How to stop the Global Warming? - C.Venkat Narayanan
 

What We Do for Individuals
What We Do for Organizations & Businesses How our offsets Work
What We Do for Climate Change...
                                    Give your tips Here......

chitra
9/8/2008 01:19:15

hey chilly questions..............

Reply
chitra
9/8/2008 01:19:30

what is that

Reply
sukumar
9/12/2008 03:21:42

plant a tree in every house

Reply
ganapathy
9/12/2008 03:22:52

we must bring green houses in the world

Reply
uma shankar
9/12/2008 03:26:34

every person join in that community

nfo@treesftf.org

Reply
uma shankar
9/12/2008 03:27:06

sorry


info@treesftf.org

Reply
sarsvathi
9/12/2008 03:30:33

Governments must bring awareness about global warming.

Reply
Narayanan
9/12/2008 03:35:56

Golden Eight:
1. Old-Growth Carbon Findings Cause Forest Protection Schism.
2. Earth's Newsdesk Launches -- A Fierce New Voice for the Earth
3.Ending Coal: Climate Science That Matters
4.ALERT! Final Push Needed to Stop Australia's Tasmanian Ancient Forest Pulping for Throw-Away Paper Consumption
5.RELEASE: RAN Sells-Out Canadian Boreal Forests
6.Arctic Going to Hell in a Hand-Basket.
7.ALERT! Fund Ecuador to Keep Oil Underground
8.Ocean Dead Zones, Chaotic Nitrogen Cycling and the Earth's Survival

Reply
hari
9/12/2008 03:43:56

Findings that oxygen-starved ocean "dead zones" have doubled every decade [ark | more\ark] since the 1960s, killing massive amounts of marine life at the base of the food chain, demonstrate just how sick the Earth has become. The new study in the journal Science found there are now some 400 ocean areas that are devoid of life with new ones popping up continuously. Ocean dead zones [search] most often result from nutrient rich river run-off -- particularly containing nitrogen from fertilizers and pesticides associated with industrial agriculture -- which cause algae blooms and low oxygen levels unable to support life. Climate change frequently exacerbates the condition.

Chaos in the planet's nitrogen cycle [search] is second perhaps only to climate change in threatening the biosphere's life support systems. The Earth's ability to provide habitat for humans and all life forms is deteriorating, as economic activities have overshot the carrying capacity of ecosystems. Dead zones show human activities can destroy all life in given area, and given continuation of current trends, the possibility of this occurring globally cannot be dismissed.

Reply
tom
9/22/2008 09:19:26

http://cvenkatnarayanan.weebly.com .....

y i entered
y i want to answer this questions
y i answer....
y u ask this question
y u create this website....
y u create this blog...
how i enter
who r u?
who am i?
what r they doing...?
y i am typing....
why we living?
how we living?

Reply
munugan
9/30/2008 08:52:02

each and every day every one we plant a tree in the world.

Reply
nithya
9/30/2008 08:54:49

we must avoid air pollution,
we are must avoid carbon things.

Reply
Gayathri
9/30/2008 08:58:36

The last two decades of the 20th century produced mounting evidence that climate change posed significant risks to society. At the beginning of the 21st century, climate change has become a defining issue of our time. The importance of this issue is underscored by its magnitude and complexity: it is a global problem with wide geographic and economic disparity between the largest sources of the problem and those who will experience the greatest impacts. Many solutions often run counter to powerful entrenched interests and long-held patterns of individual behavior. All of this is happening amidst a global community that is increasingly connected by flows of information, people, commerce and environmental change. This collection brings together some of the world’s leading scientists and organizations and presents the essential knowledge underlying the issue of climate change.

Reply
prabaharan
9/30/2008 09:01:13

sea level increase do you know how to control.... we must get pure water from sea. what you think. ha ha ha

Reply
Gokul
10/9/2008 03:07:34

I must ask a very serious and urgent question of our media. Why do you continue to talk glibly about current climate ‘warming’ when it is now widely acknowledged that there has been no ‘global warming’ for the last ten years, a cooling trend that many think may continue for at least another ten years? How can you talk of the climate ‘warming’ when, on the key measures, it isn’t? And now a leading Mexican scientist is even predicting that we may enter another ‘Little Ice Age’ - a ‘pequeña era [edad] de hielo’.

Such media behaviour exhibits a classic condition known as ‘cognitive dissonance’. This is experienced when belief in a grand narrative persists blindly even when the facts in the real world begin to contradict what the narrative is saying. Sadly, our media have come to have a vested interest in ‘global warming’, as have so many politicians and activists. They are terrified that the public may begin to question everything if climate is acknowledged, on air and in the press, not to be playing ball with their pet trope.

Reply
Ravi
10/9/2008 03:08:10

Global is good.
Warm is good.
Even greenhouses are good places.

How can "global warming" be bad?

I'm not being facetious. If the problem were called "Atmosphere cancer" or "Pollution death" the entire conversation would be framed in a different way.

Reply
koushik Venkataraman
10/9/2008 03:09:12

The rise in carbon dioxide emissions is big news. It is prompting action to reverse global warming. But little or no attention is being paid to the long-term fall in oxygen concentrations and its knock-on effects. Compared to prehistoric times, the level of oxygen in the earth's atmosphere has declined by over a third and in polluted cities the decline may be more than 50%. This change in the makeup of the air we breathe has potentially serious implications for our health. Indeed, it could ultimately threaten the survival of human life on earth, according to Roddy Newman, who is drafting a new book, The Oxygen Crisis. [...]
Desertification and deforestation are rapidly accelerating this long-term loss of oxygen sources. [...] Professor Robert Berner of Yale University has researched oxygen levels in prehistoric times by chemically analysing air bubbles trapped in fossilised tree amber. He suggests that humans breathed a much more oxygen-rich air 10,000 years ago.

Reply
balaji
10/9/2008 03:09:36

The scare: As the peer-reviewed literature is filled with a growing proportion of learned papers demolishing the imagined “consensus” that anthropogenic “global warming” will prove “catastrophic”, the less serious newspapers are looking for new scares to peddle to the feeble-minded. In mid-August 2008, The Guardian, Britain’s silliest newspaper, printed an article by Peter Tatchell, a homosexual campaigner who once attempted to arrest the dictator of Zimbabwe, suggesting that the world’s oxygen is running out because of humankind’s use of fossil fuels.

Reply
saran
10/9/2008 03:10:01

Atmospheric oxygen trend from Cape Grim, Tasmania.
Tatchell says: “Little or no attention is being paid to the long-term fall in oxygen concentrations and its knock-on effects. Compared to prehistoric times, the level of oxygen in the Earth’s atmosphere has declined by over a third and in polluted cities the decline may be more than 50%. …Much of this recent, accelerated change is down to human activity, notably the industrial revolution and the burning of fossil fuels. …This change in the makeup of the air we breathe has potentially serious implications for our health. Indeed, it could ultimately threaten the survival of human life on earth. …”

Reply
Dr.Venkat
10/9/2008 03:10:27

The truth: Dr. Roy Spencer, of the University of Alabama at Huntsville, says: “The O2 concentration of the atmosphere has been measured off and on for about 100 years now, and the concentration, at 20.95%, has not varied within the accuracy of the measurements. Only in recent years have more precise measurement techniques been developed, and the tiny decrease in O2 with increasing CO2 has been actually measured. But I believe the O2 concentration is still close to 20.95%. There is so much O2 in the atmosphere, it is believed not to be substantially affected by vegetation, but it is the result of geochemistry in deep-ocean sediments. No one really knows for sure. Since too much O2 is not good for humans, the human body keeps O2 concentrations down to around 5% in our major organs. Extra O2 can give you a burst of energy, but it will harm you (or kill you) if the exposure is too long. It has been estimated that global wildfire risk would increase greatly if O2 concentrations were much more than they are now. To say that there is an impending ‘oxygen crisis’ on Earth is the epitome of fear-mongering.”

Reply
Indu
10/9/2008 03:10:47

Professor Roy Watts, of www.wattsupwiththat.com, adds: “This is the sort of story I would expect in the supermarket tabloids next to a picture of Bat Boy. For the UK Guardian to say there is a ‘oxygen crisis’, is not only ignorant of the facts, but simple fear-mongering riding on the coat-tails of the ‘CO2 crisis’. … I really wish the media would do a better job of researching and reporting science stories. This example from the Guardian shows how bad science and bad reporting combine to create fear- mongering.”
Dr. Lubos Motl, a physicist, has posted a detailed comment on the Tatchell article on his blog. He says: "
The reality is, of course, that the oxygen percentage in the atmosphere has been 20.94 or 20.95 percent for thousands of years and probably much longer than that. The amount of oxygen in the atmosphere is so huge that the biosphere (and fossil fuels which used to belong to the biosphere as well) is completely unable to change this amount significantly.

Reply
Divya
10/9/2008 03:11:28

"Virtually all other compounds participating in the relevant chemical reactions are either liquids or solids, which is why they don’t influence the composition of the atmosphere and we can ignore them. When you realize what the words above mean, you will see that the man-made decrease of O2 is controlled by the increase of carbon dioxide: they’re inseparably linked to one another. The human activity has increased the CO2 concentration from 280 ppm two centuries ago to 385 ppm today (the schoolboy should have seen these elementary numbers during his ‘CO2 crisis’ classes). Because many people don’t know what the acronym ppm (parts per million) really means, even if they like to use it, let me tell you that it is the same thing as 0.0001%.

Reply
Kavya
10/9/2008 03:12:24

“As we have already mentioned, two oxygen molecules are replaced in typical "combustion" chemical reactions for one carbon dioxide molecule, so the oxygen drop might be 0.02% instead of 0.01%. However, in the long run, there exist other processes besides the combustion-like processes involving CO2 that we have considered – for example, processes involving deep ocean sediments – and these processes tend to restore the oxygen levels (as well as the CO2 levels)

Reply
11/22/2008 17:03:01

thnx for leeving a comment on my site! BE HAPPY!!!
www.lmno1234.weebly.com

Reply
Farley
11/30/2008 18:30:59

Each individual could reduce by 10% the amount of meat, poultry, pork, fish, and dairy we eat. Replace that meat and dairy with whole grains, vegetables, and fruit and our planet and bodies will thank us. Livestock production is a great contributor to global warming.
www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/07/food.foodanddrink
UN says eat less meat to curb global warming
· Climate expert urges radical shift in diet
· Industry unfairly targeted - farmers

* Juliette Jowit, environment editor
* guardian.co.uk, Sunday September 7 2008 00.01 BST
* The Observer, Sunday September 7 2008
* Article history

A joint of beef

A joint of beef. Photograph/Alamy

People should have one meat-free day a week if they want to make a personal and effective sacrifice that would help tackle climate change, the world's leading authority on global warming has told The Observer

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which last year earned a joint share of the Nobel Peace Prize, said that people should then go on to reduce their meat consumption even further.

His comments are the most controversial advice yet provided by the panel on how individuals can help tackle global warning.

Pachauri, who was re-elected the panel's chairman for a second six-year term last week, said diet change was important because of the huge greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental problems - including habitat destruction - associated with rearing cattle and other animals. It was relatively easy to change eating habits compared to changing means of transport, he said.

The UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation has estimated that meat production accounts for nearly a fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions. These are generated during the production of animal feeds, for example, while ruminants, particularly cows, emit methane, which is 23 times more effective as a global warming agent than carbon dioxide. The agency has also warned that meat consumption is set to double by the middle of the century.

'In terms of immediacy of action and the feasibility of bringing about reductions in a short period of time, it clearly is the most attractive opportunity,' said Pachauri. 'Give up meat for one day [a week] initially, and decrease it from there,' said the Indian economist, who is a vegetarian.

However, he also stressed other changes in lifestyle would help to combat climate change. 'That's what I want to emphasise: we really have to bring about reductions in every sector of the economy.'

Pachauri can expect some vociferous responses from the food industry to his advice, though last night he was given unexpected support by Masterchef presenter and restaurateur John Torode, who is about to publish a new book, John Torode's Beef. 'I have a little bit and enjoy it,' said Torode. 'Too much for any person becomes gluttony. But there's a bigger issue here: where [the meat] comes from. If we all bought British and stopped buying imported food we'd save a huge amount of carbon emissions.'

Tomorrow, Pachauri will speak at an event hosted by animal welfare group Compassion in World Farming, which has calculated that if the average UK household halved meat consumption that would cut emissions more than if car use was cut in half.

The group has called for governments to lead campaigns to reduce meat consumption by 60 per cent by 2020. Campaigners have also pointed out the health benefits of eating less meat. The average person in the UK eats 50g of protein from meat a day, equivalent to a chicken breast and a lamb chop - a relatively low level for rich nations but 25-50 per cent more than World Heath Organisation guidelines.

Professor Robert Watson, the chief scientific adviser for the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, who will also speak at tomorrow's event in London, said government could help educate people about the benefits of eating less meat, but it should not 'regulate'. 'Eating less meat would help, there's no question about that, but there are other things,' Watson said.

However, Chris Lamb, head of marketing for pig industry group BPEX, said the meat industry had been unfairly targeted and was working hard to find out which activities had the biggest environmental impact and reduce those. Some ideas were contradictory, he said - for example, one solution to emissions from livestock was to keep them indoors, but this would damage animal welfare. 'Climate change is a very young science and our view is there are a lot of simplistic solutions being proposed,' he said.

Last year a major report into the environmental impact of meat eating by the Food Climate Research Network at Surrey University claimed livestock generated 8 per cent of UK emissions - but eating some meat was good for the planet because some habitats benefited from grazing. It also said vegetarian diets that include

Reply
grujan Ajayret
1/26/2009 21:46:23

Global Warming May Be Killing Western Forests
Old-growth forests in western North America are dying at a small but increasing rate, and scientists suspect that global warming is to blame. Since 1955, the mortality rate of trees in undisturbed forests has doubled, and the die-off is beginning to outpace replacement by new trees. Regional warming, which translates into less snow, longer dry seasons, and increased soil evaporation, stresses trees and makes them more vulnerable to destructive insects and disease. At the same time, hotter temperatures encourage the growth and spread of such insects and organisms.

Reply
3/27/2011 21:45:17

life is in reality only a dream

Reply



Leave a Reply.