Newspaper articles about global warming tell the story of the Earth's climate and the diverse opinions and scientific discoveries surrounding the theory of global warming. From the Industrial Revolution to the Kyoto treaty and the advent of hybrid technology, the topic of global climate change has enthralled readers and sparked debate for centuries. Though many people argue over the theory's validity, global warming is a subject that affects us all and newspapers chronicle its discovery and the debate surrounding the issue. Since ancient times, people have believed that human activity could affect the environment. The discovery of past ice ages shows that Earth's climate is in constant flux and that throughout history, scientists have searched for the cause of these changes. Though scientists discovered the greenhouse effect in the late 19th century, the theory of global warming wasn't accepted as a scientifically proven fact until 1992 when the United Nations held a Conference on Environment and Development. Today, global warming is a widely accepted reality and speculation about its effects range from the hysteria to the acceptance. Newspapers chronicle the slowly changing climate and the actions that have affected that change. The Global Warming Archive provides access to thousands of articles on the environment and the scientists who documented its change. From developing nations to industrial countries, global climate affects everyone and newspaper articles tell the story of nature's dramatic impact on history. NewspaperARCHIVE.com, the largest newspaper database available online, has provided a free archive on the history of global warming granting access to thousands of original newspaper articles. The archive includes articles on the early discoveries of scientists, the development of technology, pollution, the greenhouse effect and global summits and treaties dedicated to the topic of global warming.

HELP WORLD BY FOLLOWING THESE...

Share.
Didn’t your mother always tell you to share? If you only use your tent, ladder, or video player once in a while, consider lending it to others. Some communities have a shared tool shed. Workplaces have book exchanges. Or, you and a friend can team up to buy rarely used items. Sharing decreases the energy and pollution from mining, manufacturing, packaging, and transporting new goods.* Climate Leader
Get a new A/C filter.
Cleaning or replacing your air conditioner filters increases efficiency and makes it run in peak condition. Filters can be found along the length of the return duct in walls, ceilings, furnaces, or in the air conditioning unit itself. In window units, filters may lie inside of the air conditioner or they may slide out. See this list of helpful tips on buying an efficient air conditioner.


Go on a tree spree.
Planting trees removes carbon from the atmosphere, filters air, and prevents soil erosion. It’s best to plant trees native to your area that don’t require heavy irrigation.* Climate Hero
Lose the heavy stuff.
Each 100 lbs. in your car increases gas consumption by 1-2%. Another great reason to leave all bricks and rocks at home!* Climate Friend
Practice gas station etiquette.
Handle the pump with care and avoid topping off. Spilled fuel evaporates and causes air pollution. Also, try to buy gas during cooler times in the day or during evening hours when there is less evaporation

WHY WE SHOULD BE CONCERNED???

A weakening in the Earth's ability to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere means that global warming is happening faster than we thought, scientists said yesterday.

If the oceans soak up less greenhouse gas there are fears climate change will worsen
Scientists thought that concentrations of carbon dioxide, the most important greenhouse gas, in the atmosphere would grow in line with the world economy.
The latest figures show, however, that over the past seven years CO2 concentrations have grown 35 per cent faster, partly because the ability of the Southern Ocean and other carbon "sinks" such as vegetation and forests to take it up has been reduced.
It is a development which has alarmed scientists from the Global Carbon Project, the University of East Anglia (UEA) and the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) who compared the period 1970-2000 with the past seven years.
They found that increasing use of coal-fired power stations rather than cleaner alternatives, had increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere by 17 per cent above anticipated levels, based on economic projection me time there had been a decline in the ability of ocean and land 'sinks' to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere which resulted in an 18 per cent increase.
Over half the decline of the carbon sink efficiency was the result of intensifying winds in Antarctica's Southern Ocean disrupting the sea's ability to store carbon, the scientists said.
If the oceans soak up less of the greenhouse gas there are fears that global warming leading to climate change will get worse.
By 2006, CO2 emissions, the most important greenhouse gas, were up to 9.9 billion tons of carbon, 35 per cent above emissions in 1990, the year of the Kyoto Protocol. (Coincidentally that 35 per cent increase is the same as the increase in concentrations in the atmosphere over the past seven years, but there is no connection.)
The findings, produced by more than 90,000 measurements from merchant ships equipped with automatic instruments, indicated that 30 years of improvements in global emissions, caused by improvements in technology, had now stalled. They are published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
The study's author Dr Corinne Le Quere, of UEA and the British Antarctic Survey, said the results had come as a shock.
"We expected that emissions would grow because of the expansion in the world economy but not because of a weakening in the sinks. Only the most extreme climate models predicted this. We didn't think it would happen until the second half of the century," she said.
The findings come just days after other research at UEA revealed that the levels of CO2 in the north Atlantic had reduced by about 50 per cent from the mid-1990s to 2005.
Dr Le Quere said it was difficult to pinpoint where the sinks had weakened apart from the Southern Ocean where winds had increased because of climate change and the depletion of the ozone layer.
The stronger winds were causing more "mixing" of the waters, bringing carbon up from the deep seas where it was stored and raising the carbon concentration of the surface water, which allowed less CO2 to dissolve into the ocean from the atmosphere.
A decrease in fossil fuel efficiency had also accounted for speeding up the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, she said.
" For 30 years we had technical improvements in carbon intensity but this has stalled since 2000 and this has had a major effect.
"There's been a slow change from oil and gas to coal which is more CO2 intensive. As developing countries grow so does their use of energy and coal is easier to access and cheaper."
"Developed countries have not been providing massive investment in technology to counteract that.
"We had anticipated that the growth in CO2 would follow the world economy but we had not anticipated that we would not be as efficient as we were being and the sinks would not respond."
Dr Le Quere warned: "The decline in global sink efficiency suggests that stabilisation of atmospheric CO2 is even more difficult to achieve than previously thought."
But she said there was still time to take action and that technical improvements could have a huge impact.
"The study shows we can control the growth of CO2 but we have to be more aggressive on a global scale."
The study's lead author and executive director of the Global Carbon Project, Dr Pep Canadell, said: "In addition to the growth of global population and wealth, we now know that significant contributions to the growth of atmospheric CO2 arise from the slowdown of natural sinks and the halt to improvements in the carbon intensity of wealth production

Global Warming: What Should We Do About It?
There is little doubt that the Earth is warming. But there is considerable controversy over global warming's future impact on the world's climate and what (if anything) we should do about it.
Researchers at the University of Alaska reported in 2002 that most Alaskan glaciers are melting at twice the rate of previous estimates. An increasing majority of the world's scientists have concluded that changes in the environment like this one provide convincing evidence of a gradual heating up of the Earth's surface. Scientists refer to this as "global warming."
For over 100 years, scientists have known about the physical mechanism that causes the Earth to warm. Today, they call it the "greenhouse effect." Generally, it works like this:
Radiation from the Sun in short wavelengths easily passes through the Earth's atmosphere and strikes the surface, which reflects much of it back as longer wavelengths.
Instead of going back into space, the longer wavelengths are absorbed by gases in the atmosphere.
The atmosphere reflects back to the Earth's surface a significant amount of the trapped radiation, which becomes heat.
Thus, the Earth warms much like a greenhouse or automobile does when the Sun's rays penetrate the glass, but are trapped inside as heat.
Water vapor and other gases in the atmosphere capture and return to Earth about 50 percent of the Sun's incoming radiation. The warming that results is necessary to prevent our planet from becoming extremely cold and hostile to life. But over the past few centuries, human activities on Earth have increased the concentration of some gases in the atmosphere that intensify heating. These gases include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, and others, the so-called "greenhouse gases."
The Evidence of Climate Change
In 1896, a Swedish chemist, Svante A. Arrhenius, became the first scientist to hypothesize that burning fossil fuels (mainly coal, oil, and natural gas) releases CO2 into the atmosphere, which leads to a warming of the Earth's surface. Later, scientists discovered that the rise of CO2 and other greenhouse gas concentrations seemed to begin with the Industrial Revolution and speeded up in the 20th century.
To be sure, there are a number of ways that the Earth can become warmer naturally. Periods of global warming in the past were caused by changes in the Earth's orbit, volcanic eruptions, and variations in the Sun's radiation output. But natural causes apparently cannot explain the current warming of the Earth.
In 1988, the United Nations established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The purpose of the IPCC is to review the work of scientists around the world to assess the evidence of climate change.
In 2001, the IPCC issued its third report, assessing the evidence of climate change. The IPCC found that during the 20th century, the Earth warmed by about 1degree Fahrenheit. One degree does not seem like a lot. But scientists know that at various times in Earth's history, shifts of just a few degrees had a dramatic impact on the planet's climate and environment. Here are some other major 20th century climate changes that the IPCC reported:
While some areas of the world experienced worsening droughts, others had greater rainfall and flooding.
Most of the world's glaciers were melting.
The average sea level rose several inches.
Plant and animal habitats are moving.
The IPCC also found that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere rose by about 30 percent during the last 200 years, the period of the Industrial Revolution. CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas that traps heat from the Sun.
In addition, the IPCC discovered "new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities." About 75 percent of CO2 emissions come from burning fossil fuels. Americans produce more than their share of these emissions and are responsible for 35 percent of all greenhouse gases ever produced by humans.
Most of the remaining CO2 emissions result from the destruction of forests. Since 1855, humans have destroyed up to 20 percent of the world's rain forests in places like Brazil. Burning forests to clear land for farming, roads, and settlement injects large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Trees take in CO2 in order to grow. They convert CO2 to oxygen as part of their metabolic process. With fewer trees, less CO2 is converted. The destruction of trees hinders nature's way of removing this greenhouse gas from the atmosphere. Scientists refer to forests, farmlands, and the oceans as "carbon sinks," because they remove CO2 from the atmosphere. The problem is that widespread deforestation is decreasing a major sink.
The Persistent Minority
A persistent minority of the world's scientists disagree with the findings of the IPCC. In his book, Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate, environmental science scholar S. Fred Singer points out that there are many things scientists do not yet know. For example, they are not sure how muchCO2 is absorbed by the ocean carbon sink.
Rather than assuming an environmental disaster will result from global warming, Singer identifies its potential benefits. He foresees more food from longer growing seasons, an increase in timber, more water in some dry regions, and a decrease in the use of fossil fuels for heating as winters become more moderate.
Perhaps the greatest uncertainly identified by scientists like Singer involves clouds. As the Earth warms, these scientists predict, ocean evaporation will increase, causing more high cirrus clouds to form. A greater global cloud cover will reflect more of the Sun's radiation back into space and actually cool the planet.
What If We Do Nothing?
Humans have changed the environment since prehistoric times. But environmental disasters in the past were limited to local regions. Today, human activities on a worldwide scale appear to be changing the global climate. Moreover, most scientists now agree that, on balance, global warming is likely to have a negative impact on the planet.
What is likely to happen over the next 100 years if we do nothing about global warming? The IPCC's third assessment report includes the best available projections of likely impacts on the world's environment.
According to the IPCC's report,CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere will double by 2100. This will cause an average increase in the global surface temperature between 3.5F and 10F. The rate of temperature increase during the century will very likely be greater than at any time in the last 10,000 years.
Increasing temperatures will mean more droughts in many areas of the world, including parts of the United States such as the Southwest. In these areas, crop yields will decline and more forest fires will occur. The decreased food supply in poor countries experiencing drought will often lead to famine.
Insects will thrive in a warming world. Many insect-borne diseases like malaria will expand into new regions where the people have little natural resistance.
While some parts of the world will suffer from heat and dryness, other regions will experience increased rainfall along with floods, landslides, and soil erosion. Violent storms will threaten human life, health, and property, driving up insurance rates.
Throughout the 21st century, glacier and icecap melting will accelerate in the Northern Hemisphere. It is possible that the entire Greenland ice cap could melt away, adding to the projected three-foot rise in sea level by 2100.
The rising seas will cause major flooding and loss of land in the coastal regions in the world, affecting tens of millions of people. Low-lying small Pacific islands will likely disappear beneath the waves. A side effect of the warming seas may be the shifting of ocean currents, which could have a major influence on weather over landmasses and commercial fishing.
Ecosystems unable to cope with the climate changes will be at risk. Up to 50 percent of the world's wetlands may be lost before the end of the century. While some animal, bird, and fish species will successfully expand their ranges, those unable to adapt will become extinct. The good news for humans is that even through the worst of the global warming Homo sapiens will survive.
A recent study by a large insurance company estimated the economic impact of global warming if CO2 concentrations double in the 21st century. The study concluded that weather damage, crop losses, and other expenses will cost the world $300 billion per year.
Poor countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, which have historically introduced the least amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, will suffer the greatest economic hardships. But when the Earth's surface temperature increases more than a few degrees, even industrialized countries like the United States will experience economic hardships.
There will be some positive benefits from global warming, such as longer crop growing periods. But these benefits will probably not be enough to overcome significant damage to the environment.
What Should We Do About Global Warming?
In 1992, the United States and the other industrialized nations agreed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels. This agreement, however, was not legally binding.
In 1997, more than 160 nations met at Kyoto, Japan, to work out a treaty requiring reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. A proposed exemption of all economically developing countries from any mandatory limits on their emissions proved to be a major obstacle. These countries argued that such limits would severely weaken their economic development.
Despite opposition from the United States and other industrialized nations, the developing countries exemption was included in the final treaty. The industrialized countries agreed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions up to 8 percent below 1990 levels by 2015. This should stabilize the greenhouse effect and begin to slow damage to the global environment.
The Kyoto Treaty included no specific methods that nations had to use to reduce their emissions. Nations would probably have to consider options such as limiting deforestation, requiring more fuel-efficient automobiles, or imposing a "carbon tax" on gasoline and other fossil fuels to discourage usage. Relying more on solar, wind, and nuclear power would also reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
President Bill Clinton signed the Kyoto Treaty, but the U.S. Senate refused to ratify it because of the developing countries' exemption and possible threats to the American economy. In 2001, President George W. Bush withdrew the United States from the Kyoto Treaty. He argued that its percentage requirements for greenhouse gas reductions would cost Americans millions of jobs. A few months later, 180 nations met without the United States to implement the treaty.
In 2002, President Bush came up with his own plan for reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. He proposed a mix of alternative fuel research and tax credits to encourage companies to reduce their emissions voluntarily over a 10-year period. This approach, Bush said, would cut greenhouse gas emissions to levels comparable to those required by the Kyoto Treaty without damaging the American economy.
Critics of President Bush's plan faulted his heavy reliance on voluntary action by companies and claimed that U.S. emissions would grow substantially. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) argued that Congress should set higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars and SUVs. President Bush opposed this because it may force manufacturers to make these vehicles smaller and more expensive.
* * * * *
Global warming is real. The debate centers on what to do about it. The dilemma is how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without damaging the world economy.