·德川江鑫·
今年入夏以来，世界各地的人们都感受到了不寻常的热浪，似乎人人都在喊热、热、热。咱们先看看中国大陆。
自６月１日以来，中国中央气象台已６次发布高温警报说高温将“火”遍中国。６月８日１４时，北京市气象台发布高温橙色预警信号，北京气温高达３８摄氏度。
６月１１日至１８日，河北南部、山西南部、河南中北部及陕西东南部极端最高气温达３８至４０℃，局部地区超过４０℃。陕西西安气温一度达４２.９℃，重庆巫溪高达４２.４℃，山西运城４０.５℃，河南安阳４０.６℃。
据中新四川网报导，四川盆地高温且湿度达百分之九十。７月１５日、１６日，成都市区两天的最高气温达到了３５℃，是２００３年起４年以来同期最高温度。四川人报怨说，这几天就像生活在蒸笼里，热得透不过气来。
另据中国大洋网７月３０日报导，广东７月份高温打破９项历史纪录。七月二十三日，广东西北部的连州录得当天最高气温四十一点六度，打破了该市自一九五一年以来的最高气温纪录。七月十五日广州日最高气温平均值三十七点八摄氏度，远远抛离位居第二的三十三点一摄氏度，达四点七摄氏度之多；七月十五日广州的日平均气温达到三十二点三摄氏度，改写多年来二十八点七摄氏度的最高纪录。
咱们再来看看欧洲。
根据英国国家气象局公布的数据，７月１９日下午２时３２分，位于伦敦盖特威克机场附近的查尔伍德气温达到３６.３摄氏度，创造了英国７月份最炎热天气新纪录。此前，英国７月份最高气温是１９１１年７月２２日在伦敦西南部埃普瑟姆测量到的３６摄氏度。由于很少经历如此炎热的夏季，英国的防暑降温设备明显不足，不要说空调，很多人连扇子都没有。
在法国，法国卫生部官员７月１９日说，本周已有９人在高温天气引发的疾病中丧生。死者主要集中在法国西南部，本周那里最高气温已突破４０摄氏度。法国官员担心，如果气温持续居高不下，２００３年夏天因高温导致１.５万人患病死亡的悲剧将再次出现。
荷兰国家气象局７月１９日说，荷兰正遭受今年以来第二轮热浪袭击，高温将至少持续到本周末。这是１９４８年以来荷兰首次在一年中经历一轮以上的热浪。１８日，荷兰东部边境城市奈梅亨一年一度的“４日徒步走”开幕首日就热死了两人。
在西班牙，白天最高气温也突破４０摄氏度。高温天气导致至少两人死亡，患病人数大大增加，其中大部分是健康状况不佳的老人。
最后我们来看北美。
据英国广播公司（ＢＢＣ）报导，美国加利福尼亚州从７月中至今（７月２９日）持续高温，已导致全州至少１３０人死亡。加州政府表示，大部分死者生前居住在加州的中央河谷，而河谷部分地区的温度曾高达摄氏４６度（华氏１１５度）。在中央河谷的弗雷斯诺郡（Ｆｒｅｓｎｏ）的农夫则表示，已有２５０００头牛和７０万只家禽被热死。
加州气象部门官员说，近日出现的持续高温在美国气象史上很少见，估计每２０年到２５年才会发生一次。在美国其他一些地区，本月也出现了历史上罕见的持续高温天气。
再看看美国中部，据今天（七月三十日）的天气预报，热浪将席卷中部平原、中西部并向东移动。许多城市的气温都是华氏１００度左右。
我们不禁要问：地球真的变热了吗？大气中的二氧化碳浓度增加，阻止地球热量的散失，使地球发生可感觉到的气温升高的现象－－“温室效应”不再是科学假设了吗？
自１８世纪欧洲开始的工业革命到现在不过短短的三百多年，但人们已经燃烧了地球上已探明的石油的一半。据美国能源部２０００年７月的一份报告，１９９９年美国仅发电一项产生的二氧化碳就为二百二十亿公吨。据美国环保局（ＥＰＡ）２００６年３月发表的一份报告指出，自工业革命以来，大气中的二氧化碳已增加了百分之三十！
天气越热，人们用电、用油越多（空间空调、汽车空调）。用电越多，排放的二氧化碳越多。二氧化碳越多，天气越热。人类应该问问自己：这究竟是良性发展还是恶性循环？
□ 读者投稿
- Re: 寰峰窛姹熼懌锛氱儹銆佺儹銆佺儹鈥曗�曞叏鐞冮兘鍦ㄦ劅鍙楃儹posted on 08/03/2006
昨天与同事电话，一位波兰的Comrade，他说波兰也酷热。
这几天纽约（大纽约）也奇热。
前段时间找空看了一部戈尔的纪录片，在咖啡城推荐：
http://www.climatecrisis.net/
如果江泽民能做一些这方面的工作就好了。
- posted on 08/04/2006
Monday, July 24, 2006
Film: Inconvenient Truth
Finally we went to see Al Gore's lecture movie, Inconvenient Truth. I wanted to see it when it first came out because of many good reviews, but I was worried that Mike might think it was propaganda and react in the wrong way. I found the bad reviews and read them carefully (10 out of 126). Most of them said "the movie preaches to the choir rather than winning over new converts". Later I read in the news that climate scientists all endorsed this film, saying the facts presented were 100% accurate. Then this weekend my Caltech advisor Dr. Yuk Yung, an expert in the study of global change, strongly encouraged us to see the film. Yesterday it was very hot, even after a thunderstorm at the beach. We decided to hide in the well air-conditioned theater to learn about global warming.
Al Gore's presentation is clear and easy to follow, and his argument is logical and complete. I only wish the editing could be more careful so some messages would not seem to be cut off. Also wish there would be two more sentences about the fixing of the ozone hole. I was glad to see that the final message was one of hope and not political.
Mike liked the film too. But we still drove home in our 18-22 mpg SUV. Well, at least it was a Toyota, a company that dedicated to make fuel-efficient vehicle, so if I have to make myself feel better, I say that we are supporting the company by buying their product. When we got home, like Roger Ebert, I went around the house to turn off as many appliances as possible, to save energy and to keep the house a bit cooler. What else? I am driving very very little these days.
About our low gas mileage car. I think on one hand it is the individual's responsibility to not purchase a polluting car, on the other hand it is the government's responsibility to make sure that the more polluting cars are paying higher pollution tax, because some people will always want to drive powerful cars.
I went to climatecrisis.net and calculated my CO2 emissions. I have 14,100 pounds per year, slightly below the national average of 15,000. This is to assume that I will not take another flight this year. I think my next car will have to be more environmental friendly.
Welcome to my blog:
http://jorielle-music.blogspot.com/ - Re: 寰峰窛姹熼懌锛氱儹銆佺儹銆佺儹鈥曗�曞叏鐞冮兘鍦ㄦ劅鍙楃儹posted on 08/04/2006
也去算了一下我的 CO2 emissions，不得了，19800 呀。车：5000，家：1100，其余都是 flights。如果一公里车都不开，改骑车，才刚在平均线以下，怎么办呢？从来都没有想过坐飞机对环境的影响。 - posted on 08/04/2006
浮生 wrote:
也去算了一下我的 CO2 emissions，不得了，19800 呀。车：5000，家：1100，其余都是 flights。如果一公里车都不开，改骑车，才刚在平均线以下，怎么办呢？从来都没有想过坐飞机对环境的影响。
哎呀，刚才玛雅还说要去开车找你，我想，不如让你开车来玩，帮我节省点 CO2。如果咱们都骑车，得花多久时间啊！要算算坐飞机花费 CO2 还是开车花费。
不过 Al Gore 整天飞来飞去，到处给讲座，他自己的ＣＯ２大概也不少吧。是不是如果做的工作是减少 CO2 的，有折扣？
飞机对环境的影响，推荐一个 BBC documentary: Global Dimming。是跟 global warming 不同的现象，说 pollution 控制了 global warming。恐怖啊！我网上 down 的。 - Re: 寰峰窛姹熼懌锛氱儹銆佺儹銆佺儹鈥曗�曞叏鐞冮兘鍦ㄦ劅鍙楃儹posted on 08/04/2006
gore虽然没有领导魅力，但是个实干家，真不错，选他当这届的好人好事积极分子。
- Re: 寰峰窛姹熼懌锛氱儹銆佺儹銆佺儹鈥曗�曞叏鐞冮兘鍦ㄦ劅鍙楃儹posted on 08/04/2006
阿姗 wrote:
哎呀，刚才玛雅还说要去开车找你，我想，不如让你开车来玩，帮我节省点 CO2。如果咱们都骑车，得花多久时间啊！要算算坐飞机花费 CO2 还是开车花费。
大致去算了一下，这个距离开车和飞机往返差不多：200。阿姗你还没到平均值，还是你们来吧，一块儿来，开一辆车，小点儿的啊。我下半年还有至少两次长途飞机，这个省不了啊。还一个办法是坐火车，火车空着，也得按点发车。 - posted on 08/04/2006
浮生 wrote:
阿姗 wrote:大致去算了一下，这个距离开车和飞机往返差不多：200。阿姗你还没到平均值，还是你们来吧，一块儿来，开一辆车，小点儿的啊。我下半年还有至少两次长途飞机，这个省不了啊。还一个办法是坐火车，火车空着，也得按点发车。
哎呀，刚才玛雅还说要去开车找你，我想，不如让你开车来玩，帮我节省点 CO2。如果咱们都骑车，得花多久时间啊！要算算坐飞机花费 CO2 还是开车花费。
你是怎么算的？飞机也是空着白空着，按点发车。我现在的车虽小，可很费油，24 mpg。不知玛雅的啥车。 - Re: 寰峰窛姹熼懌锛氱儹銆佺儹銆佺儹鈥曗�曞叏鐞冮兘鍦ㄦ劅鍙楃儹posted on 08/07/2006
玛雅，
很荣幸敝人的小作能上Maya cafe。 敝人很喜欢看你写的文章。 - posted on 08/12/2006
玛雅 wrote:
gore虽然没有领导魅力，但是个实干家，真不错，选他当这届的好人好事积极分子。
Gore isn't quite as green as he's led the world to believe
By Peter Schweizer Thu Aug 10, 6:46 AM ET
Al Gore has spoken: The world must embrace a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." To do otherwise, he says, will result in a cataclysmic catastrophe. "Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb," warns the website for his film, An Inconvenient Truth. "We have just 10 years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tailspin."
Graciously, Gore tells consumers how to change their lives to curb their carbon-gobbling ways: Switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs, use a clothesline, drive a hybrid, use renewable energy, dramatically cut back on consumption. Better still, responsible global citizens can follow Gore's example, because, as he readily points out in his speeches, he lives a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." But if Al Gore is the world's role model for ecology, the planet is doomed.
For someone who says the sky is falling, he does very little. He says he recycles and drives a hybrid. And he claims he uses renewable energy credits to offset the pollution he produces when using a private jet to promote his film. (In reality, Paramount Classics, the film's distributor, pays this.)
Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.
Then there is the troubling matter of his energy use. In the Washington, D.C., area, utility companies offer wind energy as an alternative to traditional energy. In Nashville, similar programs exist. Utility customers must simply pay a few extra pennies per kilowatt hour, and they can continue living their carbon-neutral lifestyles knowing that they are supporting wind energy. Plenty of businesses and institutions have signed up. Even the Bush administration is using green energy for some federal office buildings, as are thousands of area residents.
But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes. Talk about inconvenient truths.
Gore is not alone. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has said, "Global warming is happening, and it threatens our very existence." The DNC website applauds the fact that Gore has "tried to move people to act." Yet, astoundingly, Gore's persuasive powers have failed to convince his own party: The DNC has not signed up to pay an additional two pennies a kilowatt hour to go green. For that matter, neither has the Republican National Committee.
Maybe our very existence isn't threatened.
Gore has held these apocalyptic views about the environment for some time. So why, then, didn't Gore dump his family's large stock holdings in Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum? As executor of his family's trust, over the years Gore has controlled hundreds of thousands of dollars in Oxy stock. Oxy has been mired in controversy over oil drilling in ecologically sensitive areas.
Living carbon-neutral apparently doesn't mean living oil-stock free. Nor does it necessarily mean giving up a mining royalty either.
Humanity might be "sitting on a ticking time bomb," but Gore's home in Carthage is sitting on a zinc mine. Gore receives $20,000 a year in royalties from Pasminco Zinc, which operates a zinc concession on his property. Tennessee has cited the company for adding large quantities of barium, iron and zinc to the nearby Caney Fork River.
The issue here is not simply Gore's hypocrisy; it's a question of credibility. If he genuinely believes the apocalyptic vision he has put forth and calls for radical changes in the way other people live, why hasn't he made any radical change in his life? Giving up the zinc mine or one of his homes is not asking much, given that he wants the rest of us to radically change our lives.
Peter Schweizer is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and author of Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy. - posted on 08/13/2006
I finally went to watch the documentary An Inconvenient Truth last night. The message was strong. It focused mostly on the consequence of global warming, which serves its purpose well. It didn't explain however enough of the scientific background that I was hoping to learn. The temperature over the history of the earth was a strong proof that the present warming is not simply part of the nature's cycles. The correlation between the temperature and the CO2 level was clear. The correlation, however, doesn't imply a causal effect by itself. While the underlying message was that high CO2 causes high temperature, an unbeliever could easily ask "is it possible that high temperature results in high CO2?" The message would be clearer and stronger IMHO if the documentary answered the following questions: What are the other factors causing global warming? How do they compare to the effect of the greenhouse gases? Of the greenhouse gases, what is the level of nature's background emission, and how does it compare to the emission resulting from our pollution? The answer to the last question is partially in the curve of CO2 level but I wish it was made clearer with numbers such as percentages.
I also watched the documentary the Global Dimming. One interesting thing was while in the Inconvenient Truth, the global warming was used to explain the draught in countries just south of Sahara, it was explained by global dimming in the Global Dimming documentary. Both sound reasonable to a layman, but which is the truth? or perhaps neither? perhaps both?
Here is my present limited understanding until I learn more about it: the global warming is a fact; the cause of it is a theory. But I'm willing to believe the theory because of the severe consequence; and for the same reason, I'm willing to separate the message and the messenger (i.e. whether Gore himself is green or not).
A side note: another thing one can learn from the film is the presentation skills. How do you tell a story, of scientific matter in particular? Is it a visionary story, or a series of facts and details? - posted on 08/13/2006
可能因为美国大多数人不懂科学，容易被愚弄，所以 Gore 的讲座也要适合听众的水平。在有限的时间里，把一大件事讲的这样清楚，已经够不错了。
Global dimming is another result of greenhouse effect. The BBC documentary explains how it causes the drought in south Sahara. Gore's lecture does not explain it. I think it's right to say that the drougt is caused by greenhouse effect.
浮生 wrote:
Here is my present limited understanding until I learn more about it: the global warming is a fact; the cause of it is a theory. But I'm willing to believe the theory because of the severe consequence; and for the same reason, I'm willing to separate the message and the messenger (i.e. whether Gore himself is green or not).
I agree that the presentation leads one to such a conclusion. The casual effect of greenhouse gas and the global temperature has been well studied by atmospheric scientists. We can safely believe the theory.
A side note: another thing one can learn from the film is the presentation skills. How do you tell a story, of scientific matter in particular? Is it a visionary story, or a series of facts and details?
Every presentation should has one clear goal. Gore's goal is to make the audience change their behavoir to save the planet, and first he has to convince them there is a clear and present danger. But sometimes I am not sure of Gore's motive.... I distrust any politician by default. - posted on 08/18/2006
Nature 442, 730-731(17 August 2006)
The methane mystery
Abstract
The claim that living plants emit the greenhouse gas methane has shaken up atmospheric scientists. Quirin Schiermeier talks to the experts trying to make sense of the measurements.
It took 18 years, but Paul Crutzen and Eugenio Sanhueza finally found a use for their data. In 1988, the two atmospheric chemists had discovered large amounts of the greenhouse gas methane building up at night over Venezuela. This March, they dusted off their data and used them to calculate a surprising number: that the world's tropical savannahs may produce 30 million to 60 million tonnes of methane each year1.
Remarkably, that number is similar to one reported in January, when a German chemist announced that living plants give off methane2. His claim rattled many, because textbooks hold that methane is produced from organic matter decaying in oxygen-free environments, not from living plants. If true, his finding could account for a substantial fraction of the methane entering the atmosphere — potentially throwing off calculations of how much humans contribute.
In the past seven months, atmospheric scientists have scrutinized the discovery, and they're finding that methane does not yield up its secrets easily. Some, like Crutzen, find the work convincing. "We could have seen the effect a long time ago, but we missed the boat," says Crutzen, who works at the Max Planck Institute (MPI) for Chemistry in Mainz, Germany, and shared the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work on atmospheric ozone. Sanhueza works at the Venezuelan Institute for Scientific Investigations in Caracas.
Others are not swayed. "I am not yet convinced that the effect is real," says David Beerling, a palaeoclimatologist at the University of Sheffield, UK. "The experiments leave a lot of questions open, and the findings still await independent verification."
And some just aren't sure. "The new source is very hard to distinguish from known methane sources such as wetlands, and the scarce existing data can neither prove nor disprove its existence," says Martin Heimann, an atmospheric chemist at the MPI for Biogeochemistry in Jena, Germany.
Time to adjust
The debate began with the work of Frank Keppler, a geochemist at the MPI for Nuclear Physics in Heidelberg, Germany, and his colleagues. The researchers grew various plants in isolated chambers, then measured the background methane concentrations. The fluxes were tiny; but when extrapolated to global vegetation they pointed to the existence of a huge, overlooked source of methane. Plants, it seemed, could account for up to 40% of total methane emissions (see 'Missing mechanism').
As a greenhouse gas, methane traps heat 20 times more efficiently than carbon dioxide, yet its sources and sinks are less well understood. Total methane emissions are estimated to be around 550 million tonnes per year. The known sources include wetlands, rice farming, the stomachs of ruminant animals, biomass burning, landfills and energy generation. And now, perhaps, plants.
If Keppler is right, rapid tropical deforestation could explain why atmospheric methane concentrations stopped rising in the 1980s, after decades of increase. Looking further back in time, the effect could have played a role in the transition from glacial periods to warmer climates, says Thomas R?ckmann, an atmosphere researcher at the Utrecht University in the Netherlands. Warmer temperatures could mean more plants, which in turn produce more heat-trapping methane.
But most researchers are cautious about jumping to conclusions, particularly in extrapolating Keppler's laboratory observations to global values. Keppler calculated a global source in the range of 62 million–236 million tonnes per year. Other ways of scaling up his data suggest the source might be substantially smaller.
For instance, critics say Keppler overestimated the amount of methane-producing plant tissue by basing his calculations on global 'net primary production' of vegetation, which includes roots and stems, rather than global leaf mass only. When climate modeller Miko Kirschbaum of the Cooperative Research Center for Greenhouse Accounting at the Australian National University in Canberra adjusted the calculation accordingly, he arrived at global emissions of only 10 million–60 million tonnes per year3.
Others have looked at the carbon-isotope ratios of methane in ice cores. Different sources of methane yield different isotope signatures. A 2,000-year ice-core record from Antarctica yielded an upper limit of 46 million tonnes per year4.
But not everyone is revising Keppler's findings downward. One new simulation, of how methane moves through the atmosphere, suggests that plants yield on the order of 125 million tonnes per year. Sander Houweling, of Utrecht University, simulated methane fluxes both with and without methane emissions from plants. He found that the results better match observations if vegetation is included as a source of methane5.
Keppler, a co-author of this study, says he can "live very well" with attempts to re-interpret and downscale his findings. The 39-year-old researcher recently received a European Young Investigator Award, allowing him to continue work in the area for at least five more years.
And he promises further surprises. Unpublished data from experiments carried out last year in Brazil, on five randomly selected plant species, show that some species emit up to 4,000 times more methane than others. If this is true, it will make it even more difficult to calculate the size of the global source, he says.
If plants are giving off more methane than was thought, then another source of methane must have been overestimated. Most scientists suspect that this is wetlands. More unlikely, but politically more contentious, is the possibility that one or more of the human-related sources might be much smaller than was thought, says Johannes Lelieveld, a director of the MPI for Chemistry.
The German gas company Ruhrgas has already asked Lelieveld whether it can revise downward its estimates of how much methane its power plants have emitted. "That's probably going too far," says Lelieveld. "But a major discovery like this does require reassessment of greenhouse-gas sources."
As usual, more data would help. "The ultimate test is to do more and better measurements," says Ed Dlugokencky, an atmospheric chemist with the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder, Colorado, who oversees the methane part of a global air-sampling network.
Dlugokencky is convinced that the effect is real. "I'm not surprised we missed it," he says. "Our network of 60 stations is just too small to be able to detect it, and we are particularly weak in the tropics where it seems to be most pronounced."
In flux
Another way to hunt methane could be from space. As reported last year, the European Envisat satellite has detected large plumes of methane over tropical rainforests6. But remote sensing cannot prove that the gas stems from trees, as opposed to swamps, bogs or wetlands underneath.
"You can learn a lot from space," say Crutzen. "But to verify sources you need to go back to places such as Venezuela and Brazil and look at methane in situ."
Eddy-flux towers, which are already being used at more than 200 sites worldwide to measure the movement of carbon dioxide in and out of the atmosphere, might help. Methane is less abundant than carbon dioxide, and so harder to monitor. But new and more powerful lasers will measure gas concentrations more accurately. Soon, says Heimann, it may be possible to measure methane fluxes above tree canopies in real time — perhaps even tracing them back to individual plants.
Such information should improve estimates of the global methane budget. With that, researchers hope to move closer to their ultimate goal: developing a computer model that accurately reproduces past climate and all its biospheric feedbacks.
A model of the past should also provide projections for the future. "You need to understand the entire greenhouse budget," says Dlugokencky, "before you can start thinking about mitigating climate change."http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7104/full/442730a.html
- Re: The methane mysteryposted on 08/18/2006
这部片子我老早就看了。中间睡了十多分钟。它不是拍给专家看的。外行看，再多睡个十多分钟，也不影响理解。就是造个声势。提个醒吧:) - posted on 08/18/2006
重庆市最高气温达44.5℃破53年纪录 全市放假(组图)
倍可亲网站京港台时间08/17向您播报来自新华网的消息：
入夏最热 34区县超40℃
昨天重庆市发布了今夏第15期高温红色预警。下午15点，全市除城口、黔江、酉阳、秀山、石柱、忠县6个区县外，其余34个区县的温度均超过了40℃。其中，北碚、綦江、万盛、江津、开县、巴南6个区县和主城区最高气温都超过了43℃，成为我市自有气象记录以来，超过43度区县最多的一天，同时6个区县昨天都打破了其历史最高纪录。主城区43℃，创下气温极端最高值。
26日前后可能出现大暴雨
昨日，市气象局预测，高温干旱将持续到8月下旬中后期。8月22日前后，渝东地区会呈现分散阵雨，8月26日前后我市可能出现大到暴雨。市气象局有关人士称，他们气象预报的准确率能达到70%左右。
昨日上午9时，市人工影响天气指挥中心在监测到降雨云的身影后，立即向全市20多区县发放紧急作业通知，截至昨日傍晚，数百枚火箭弹成功上天要雨，其中多个地区降水量达到中雨，万州部分地方下起暴雨。（记者闫华权）
电力缺口120万千瓦
重庆市动员企业放高温假保民用电
因白鹤电厂30万千瓦机组又因故障停机，重庆市昨日限电量破天荒地超过百万千瓦。
“未来缺口高达120万千瓦，相当于渝中、九龙坡和大渡口3区的用电总和。”就目前的严峻情况，市三电办公室昨日已经向各区（市）县经委作了紧急通报，动员企业采取高温假或暂停生产，确保居民和重要单位的用电。
- Re: 寰峰窛姹熼懌锛氱儹銆佺儹銆佺儹鈥曗�曞叏鐞冮兘鍦ㄦ劅鍙楃儹posted on 09/08/2006
- Re: 寰峰窛姹熼懌锛氱儹銆佺儹銆佺儹鈥曗�曞叏鐞冮兘鍦ㄦ劅鍙楃儹posted on 09/15/2006
- Re: 寰峰窛姹熼懌锛氱儹銆佺儹銆佺儹鈥曗�曞叏鐞冮兘鍦ㄦ劅鍙楃儹posted on 09/15/2006
德川，你多写，欢迎你常来。 - posted on 11/04/2006
U.N. says 2005 set greenhouse gas record
By ELIANE ENGELER, Associated Press Writer Fri Nov 3, 6:35 PM ET
GENEVA - Heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere reached a record high in 2005 and are still increasing, the U.N. weather agency said Friday.
The measurements coordinated by the World Meteorological Organization show that the global average concentrations of carbon dioxide, or CO2, and nitrous oxide, or N2O, reached record levels last year and are expected to increase even further this year, said Geir Braathen, a climate specialist at the Geneva-based agency.
"There is no sign that N2O and CO2 are starting to level off," Braathen said at the global body's European headquarters. "It looks like it will just continue like this for the foreseeable future."
The concentration of carbon dioxide rose by about 0.5 percent last year to reach 379.1 parts per million, according to the agency. Nitrous oxide has totaled 319.2 parts per billion, which is 0.19 percent higher than in 2004. Levels of methane, another so-called greenhouse gas, remained stable since last year, Braathen said.
Water vapor is the most common greenhouse gas, followed by CO2, N2O — produced by natural sources as well as fertilizers, tree burning and industry — and methane — produced by wetlands and other natural and human processes. There is 35.4 percent more carbon dioxide since the late 18th century primarily because of human burning for fossil fuels, the WMO statement said.
Scientists say that carbon dioxide and other gases primarily from fossil fuel-burning trap heat in the atmosphere and have warmed the Earth's surface an average 1 degree in the past century.
A report this week by British government warned that global warming would devastate the world economy on the scale of the world wars and the Great Depression if left unchecked.
It said such warming could have effects such as melting glaciers, rising sea levels, declining crop yields, drinking water shortages, higher death tolls from malnutrition and heat stress, and widespread outbreaks of malaria and dengue fever. Developing countries often would be the hardest hit.
The U.N. agency said it also has concluded that "greenhouse gases are some of the major drivers behind global warming and climate change."
Braathen said power plants, automobiles, ships and airplanes using coal, oil or gas were contributing to the rise in carbon dioxide emissions
"The increase in CO2 is linked to the burning of fossil fuels," he said.
WMO said it based its findings on readings from 44 countries that were collected in Japan.
The agency's findings come just ahead of the second meeting of the countries that adhered to the Kyoto Protocol — aimed at capping greenhouse gas emissions and staving off global warming — to be held in Nairobi, Kenya, Nov. 6-17. Under the 1997 Kyoto accord, 35 industrialized nations have committed to reducing emissions by an average 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. The United States, the biggest emitter, rejects the agreement.
Braathen said it would take time until the protocol, which has been in effect since last year only, leads to a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and that countries need to do more.
"To really make CO2 level off, we need more drastic measures than are in the Kyoto Protocol today," he said.
On Monday, the U.N. climate treaty secretariat also reported that global greenhouse gas emissions are on the rise, with increased values from 34 industrialized nations between 2000 and 2004. In the United States, source of two-fifths of the industrialized world's greenhouse gases, emissions grew by 1.3 percent in that period, and by almost 16 percent between 1990 and 2004, the U.N. said.
==
We will keep track of global warming here. - posted on 11/05/2006
lucy的贴图很有趣，lucy贴的图一直都很有味道的。
阿姗 wrote:....
U.N. says 2005 set greenhouse gas record
By ELIANE ENGELER, Associated Press Writer Fri Nov 3, 6:35 PM ET
GENEVA - Heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere reached a record high in 2005 and are still increasing, the U.N. weather agency said Friday.
On Monday, the U.N. climate treaty secretariat also reported that global greenhouse gas emissions are on the rise, with increased values from 34 industrialized nations between 2000 and 2004. In the United States, source of two-fifths of the industrialized world's greenhouse gases, emissions grew by 1.3 percent in that period, and by almost 16 percent between 1990 and 2004, the U.N. said.
==
We will keep track of global warming here.
keep doing!
阿姗一直在关心Global warming，说实在的，我这里冬天真是一年比
一年冷，不过苏姗说这也是Global warming，唉。
天一冷我就不关心Global warming了，关心Heating fees :)
- posted on 10/12/2007
和平奖，转在这一线下面吧，虽然天已不热了。
戈尔给我的印象一直在变化，就象看一部戏，那角色最先并不美，看
着看着，愈来愈增辉，到了终场，总是相当美的。
支持戈尔的绿化事业，再转一回我的阿拉伯海滩：
====
阿拉伯海灘
卡拉奇的海岸線
是一片黑漆漆的海灘
阿拉伯海悶熱氣流
滲着原油。污沙
粘風﹐濁浪﹐人的身心
都蒙了一層瀝青
“騎一趟駱駝﹐或
五個盧比照張相也行﹖”
孩童招呼。赤足
牽高大的駱駝﹐沙印。
駝峰間高架的彩座
裝飾俗麗﹐孩童的眼中
有淡藍色的瞳孔
半是廢墟的城﹐酷暑
無精打採的人們。
遠方的海面映徹着藍天
油輪駛向遠方更遠
那裡﹐山是山一樣綠
水是水一樣的藍
海灣﹑海岸﹑海灘﹑
海獅﹑海狗﹑海馬﹑海象
海鳥與魚都綠色和平。
誰涂抹了藍色海洋
有許多律師﹐新聞記者
介入﹐恢復家園
有大量的資金投入
可這裡是舊大陸
海灘城市都源于殖民
每個人都來此暫居
不久要么漂洋過海而去
要么到天堂享永福
誰理會海灘油污﹖
2005/11/30
http://www.mayacafe.com/forum/topic1sp.php3?tkey=1179933658 - posted on 10/12/2007
Yes, 戈尔 is wonderful.
xw wrote:
和平奖，转在这一线下面吧，虽然天已不热了。
戈尔给我的印象一直在变化，就象看一部戏，那角色最先并不美，看
着看着，愈来愈增辉，到了终场，总是相当美的。
支持戈尔的绿化事业，再转一回我的阿拉伯海滩：
====
阿拉伯海灘
卡拉奇的海岸線
是一片黑漆漆的海灘
阿拉伯海悶熱氣流
滲着原油。污沙
粘風﹐濁浪﹐人的身心
都蒙了一層瀝青
“騎一趟駱駝﹐或
五個盧比照張相也行﹖”
孩童招呼。赤足
牽高大的駱駝﹐沙印。
駝峰間高架的彩座
裝飾俗麗﹐孩童的眼中
有淡藍色的瞳孔
半是廢墟的城﹐酷暑
無精打採的人們。
遠方的海面映徹着藍天
油輪駛向遠方更遠
那裡﹐山是山一樣綠
水是水一樣的藍
海灣﹑海岸﹑海灘﹑
海獅﹑海狗﹑海馬﹑海象
海鳥與魚都綠色和平。
誰涂抹了藍色海洋
有許多律師﹐新聞記者
介入﹐恢復家園
有大量的資金投入
可這裡是舊大陸
海灘城市都源于殖民
每個人都來此暫居
不久要么漂洋過海而去
要么到天堂享永福
誰理會海灘油污﹖
2005/11/30
http://www.mayacafe.com/forum/topic1sp.php3?tkey=1179933658 - Re: 寰峰窛姹熼懌锛氱儹銆佺儹銆佺儹鈥曗�曞叏鐞冮兘鍦ㄦ劅鍙楃儹posted on 10/12/2007
As far as I know, AG is the only person who has won both Nobel and Oscar.
Why does he need the presidency? (But the presidency may need him. Who knows?) - Re: 寰峰窛姹熼懌锛氱儹銆佺儹銆佺儹鈥曗�曞叏鐞冮兘鍦ㄦ劅鍙楃儹posted on 10/15/2007
补充除A.戈尔以外的唯一另一个：））
萧伯纳
1925 诺贝尔文学奖
1938 奥斯卡最佳影片编剧《Pygmalion》，就是原始版的《窈窕淑女》
Please paste HTML code and press Enter.
(c) 2010 Maya Chilam Foundation