Officially, the warming is caused by man produces a quantity of carbon dioxide increasing with the years. However, for many, the truth is otherwise. Although it has been proved that the man produced a disturbing amount of CO2 for several years, the arguments that link the production of carbon dioxide to global warming gradually fall into the water. The man certainly produces more CO2, thus, does not prevent temperatures falling! The man is really guilty of global warming? Or is it a natural phenomenon is inevitable?

The warmest year recorded is as reliable sources in 1998. If the application to NASA’s response to the same question, it will tell us that 1998 was the second warmest year, preceded by 1921 and followed closely by 2006. However, if the real cause of global warming CO2 production was of man, the years should logically continue to warm. Logic would suggest therefore that the year 2007, 2008 and 2009 being warmer than 2006. But no. The fact that the production of CO2 will only increase as temperatures do not increase necessarily proves that the famous cause of global warming is beyond that. But then, What causes global warming you ask? Since the twentieth century scientists have noticed the ever-increasing amounts of CO2 produced by humans, and the warming of the planet, they have established a cause-consequence relationship. However, in recent years nothing happens as expected, with temperatures do not necessarily continue to increase as countries / cities / continents. In contrast, the Earth’s temperature have tended to stabilize. Dropping water and all scientific predictions. The situation therefore gives reason for people perplexed that global warming was not caused by man, but was the result of a natural cycle inevitable.

According to the statement of Mr. Piers Forster (who received the 2007 Nobel peace prize for his work on climate) on BBC Warming is not and can not be due to solar activity. This man is highly respected, you will understand, there was no logic to what scientists contradict it. They then discussed the other possible causes of warming and cooling Earth. According to Professor Don Easterbrook, the cause of climate change could be the temperatures of sea / ocean. According to official figures, the Pacific Ocean cools the past few years. The research of Professor Easter book establish a direct link than between global warming and its current cooling.

According to the professor always, the oceans have a cycle of cooling and warming (it has been proved by many other research). This cycle is called PDP. The warming of the 1980s and 1990s coincides with the cycle of warming seas. Now we are entering a cooling cycle, cycle that should last a little over 30 years. So you can look forward to a continued cooling temperatures these years does not mean that the cooling cycle of the seas is the death knell for global warming. Production of human CO2 is a factor of global warming, but a small factor. It is sufficient for the production of Co2 increases dramatically to tip the scales and warm climate, which counters the sea and its cooling effect on climate. The production of CO2 is a minor factor in global warming. But do not expect that policies change the version on the causes of global warming, they continue to say that the world is entitled to its loss if we do not deal with our production of CO2. Even if we should not forget that our dear Al Gore, who is the author of ‘inconvenient truth”, produced 10-15 times more CO2 than any American. But he said his conscience redeem by paying carbon paragraph (a kind of tax that some government if not all, want to”rebalance”imposed carbon production). So I think, and this only my opinion, that no matter what scientists find climate change on the fault is always rested upon us and our production of CO2, all that to make us pay more tax. Let us not forget that the three bases of HAARP type would be formally able to calm the atmosphere and its derivatives (one article was done on the subject). If the situation was truly spirit to lead us to our destruction, the government is as stupid as they might in a fit of good intentions (let me laugh) we learn from this so-called catastrophic. But that’s another story. That is how far some idiots are willing to go for the love of money.

Like other developing countries, ACP countries consume some fossil fuels and thus contribute very little to these emissions, but they will have to bear the brunt of the consequences of climate change, because of their inability to respond adequately to changes announced . Most ACP countries are lagging behind other developing regions, and will probably suffer the worst effects. We can improve the situation in ACP countries and management of emissions of greenhouse gases by using the options in more environmentally sound, however, that may prove costly.

Unfortunately, given the slow response by the global climate system will stabilize greenhouse gas an emission is difficult and will therefore take time to fit properly. Climate change will inevitably continue if the trend of increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases continues. The expected changes will have perverse effects on water resources, agriculture and natural ecosystems and human health, which will lead to social and economic upheavals. Therefore, regions and countries around the world must prepare for the expected changes, especially developing countries, because they have relatively low adaptive capacity and limited infrastructure.

Climate variability, particularly in regard to changing patterns of temperature and precipitation, more immediate threat of ACP agriculture. These days, extreme weather, especially extreme flooding, severe droughts and storms, have caused dramatic changes in the agricultural sector of ACP. These changes have had a dramatic impact on food security and agricultural trade at the regional level.

Seed growers say they are the first line of defense protecting farmers from climate change, which should warm the planet from one to three degrees by the next fifty years.

The drought coupled with increased rainfall more intense and unpredictable could affect crops and cause food shortages while increasing food prices.

In Mexico, small farmers are already feeling the effects of unfavorable climate exacerbated by climate change according to scientists. Last year, the country experienced its least significant rainfall in 68 years, while this year, a very active hurricane season sweeps growing areas near the U.S. border.

The corn farmer Cesar Longoria said that the crops of his family had fallen 30% during the drought of 2009, while more than half of its land Reynosa were destroyed by floods last July when Hurricane Alex hit the north of the country.

“For individuals who depend on corn, it is a tragedy,” said Carlos Salazar, director of the National Association of corn farmers. “They have to buy more expensive corn to feed themselves and their animals.”

The number of individuals suffering from hunger in the world is rising for over ten years and reached a peak in 2009 because of the economic crisis and high prices for food in many developing countries.

Nearly one billion people are considered as being undernourished this year, according to the United Nations for Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

The events related to a 30% increase in bread prices in Mozambique have claimed 13 victims during the month. In India, the second largest wheat producer in the world, rising temperatures could reduce the production of more than 25% over the next fifty years.

Thousands of seeds are stored in the database CIMMYT, where containers filled with red corn, blue, yellow and white are kept in refrigerated cellars. The genes of some of these seeds are being identified to isolate the characteristics that produce improved varieties.

“A lot of these species occur over tens of thousands, if not millions, of years and have experienced significant changes in climate,” said Thomas Payne, of the bank’s data center.

“They hold important information that can be used to confront the uncertainties of the future

An Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, is developing a scientific consensus on this issue. His latest and fourth report, which was attended by over 2,500 scientists from 130 countries, says that global warming since 1950 is very likely  of human origin. These conclusions were endorsed by more than 40 scientific societies and academies of science, including all national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.

The projections of climate models presented in the IPCC’s latest report indicates that the surface temperature of the globe is likely to increase from 1.1 to 6.4 ° C of overtime in the twenty-first century. The differences between the projections from the use of models with different sensitivities to the concentrations of greenhouse gases and using different estimates for future emissions. Most studies focus on the period up to 2100. However, global warming will continue beyond that date even if emissions stopped because of the large heat capacity of the oceans and the life of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

This involves a great human and environmental consequences in the medium and long term.

Uncertainties on the rise in average global temperature remain because of the accuracy of models used, and state and individual behaviors present and future. The economic, political, social, environmental, or moral, is major, they give rise to many debates, internationally, and controversies

Orbital forcingn the 1970s there was increasing in awareness That estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945. Of Those scientific papers considering climate trends over the 21st century, only 10% Inclined Towards futures cooling, while most papers Predicted future warming. Had the general public little awareness of carbon dioxide’s effects on climate, but Science News in May 1959 forecasts a 25% Increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide in the 150 years from 1850 to 2000, with a consequent warming trend. The actual Increase in this period was 29%. Paul R. Ehrlich mentioned climate change from greenhouse gases in 1968. By the time the idea of global cooling reached the public press in the mid-1970s temperatures Had stopped falling, and there was concern in the climatological community about carbon dioxide’s warming effects. In response to Standard and Poor reports, the World Meteorological Organization Issued a warning in June 1976 That a very significant warming of the global climate was probable.

Some Currently there are concerns about the possible cooling effects of a slowdown or shutdown of thermohaline circulation, Which Might Be provoked by an Increase of fresh water mixing into the North Atlantic due to glacial melting. The probability of this occurring is Generally Considered to be very low, and the IPCC notes, “even in models Nowhere the THC weakens, there is still a warming over Europe. For example, in the all AOGCM integrations Nowhere is increasing in the radiative forcing, the sign of the temperature change over the north-west Europe is positive

n the decades following the theories of Arrhenius were little valued, because it was believed that CO2 did not influence the temperature of the planet and the greenhouse effect was attributed solely to water vapor. But 35 years after Arrhenius published his theory, Guy S. Callendar (British engineer specialist steam) issued, beginning in 1938, several trials [23] in which they corrected some estimates made by Arrhenius, and the ability of oceans to absorb CO2 and, after an observable increase of about half degree Fahrenheit (about 0.275 ° C) between 1880 and 1934, Callender found that the average increase in temperature was 0.005 ° C per year during that period (currently estimated in the second half of the twentieth century has been an increase of 0.013 ° C per year (IPCC, 2007, p. 30).). Callender also argued that human activity had increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at about 10% since the beginning of the century. This revived the suggestion of Arrhenius and is known as “Callendar Effect.”

Among others, Roger Revelle, director of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in California, believed that the suggestion was implausible Callendar means any “excess” atmospheric CO2 in their opinion seriously, absorbed by natural processes. This led to the beginning of a scientific debate. Eventually, Charles D. Keeling, working under the direction of Revelle and within the framework of the International Geophysical Year, held a series of measures between 1957 and 1959 – in remote places upwind of populated places. (Keeling used data from a station on Mauna Loa and one in Antarctica) – during the eighteen months of geophysical surveys. The results were clear and negative for the position of Revelle, showing without doubt that not only had there been an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide in relation to the nineteenth century, but also that he had even been an increase during the period of the measurements themselves.

A little earlier, the World Meteorological Organization had already initiated various levels of monitoring, which aimed, among other things, to calculate the levels of CO2 in the troposphere.

These comments were provided by the developed-in the forties-infrared spectrophotometry, which has allowed to know that CO2 absorbs light differently to water vapor n the decades following the theories of Arrhenius were little valued, because it was believed that CO2 did not influence the temperature of the planet and the greenhouse effect was attributed solely to water vapor. But 35 years after Arrhenius published his theory, Guy S. Callendar (British engineer specialist steam) issued, beginning in 1938, several trials  in which they corrected some estimates made by Arrhenius, and the ability of oceans to absorb CO2 and, after an observable increase of about half degree Fahrenheit (about 0.275 ° C) between 1880 and 1934, Callender found that the average increase in temperature was 0.005 ° C per year during that period (currently estimated in the second half of the twentieth century has been an increase of 0.013 ° C per year (IPCC, 2007, p. 30).). Callender also argued that human activity had increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at about 10% since the beginning of the century. This revived the suggestion of Arrhenius and is known as “Callendar Effect.”

Among others, Roger Revelle, director of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in California, believed that the suggestion was implausible Callendar means any “excess” atmospheric CO2 in their opinion seriously, absorbed by natural processes. This led to the beginning of a scientific debate. Eventually, Charles D. Keeling, working under the direction of Revelle and within the framework of the International Geophysical Year, held a series of measures between 1957 and 1959 – in remote places upwind of populated places. (Keeling used data from a station on Mauna Loa and one in Antarctica) – during the eighteen months of geophysical surveys. The results were clear and negative for the position of Revelle, showing without doubt that not only had there been an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide in relation to the nineteenth century, but also that he had even been an increase during the period of the measurements themselves.

A little earlier, the World Meteorological Organization had already initiated various levels of monitoring, which aimed, among other things, to calculate the levels of CO2 in the troposphere.

These comments were provided by the developed-in the forties-infrared spectrophotometry, which has allowed to know that CO2 absorbs light differently to water vapor, significantly increasing the greenhouse effect. All this was summarized by Gilbert Plass in 1955.

Keeling continued for another forty years their comments. These continuous and repeatedly demonstrated the correctness of his initial observation. Keeling stated that, no matter where they take appropriate measures, whether cities or fields, valleys and mountains, the average measurement of atmospheric CO2 is the same, with slight seasonal variations (the average is higher in the northern hemisphere winter) and that the average increase is 1.5 parts per million per year. These results remain to the present scientific inquiry, significantly increasing the greenhouse effect. All this was summarized by Gilbert Plass in 1955.

Keeling continued for another forty years their comments. These continuous and repeatedly demonstrated the correctness of his initial observation. Keeling stated that, no matter where they take appropriate measures, whether cities or fields, valleys and mountains, the average measurement of atmospheric CO2 is the same, with slight seasonal variations (the average is higher in the northern hemisphere winter) and that the average increase is 1.5 parts per million per year. These results remain to the present scientific inquiry

Migration:

In the 1990s a number of estimates place the number of environmental refugees at around 25 million. (Environmental refugees are not included in the official definition of refugees, which only includes migrants fleeing persecution.) Intergovernmental Group of Experts on Climate Change (IPCC), which advises governments around the world under the auspices of the United Nations estimates that 150 million refugees will exist in 2050, mainly due to the effects of coastal flooding, coastal erosion and agricultural disruption (150 million means 1.5% of world population Estimated 2050 (about 10 billion)

Moreover, this increase in temperature, in turn provoke a decrease in mortality caused by extreme cold that occurs in some regions of the planet in the winter period. Therefore, the number of deaths per year due to climatic factors might not increase. Palutikof “et al”. (1996) has estimated that a 1 ° C increase in global average temperature, would, in the area comprising the UK and Wales, a reduction of 7,000 deaths per year., At the same time, Keatinge “et al . (2000) suggests that any increase in mortality due to the increase in temperature is more than offset by the drastic decrease in the number of deaths caused by cold. However, a government report shows, in the United Kingdom, a decline in mortality due to the warming experienced until this past decade, but predicts an increase in the number of deaths in the future if the warming continues as before.The European heat wave of 2003 caused the death of between 22000-35000 people. . Peter A. Stott, of [Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research]] has estimated a reliability of 90%, the influence on climate, human beings in the past was the cause of this heat wave to reach at least one power twice as destructive as it stood without the influence of human character. It is interesting may be added that in the UK die each year more than 100 people from cold, while they do the double heat

In Iceland, rising temperatures have made possible a widespread sowing of barley, which was unthinkable 20 years ago. Part of this warming effect is due to a local (possibly temporary) from the Caribbean ocean currents, which also affect many fish stocks.

The average surface temperature of Earth has risen 1 degree F in the last century. In Iceland this rising temperatures have made possible a widespread sowing of barley, which was unthinkable 20 years ago. Part of this warming effect is due to a local (possibly temporary) from the Caribbean ocean currents, which also affect many stocks. While local benefits could be felt in this global warming in some regions (such as Siberia), say the latest evidence that the overall performance of crops and harvests will be affected negatively. “The growth of atmospheric temperatures, severe droughts, both side effects such as high levels of ozone at ground level, will contribute to a substantial reduction in crop yields of food staples in the coming decades that could be insufficient to cope with a growing population stands at around two billion more people by 2025 but a change is made immediately.

The region has probably been the most affected is Africa because its geographic location makes it particularly vulnerable because 70% of the population depends on rainfed agriculture for their livelihood. Tanzania’s official report on climate change says that areas normally have two rainy seasons per year and are probably more areas that are accustomed to having a single rainy season will be much less. The net result of this means that the cultivation of maize – the country’s staple crop – fall by 33%. [12] Some studies argue that South Africa could lose more than 30% of its main crop, maize, in 2030 . In South Asia losses of commodities such as rice, millet and maize could reach 10%. In 2001, the IPCC noted that the poorest countries would be hardest hit with strong reductions in crop yields in many tropical and subtropical regions due to the difficulty of bringing new water and insect pests. In Africa and Latin America many rainfed crops are near their maximum temperatures allowed, what is causing the yield to fall sharply. It is expected that during the 21st century productivity falls above 30%. Also the fish industry will be greatly affected in many places.

Climate change may be one of the causes of conflict in Darfur (Sudan). The combination of decades of drought, desertification and overpopulation are among the causes of the conflict because the Arab Baggara (Arab nomads) had their cattle further south in search of water, to land mainly occupied in agriculture of the people.

“The history of climate change, as recorded in Northern Darfur is almost unprecedented: the reduction in rainfall has turned millions of hectares of semi-desert grazing land. The impact of climate change is considered directly related to the conflict in the region. Desertification has greatly increased the tension for the livelihoods of pastoralist societies, forcing them to move south to find pasture. “

In 2007, increased incentives for farmers to grow non-food biofuels [14] along with other factors (such as increased transportation costs, climate change, rising consumer demand in China and India, and population growth) has caused food shortages in Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and Mexico, as well as rising food prices worldwide. In December 2007, 37 countries face food crises, and 20 had imposed some sort of price controls on food (see: Food crisis).

Another important point to consider is that weeds also perform the same cycle that the plants and therefore also benefit from carbon fertilization. Since most weeds are C3 plants (so called because they were in the C3 type the first organic compound produced in photosynthesis has three carbon atoms in the C4 has 4), are competing against C4 crops such as tomato. However, some results make possible to think that herbicides can be more efficient with increasing temperature. Global warming could cause an increase in rainfall in some areas, leading to increased atmospheric humidity and the duration of the wet seasons. Combined with high temperatures, could favor the development of fungal diseases. The state of Barinas (Venezuela) are having this effect, especially in the cultivation of cassava. The rising temperature and humidity is fostering the growth of insect pests.

This current can be described as a flow of surface water warming in the Pacific and Indian Oceans to the Atlantic, whose tropical latitudes continues to receive heat, and finally sink into the North Atlantic, returning at deeper levels.

It is speculated that global warming could cause a shutdown or delay in the circulation of these currents, causing less heating or cooling in the North Atlantic. This would particularly affect areas such as Scandinavia and Britain that are warmed by this trend moving towards the North Atlantic.

The opinions on this event in the ocean currents in the short term are unclear, there is some evidence of short-term stability of the Gulf Stream North Atlantic and possible weakening of the current in that area, however, the degree of weakening and whether it will be enough to stop the thermohaline current is under discussion. If power is interrupted thermohaline man is in deep trouble, because 250 million years ago a failure of this stream resulted in the extinction of more than 90% of life.