Sunday, December 12, 2010
causes of global warming
Temperature changes
Main article: Temperature record
Estimates by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and the National Climatic Data Center show that 2005 was the warmest year since reliable, widespread instrumental measurements became available in the late 19th century, exceeding the previous record set in 1998 by a few hundredths of a degree.[20][21] Estimates prepared by the World Meteorological Organization and the Climatic Research Unit show 2005 as the second warmest year, behind 1998.[22][23] Temperatures in 1998 were unusually warm because the strongest El Niño in the past century occurred during that year.[24] Global temperature is subject to short-term fluctuations that overlay long term trends and can temporarily mask them. The relative stability in temperature from 2002 to 2009 is consistent with such an episode.[25][26]
Temperature changes vary over the globe. Since 1979, land temperatures have increased about twice as fast as ocean temperatures (0.25 °C per decade against 0.13 °C per decade).[27] Ocean temperatures increase more slowly than land temperatures because of the larger effective heat capacity of the oceans and because the ocean loses more heat by evaporation.[28] The Northern Hemisphere warms faster than the Southern Hemisphere because it has more land and because it has extensive areas of seasonal snow and sea-ice cover subject to ice-albedo feedback. Although more greenhouse gases are emitted in the Northern than Southern Hemisphere this does not contribute to the difference in warming because the major greenhouse gases persist long enough to mix between hemispheres.[29]
The thermal inertia of the oceans and slow responses of other indirect effects mean that climate can take centuries or longer to adjust to changes in forcing. Climate commitment studies indicate that even if greenhouse gases were stabilized at 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.5 °C (0.9 °F) would still occur.[30]
External forcings
External forcing refers to processes external to the climate system (though not necessarily external to Earth) that influence climate. Climate responds to several types of external forcing, such as radiative forcing due to changes in atmospheric composition (mainly greenhouse gas concentrations), changes in solar luminosity, volcanic eruptions, and variations in Earth's orbit around the Sun.[31] Attribution of recent climate change focuses on the first three types of forcing. Orbital cycles vary slowly over tens of thousands of years and thus are too gradual to have caused the temperature changes observed in the past century.Greenhouse gases
Greenhouse effect schematic showing energy flows between space, the atmosphere, and earth's surface. Energy exchanges are expressed in watts per square meter (W/m2).
Recent atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) increases. Monthly CO2 measurements display seasonal oscillations in overall yearly uptrend; each year's maximum occurs during the Northern Hemisphere's late spring, and declines during its growing season as plants remove some atmospheric CO2.
Naturally occurring greenhouse gases have a mean warming effect of about 33 °C (59 °F).[33][C] The major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70 percent of the greenhouse effect; carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9–26 percent; methane (CH4), which causes 4–9 percent; and ozone (O3), which causes 3–7 percent.[34][35][36] Clouds also affect the radiation balance, but they are composed of liquid water or ice and so have different effects on radiation from water vapor.
Human activity since the Industrial Revolution has increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, leading to increased radiative forcing from CO2, methane, tropospheric ozone, CFCs and nitrous oxide. The concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 36% and 148% respectively since 1750.[37] These levels are much higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores.[38][39][40] Less direct geological evidence indicates that CO2 values higher than this were last seen about 20 million years ago.[41] Fossil fuel burning has produced about three-quarters of the increase in CO2 from human activity over the past 20 years. Most of the rest is due to land-use change, particularly deforestation.[42]
Over the last three decades of the 20th century, GDP per capita and population growth were the main drivers of increases in greenhouse gas emissions.[43] CO2 emissions are continuing to rise due to the burning of fossil fuels and land-use change.[44][45]:71 Emissions scenarios, estimates of changes in future emission levels of greenhouse gases, have been projected that depend upon uncertain economic, sociological, technological, and natural developments.[46] In most scenarios, emissions continue to rise over the century, while in a few, emissions are reduced.[47][48] These emission scenarios, combined with carbon cycle modelling, have been used to produce estimates of how atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will change in the future. Using the six IPCC SRES "marker" scenarios, models suggest that by the year 2100, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 could range between 541 and 970 ppm.[49] This is an increase of 90-250% above the concentration in the year 1750. Fossil fuel reserves are sufficient to reach these levels and continue emissions past 2100 if coal, tar sands or methane clathrates are extensively exploited.[50]
The destruction of stratospheric ozone by chlorofluorocarbons is sometimes mentioned in relation to global warming. Although there are a few areas of linkage, the relationship between the two is not strong. Reduction of stratospheric ozone has a cooling influence.[51] Substantial ozone depletion did not occur until the late 1970s.[52] Ozone in the troposphere (the lowest part of the Earth's atmosphere) does contribute to surface warming.[53]
Aerosols and soot
In addition to their direct effect by scattering and absorbing solar radiation, aerosols have indirect effects on the radiation budget.[57] Sulfate aerosols act as cloud condensation nuclei and thus lead to clouds that have more and smaller cloud droplets. These clouds reflect solar radiation more efficiently than clouds with fewer and larger droplets.[58] This effect also causes droplets to be of more uniform size, which reduces growth of raindrops and makes the cloud more reflective to incoming sunlight.[59] Indirect effects are most noticeable in marine stratiform clouds, and have very little radiative effect on convective clouds. Aerosols, particularly their indirect effects, represent the largest uncertainty in radiative forcing.[60]
Soot may cool or warm the surface, depending on whether it is airborne or deposited. Atmospheric soot aerosols directly absorb solar radiation, which heats the atmosphere and cools the surface. In isolated areas with high soot production, such as rural India, as much as 50% of surface warming due to greenhouse gases may be masked by atmospheric brown clouds.[61] Atmospheric soot always contributes additional warming to the climate system. When deposited, especially on glaciers or on ice in arctic regions, the lower surface albedo can also directly heat the surface.[62] The influences of aerosols, including black carbon, are most pronounced in the tropics and sub-tropics, particularly in Asia, while the effects of greenhouse gases are dominant in the extratropics and southern hemisphere.[63]
Solar variation
Main article: Solar variation
Greenhouse gases and solar forcing affect temperatures in different ways. While both increased solar activity and increased greenhouse gases are expected to warm the troposphere, an increase in solar activity should warm the stratosphere while an increase in greenhouse gases should cool the stratosphere.[31] Observations show that temperatures in the stratosphere have been cooling since 1979, when satellite measurements became available. Radiosonde (weather balloon) data from the pre-satellite era show cooling since 1958, though there is greater uncertainty in the early radiosonde record.[69]
A related hypothesis, proposed by Henrik Svensmark, is that magnetic activity of the sun deflects cosmic rays that may influence the generation of cloud condensation nuclei and thereby affect the climate.[70] Other research has found no relation between warming in recent decades and cosmic rays.[71][72] The influence of cosmic rays on cloud cover is about a factor of 100 lower than needed to explain the observed changes in clouds or to be a significant contributor to present-day climate change.[73]
Responses to global warming
Responses to global warming
Mitigation
Main article: Global warming mitigation
See also: Carbon capture and storage and Fee and dividend
Reducing the amount of future climate change is called mitigation of climate change. The IPCC defines mitigation as activities that reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, or enhance the capacity of carbon sinks to absorb GHGs from the atmosphere.[92] Many countries, both developing and developed, are aiming to use cleaner, less polluting, technologies.[45]:192 Use of these technologies aids mitigation and could result in substantial reductions in CO2 emissions. Policies include targets for emissions reductions, increased use of renewable energy, and increased energy efficiency. Studies indicate substantial potential for future reductions in emissions.[93] Since even in the most optimistic scenario, fossil fuels are going to be used for years to come, mitigation may also involve carbon capture and storage, a process that traps CO2 produced by factories and gas or coal power stations and then stores it, usually underground.[94]Adaptation
Main article: Adaptation to global warming
Other policy responses include adaptation to climate change. Adaptation to climate change may be planned, e.g., by local or national government, or spontaneous, i.e., done privately without government intervention.[95] The ability to adapt is closely linked to social and economic development.[93] Even societies with high capacities to adapt are still vulnerable to climate change. Planned adaptation is already occurring on a limited basis. The barriers, limits, and costs of future adaptation are not fully understood.Another policy response is engineering of the climate (geoengineering). This policy response is sometimes grouped together with mitigation.[96] Geoengineering is largely unproven, and reliable cost estimates for it have not yet been published.[97]
UNFCCC
Most countries are Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).[98] The ultimate objective of the Convention is to prevent "dangerous" human interference of the climate system.[99] As is stated in the Convention, this requires that GHGs are stabilized in the atmosphere at a level where ecosystems can adapt naturally to climate change, food production is not threatened, and economic development can proceed in a sustainable fashion.The UNFCCC recognizes differences among countries in their responsibility to act on climate change.[100] In the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC, most developed countries (listed in Annex I of the treaty) took on legally binding commitments to reduce their emissions.[101] Policy measures taken in response to these commitments have reduced emissions.[102] For many developing (non-Annex I) countries, reducing poverty is their overriding aim.[103]
At the 15th UNFCCC Conference of the Parties, held in 2009 at Copenhagen, several UNFCCC Parties produced the Copenhagen Accord.[104] Parties agreeing with the Accord aim to limit the future increase in global mean temperature to below 2 °C.[105]
views on global warming
There are different views over what the appropriate policy response to climate change should be.[106][107] These competing views weigh the benefits of limiting emissions of greenhouse gases against the costs. In general, it seems likely that climate change will impose greater damages and risks in poorer regions.[108]
On the other hand, commentators from developed countries point out that total carbon emissions[109], carrying capacity, efficient energy use and civil and political rights are very important issues. World population is the number of humans per unit area. However the land is not the same everywhere. Not only the quantity of fossil fuel use but also the quality of energy use is a key debate point. For example, efficient energy use supporting technological change might help reduce excess carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere. The use of fossil fuels for conspicuous consumption and excessive entertainment are issues that can conflict with civil and political rights. People in developed countries argue that history has proven the difficulty of implementing fair rationing programs in different countries because there is no global system of checks and balances or civil liberties.
The Kyoto Protocol, which came into force in 2005, sets legally binding emission limitations for most developed countries.[101] Developing countries are not subject to limitations. This exemption led the U.S. and Australia to decide not to ratify the treaty,[111] [112][113] although Australia did finally ratify the treaty in December 2007.[114] Debate continued at the Copenhagen climate summit and the Cancún climate summit.
Organizations such as the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute, conservative commentators, and some companies such as ExxonMobil have challenged IPCC climate change scenarios, funded scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus, and provided their own projections of the economic cost of stricter controls.[122][123][124][125] In the finance industry, Deutsche Bank has set up an institutional climate change investment division DBCCA)[126] which has commissioned and published research[127] on the issues and debate surrounding global warming.[128] Environmental organizations and public figures have emphasized changes in the current climate and the risks they entail, while promoting adaptation to changes in infrastructural needs and emissions reductions.[129] Some fossil fuel companies have scaled back their efforts in recent years,[130] or called for policies to reduce global warming.[131]
Politics
Developed and developing countries have made different arguments over who should bear the burden of economic costs for cutting emissions. Developing countries often concentrate on per capita emissions, that is, the total emissions of a country divided by its population.[109] Per capita emissions in the industrialized countries are typically as much as ten times the average in developing countries.[110] This is used to make the argument that the real problem of climate change is due to the profligate and unsustainable lifestyles of those living in rich countries.[109]On the other hand, commentators from developed countries point out that total carbon emissions[109], carrying capacity, efficient energy use and civil and political rights are very important issues. World population is the number of humans per unit area. However the land is not the same everywhere. Not only the quantity of fossil fuel use but also the quality of energy use is a key debate point. For example, efficient energy use supporting technological change might help reduce excess carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere. The use of fossil fuels for conspicuous consumption and excessive entertainment are issues that can conflict with civil and political rights. People in developed countries argue that history has proven the difficulty of implementing fair rationing programs in different countries because there is no global system of checks and balances or civil liberties.
The Kyoto Protocol, which came into force in 2005, sets legally binding emission limitations for most developed countries.[101] Developing countries are not subject to limitations. This exemption led the U.S. and Australia to decide not to ratify the treaty,[111] [112][113] although Australia did finally ratify the treaty in December 2007.[114] Debate continued at the Copenhagen climate summit and the Cancún climate summit.
Public opinion
In 2007–2008 Gallup Polls surveyed 127 countries. Over a third of the world's population was unaware of global warming, with people in developing countries less aware than those in developed, and those in Africa the least aware. Of those aware, Latin America leads in belief that temperature changes are a result of human activities while Africa, parts of Asia and the Middle East, and a few countries from the Former Soviet Union lead in the opposite belief.[115] In the Western world, opinions over the concept and the appropriate responses are divided. Nick Pidgeon of Cardiff University said that "results show the different stages of engagement about global warming on each side of the Atlantic", adding, "The debate in Europe is about what action needs to be taken, while many in the U.S. still debate whether climate change is happening."[116][117]Other views
Most scientists accept that humans are contributing to observed climate change.[44][118] National science academies have called on world leaders for policies to cut global emissions.[119] However, some scientists and non-scientists question aspects of climate-change science.[120][121]Organizations such as the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute, conservative commentators, and some companies such as ExxonMobil have challenged IPCC climate change scenarios, funded scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus, and provided their own projections of the economic cost of stricter controls.[122][123][124][125] In the finance industry, Deutsche Bank has set up an institutional climate change investment division DBCCA)[126] which has commissioned and published research[127] on the issues and debate surrounding global warming.[128] Environmental organizations and public figures have emphasized changes in the current climate and the risks they entail, while promoting adaptation to changes in infrastructural needs and emissions reductions.[129] Some fossil fuel companies have scaled back their efforts in recent years,[130] or called for policies to reduce global warming.[131]
effects of global warming
This article is about the effects of global warming and climate change.[2] The effects, or impacts, of climate change may be physical, ecological, social or economic. Evidence of observed climate change includes the instrumental temperature record, rising sea levels, and decreased snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere.[3] According to IPCC (2007a:10), "[most] of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in [human greenhouse gas] concentrations". It is predicted that future climate changes will include further global warming (i.e., an upward trend in global mean temperature), sea level rise, and a probable increase in the frequency of some extreme weather events. Signatories of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change have agreed to implement policies designed to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases.
sell textbooks online
sell textbooks online
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
global warming
The global warming hypothesis originated in 1896 when Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish chemist, developed the theory that carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels would cause global temperatures to rise by trapping excess heat in the earth’s atmosphere. Arrhenius understood that the earth’s climate is heated by a process known as the greenhouse effect. While close to half the solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface is reflected back into space, the remainder is absorbed by land masses and oceans, warming the earth’s surface and atmosphere. This warming process radiates energy, most of which passes through the atmosphere and back into space. However, small concentrations of greenhouse gases like water vapor and carbon dioxide convert some of this energy to heat and either absorb it or reflect it back to the earth’s surface. These heat-trapping gases work much like a greenhouse: Sunlight passes through, but a certain amount of radiated heat remains trapped.
The greenhouse effect plays an essential role in preventing the planet from entering a perpetual ice age: Remove the greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and the earth’s temperature would plummet by around 60 degrees Fahrenheit (F). However, scientists who have elaborated on Arrhenius’s theory of global warming are concernced that increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are causing an unprecedented rise in global temperatures, with potentially harmful consequences for the environment and human health.
In 1988, the United Nations Environment Program and the World Meteorological Organization established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), comprising more than two thousand scientists responsible for studying global warming’s potential impact on climate. According to the IPCC, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by 31 percent, methane by 151 percent, and nitrous oxide by 17 percent since 1750. Over the twentieth century, the IPCC believes that global temperatures increased close to 0.5 degree Centigrade (C), the largest increase of any century during the past one thousand years. The 1990s, according to IPCC data, was the warmest decade recorded in the Northern Hemisphere since records were first taken in 1861, with 1998 the warmest year ever recorded.
Given this data, many scientists are convinced of a direct correlation between rising global temperatures and the emission of greenhouse gases stemming from human activities such as automobile use, the production of electricity from coal-fired power plants, and agricultural and deforestation practices. Concludes the IPCC in its Third Assessment Report, “The present carbon dioxide concentration has not been exceeded during the past 420,000 years and likely not during the past 20 million years. . . . In light of new evidence . . . most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the [human-induced] increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.”
Based on IPCC projections that global temperatures will increase by 2.5 to 10.4 degrees F between 1990 and 2100, scientists and environmentalists are predicting that global warming will have mostly negative consequences for the world’s climate. Kelly Reed of the environmental organization Greenpeace states that the “effects of global warming not only include rising global temperatures, but an increase in floods, droughts, wildfires, heat waves, intensified hurricanes and the spread of infectious disease.” Accordingly, those who share Reed’s view of global warming believe that the world’s governments must take immediate action to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
In response to these pressures, a growing band of skeptical scientists are questioning the validity of the global warming theory. According to these critics, the IPCC bases its predictions for rising global temperatures on faulty computer climate models, which exaggerate the climate’s response to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases while failing to accurately reproduce the motions of the atmosphere. Explains Richard L. Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “Present models have large errors . . . [and] are unable to calculate correctly either the present average temperature of the Earth or the temperature ranges from the equator to the poles. . . . Models . . . amplify the effects of increasing carbon dioxide.” Lindzen asserts that if models accurately represented the role of the major greenhouse gas—water vapor—in the climate system, they would predict a warming of no more than 1.7 degrees C if atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were doubled. This warming is significantly less than the 4 to 5 degrees C temperature increase forecasted by IPCC models under a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Global warming skeptics also argue that natural climate fluctuation, not human activity, is responsible for the past century’s rising temperatures. According to S. Fred Singer, a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, the earth’s climate has never been steady and has continually warmed and cooled over the course of geologic time without any assistance from human activity. Says Singer, “The human component [in recent global warming] is thought to be quite small. . . . The climate cooled between 1940 and 1975, just as industrial activity grew rapidly after WWII. It has been difficult to reconcile this cooling with the observed increases in greenhouse gases.” Singer also argues that temperature observations since 1979 are in dispute: Surface readings with thermometers show a rise of about 0.1 degree C per decade, while data from satellites and balloon-borne radiosondes [miniature transmitters] show no warming—with possible indications of a slight cooling—in the lower atmosphere between 1979 and 1997. Until the science behind the global warming theory is more settled, Singer and other skeptical scientists advocate placing no limits on the consumption of fossil fuels.
Politicians, the media, big business, scientists, and environmentalists all play conflicting roles in the global warming debate as public policy collides head-on with special interests and a complex scientific theory. Global Warming: Opposing Viewpoints covers the debate with a wide range of opinions in the following chapters: Does Global Warming Pose a Serious Threat? What Causes Global Warming? What Will Be the Effects of Global Warming? Should Measures Be Taken to Combat Global Warming? This anthology examines the prominent viewpoints surrounding the global warming controversy.
sell textbooks online
All recipes
Phen375
Cyber Law
Nikon D7000 Price
Easy Camping Meals
Nikon D3100 Review
SX30is
100 Gallon Aquarium
launch jacking
FZ40
Canon 60D Review
LX5 Review
Canon T2i Review
Covered Calls
Minnesota Mortgage
Nikon Lens
550D Review
Lose Weight And Gain Muscle
Sony XBR
Canon 5D Mark ii Review
MOT Kingswood
website templates
The greenhouse effect plays an essential role in preventing the planet from entering a perpetual ice age: Remove the greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and the earth’s temperature would plummet by around 60 degrees Fahrenheit (F). However, scientists who have elaborated on Arrhenius’s theory of global warming are concernced that increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are causing an unprecedented rise in global temperatures, with potentially harmful consequences for the environment and human health.
In 1988, the United Nations Environment Program and the World Meteorological Organization established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), comprising more than two thousand scientists responsible for studying global warming’s potential impact on climate. According to the IPCC, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by 31 percent, methane by 151 percent, and nitrous oxide by 17 percent since 1750. Over the twentieth century, the IPCC believes that global temperatures increased close to 0.5 degree Centigrade (C), the largest increase of any century during the past one thousand years. The 1990s, according to IPCC data, was the warmest decade recorded in the Northern Hemisphere since records were first taken in 1861, with 1998 the warmest year ever recorded.
Given this data, many scientists are convinced of a direct correlation between rising global temperatures and the emission of greenhouse gases stemming from human activities such as automobile use, the production of electricity from coal-fired power plants, and agricultural and deforestation practices. Concludes the IPCC in its Third Assessment Report, “The present carbon dioxide concentration has not been exceeded during the past 420,000 years and likely not during the past 20 million years. . . . In light of new evidence . . . most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the [human-induced] increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.”
Based on IPCC projections that global temperatures will increase by 2.5 to 10.4 degrees F between 1990 and 2100, scientists and environmentalists are predicting that global warming will have mostly negative consequences for the world’s climate. Kelly Reed of the environmental organization Greenpeace states that the “effects of global warming not only include rising global temperatures, but an increase in floods, droughts, wildfires, heat waves, intensified hurricanes and the spread of infectious disease.” Accordingly, those who share Reed’s view of global warming believe that the world’s governments must take immediate action to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
In response to these pressures, a growing band of skeptical scientists are questioning the validity of the global warming theory. According to these critics, the IPCC bases its predictions for rising global temperatures on faulty computer climate models, which exaggerate the climate’s response to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases while failing to accurately reproduce the motions of the atmosphere. Explains Richard L. Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “Present models have large errors . . . [and] are unable to calculate correctly either the present average temperature of the Earth or the temperature ranges from the equator to the poles. . . . Models . . . amplify the effects of increasing carbon dioxide.” Lindzen asserts that if models accurately represented the role of the major greenhouse gas—water vapor—in the climate system, they would predict a warming of no more than 1.7 degrees C if atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were doubled. This warming is significantly less than the 4 to 5 degrees C temperature increase forecasted by IPCC models under a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Global warming skeptics also argue that natural climate fluctuation, not human activity, is responsible for the past century’s rising temperatures. According to S. Fred Singer, a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, the earth’s climate has never been steady and has continually warmed and cooled over the course of geologic time without any assistance from human activity. Says Singer, “The human component [in recent global warming] is thought to be quite small. . . . The climate cooled between 1940 and 1975, just as industrial activity grew rapidly after WWII. It has been difficult to reconcile this cooling with the observed increases in greenhouse gases.” Singer also argues that temperature observations since 1979 are in dispute: Surface readings with thermometers show a rise of about 0.1 degree C per decade, while data from satellites and balloon-borne radiosondes [miniature transmitters] show no warming—with possible indications of a slight cooling—in the lower atmosphere between 1979 and 1997. Until the science behind the global warming theory is more settled, Singer and other skeptical scientists advocate placing no limits on the consumption of fossil fuels.
Politicians, the media, big business, scientists, and environmentalists all play conflicting roles in the global warming debate as public policy collides head-on with special interests and a complex scientific theory. Global Warming: Opposing Viewpoints covers the debate with a wide range of opinions in the following chapters: Does Global Warming Pose a Serious Threat? What Causes Global Warming? What Will Be the Effects of Global Warming? Should Measures Be Taken to Combat Global Warming? This anthology examines the prominent viewpoints surrounding the global warming controversy.
sell textbooks online
All recipes
Phen375
Cyber Law
Nikon D7000 Price
Easy Camping Meals
Nikon D3100 Review
SX30is
100 Gallon Aquarium
launch jacking
FZ40
Canon 60D Review
LX5 Review
Canon T2i Review
Covered Calls
Minnesota Mortgage
Nikon Lens
550D Review
Lose Weight And Gain Muscle
Sony XBR
Canon 5D Mark ii Review
MOT Kingswood
website templates
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)