoming energy heating the atmosphere and water at the same rate is not accurate - the incoming radiation passes through the atmosphere fairly easily - moisture in clouds will pick up some of it, clouds will reflect some of it back into space - but the greater part of the energy continues through and hits the sea (or land) which being denser, stops and absorbs a lot of it. Some is reflected back by the ice at the poles and other snow/ice covered regions - but as this melts then more dark sea or land is revealed (primarily in the Arctic) and will increase the amount of energy absorbed.'
Hold on a minute! I didn't say that it would heat the water and the atmosphere at the same rate. I said that it heated the water and the atmosphere at the same time, which cannot be helped because the sunlight is passing through the atmosphere to get to the water.
In fact, it takes given rate of solar flux quite a bit longer to heat water to a given temperature than the same amount of atmospheric gas. Water soaks up far more calories of heat per degree rise in temperature than any gas. Contrariwise, water gives up that heat at a far slower rate than any gas, including the so-called greenhouse gases.
In short, the oceans have a hell of a lot more say in climatic conditions than all the greenhouse gases put together.
Sorry - but heat take-up/loss does have a lot to do with density: Specific heat is the energy required to change temperature of a substance by 1 degree, and Total Energy = Specific Heat x Mass x Temperature change
In this equation Mass = Density x Volume
Consequently the Specific Heat of water is a lot more than that of the air. Or put another way, a given mass of water will contain more energy (heat) than the same mass of air and this relates directly to density
Your comment about the energy involved in 'changing phases' does not apply unless the water is changing from water to ice or water to steam, and I don't think the oceans are yet at boiling point. The term for this energy is Latent Heat
Your final sentence is correct in the sense that oceans have far more contained heat than the atmosphere, but when the seas release energy as heat (Infra Red) in doesn't just radiate away and disappear, but goes into the atmosphere where it is absorbed particularly well by CO2. Thus the atmosphere gradually becomes hotter, ice melts, water is evaporated faster, drought becomes more prevalent in some areas, rainfall increases in others.
So although the atmosphere is not the prime container of energy, it is increasing its heat content from water (and land) and having the major impact on mankind. The seas also have effects - rising levels, melting of floating ice and so on
But gas, not even the 'greenhouse' gases are particularly good insulators. One thing I have learned is that heat is very hard to hang on to. It bleeds away in big hurry. Not even vacuum will contain it for very long.
The atmosphere does not heat the water. It's heated by the sun. As soon as the sun is blocked, the air temperature falls. Block the sun for more than twelve hours and the air temperature will drop to 50F or lower as the ground cools, even in a desert. The atmosphere doesn't hold enough heat to matter one bit. The oceans, however, do. Air over water stays warmer longer than air over land.
This greenhouse gas thing is boogie man. The primary things governing global climate are the oceans and the sun. Without the oceans our night time temperatures would be horribly cold and our daytime temperatures would be horribly high. When the sun's output falls, so do our temperatures. When the sun's output rises, so do our temperatures. It is as simple as that and there isn't a blessed thing we can do about it.
All very true, but I will leave you with something to ponder. It is claimed that CO2 (and by implication mankind) has very little effect in warming the Earth.
The proportions of the greenhouse effect due to Water Vapour = 60%, that of CO2 = 26% and other gases provide the rest
In other words the very small concentration (380 parts per million) of CO2 is responsible for a quarter of the greenhouse effect
The Earth's average surface temperature is around 14 degrees centigrade, but if there were no atmospheric warming the Earth's surface temperature would be about minus 18 degrees. (There are many references for this and it is calculated quite independently of whether the greenhouse effect is increasing or not)
So the Greenhouse effect produces a warming effect of 32 degrees, and CO2 is a quarter of this at 8 degrees.
All I ask is that you think about the relative scale of any change in CO2 - just a move from 380 to 400 is 5%. And although 5% of 8 degrees is less than half a degree, world temperatures moved only 0.74 degrees in the whole of the last century, yet look at the changes in weather patterns we've been having recently
If you want a general description of the mechanisms for heating, greenhouse effect etc in the atmosphere, try www.crystalinks.com/greenhouseffect.html
page: 1
BillApr 6th, 2007 - 15:01:33
'A combination of factors has generated the belated US interest in clean technology. In the Mid-West, winters are getting shorter, temperatures warmer, snow storms more disastrous, and summers more drought-plagued'
Is the message about global warming finally sinking in to Americans ?? The rest of the world has known this for years
Report this comment