GLOBAL WARMING and natural disasters essay

EIVIROMENTAL SCIENCE

GLOBAL WARMING

Since the industrial revolution during the 18th Century, people have continuously improved their productivity with technology. Industrialization changed peoples' lives in many ways. While it generated an era of prosperity, it also brought many problems to our society, many of which we are just discovering today. The most important problem started by the industrial revolution is a significant increase in Carbon Dioxide emission, which leads to global warming.

Globe warming brings about various natural disasters.
The most significant disaster is the rising of sea level. Global warming increases the melting of the polar ice caps, which brings about a rise in sea level. As sea level rises, islands near sea level sink into the sea. Residents on these islands lose their beloved homes, and are forced to live in refugee camps. The number of environmental refugee is rapidly increasing. The current number of environmental refugee is thirty three million, more numerous than the twenty five million political and war refugee.

Global warming leads to extremely weather conditions such as hurricanes, floods, tornados, and acids rain. According to United Nation statistics department, the frequency and magnitude of reported disaster is on the rise. Among the worst is hurricane Katrina in 2005 when1836 people lost their lives, and millions of people lost their home. The hurricane is estimated to be responsible for 81.2 billion U.S. dollars in damage.

Global warming causes the extinction of many species. The polar ice caps have been melting at frightening speed. As the ice cap melting, there are fewer places for bear to live instead more water surrounding them. It makes bear harder to find food. Polar bears will disappear if the ice continues to melt at this speed.

Since we have known the global warming have brought us so many devastation, how to effectively reduce it become crucial.
According to article Kyoto Accord "Kyoto Accord is an international treaty whereby countries agree to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases they emit if their neighbors do likewise. It is a very complex agreement that allows trading pollution credits. If it is cheaper to reduce emissions in country A, then country B can buy the pollution credits, and have them count toward its own quota of reductions. Happily, the global atmosphere does not care where the greenhouse gas reductions come from."

This is good idea for all countries to eliminate carbon dioxide emissions. Unfortunately, most of the country such as United State, China, Korea and so on has not signed it yet. Why most of the countries refused to sign the treaty? The main reason may be authorities are too local. I persuade that all countries do not just think their own country' benefit and refuse to sign the agreement, all the politicians should think about save our earth for our offspring. Since we live on one planet, we share the same earth, we should help each other, and the First World should stretch out their friend hand to the Third World to avoid doing the same mistake to the earth.

On the other hand, Canada has signed the agreement, this give us hope. Further more, there are some successful initiatives such as Mayor of San Francisco; San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom is the pioneer in green initiatives. He had planed to use clean energy in transportation, buildings and environmental justice, also, the city has accomplished from 2004 to 2008. The plan includes seven categories. Renewable and efficient energy; Climate action; Clean transportation; Green building; Zero waste; Environmental justice. San Francisco has done an excellent job in the past 4 years and settled a good example for all of us. This really is an encouragement for environmental worker. At the same time we should think what we can do for save our environment.

We should think about our ecofootprint, do our best to save the limited resources on the earth, for example, turn off the light when daylight is bright enough; Drying clothes rather hung than using drier; do not cook the food that need long time and so on.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_refugeenments
en.wikipedia.org/wiki /Acid_rain
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina
mindprod.com/envi ronment/kyoto.html
blognewcomb.com/blog/2008/02/san_franciscos_green [/url]_initiativ.html

i'm not sure much about these sort of essays but am I right to know that wikipedia is not considered a good academic source? in that case you might have to find other sites/sources

Are you supposed to be focusing specifically on global warming and its links to natural disasters? If so, most of your essay (paragraphs 1, 5, 6, 7) is off-topic, having nothing at all to do with natural disasters. Is it meant to be a more general overview of global warming? If so, you should summarize the evidence that A) global warming is happening and that B) man-made CO2 emissions are responsible, rather than merely asserting both.

"Globe warming brings about various natural disasters. "

Is this sentence suppose to be a paragraph by itself? I suggest merging it with the introduction.

"Global warming increases the melting rate? of the polar ice caps, which brings about a rise in sea level."

"As the ice cap meltingmelts, there are fewer places for polar bear to live instead more water surrounding them "

"According to article Kyoto Accord "Kyoto Accord is an international treaty whereby countries agree to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases they emit if their neighbors do likewise."

Sentence fragment.

"I persuade that all countries do not just think their own country's benefit and refuse to sign the agreement,; all the politicians should think about save our earth for our offspring."

I don't think you mean "I persuade" here. "I hope" is probably what you want.

"Since we live on one planet, we share the same earth, we should help each other, and the First World should stretch out their friend hand to the Third World to avoid doing the same mistake to the earth."

What are the "First World" and the "Third World"?

Your conclusion is a bit off topic. Focus on the issues of global warming. More or less restate what you wrote in your body paragraphs in your conclusion.

And yes, don't cite wikipedia as a source. Everyone can edit it. On the other hand, it is very accurate.

Also, what is the prompt of the essay? I know it is on global warming, but can you tell us a bit more about the prompt?

Good luck.

Linnus - What are the "First World" and the "Third World"?

its a geography term for the i guess advanced countries and less-advanced. USA would be conisdered first, where as North Korea would be third

but i'm not sure about using these terms, didn't they bring up the whole developed and developing countries? you might want to use these instead.

Global warming leads to extreme weather conditions such as...

Some transition sentences and a clear thesis will help a lot! Prepare the reader for the main point you are going to make by summing up the whole essay in a single sentence at the end of the first paragraph--make your point and then write the rest of the essay to support it. By having a clear, memorable, not-boring main point, it will be easy to slightly change the first sentence of each paragraph to support your original idea. I hope that helps. The thing that makes an essay come to life is a clear, interesting, original point that tells the reader something specific. By making your point at the end of the first paragraph, you'll make it easy to use each paragraph as evidence to support your main point.

@zowzow

I thought so. I believe the terms "first world" and "second world" is are rarely used, unless in the context of the cold war. Yes, the term "developing countries" or "developed countries" would be better.

Don't buy what politicians and other semi-experts tell you about global warming. The 'global warming' issue is a ploy by the government and other 'organizations' that want to get tax money for nothing. Global warming is something that happens NATURALLY every X thousand of years (between 20 and 40 thousands).

They try to sell you ice on Antarctica. No matter what you do there is NO WAY to stop global warming. It's like you tried to stop wind from blowing, or rain from raining, or sun from shining.

If I tell you there's too much wind on earth and that could cause flu bacteria to move quickly between the continents, you would also buy it (as most of the society would). Then I would get money for "research" etc. which would be like throwing money into a garbage bin. But people like to waste money (or rather the media and politicians know how to make them do so).

You are young and you should think for yourself.

wow i never thought i'd meet someone who actually believe this

"Don't buy what politicians and other semi-experts tell you about global warming"

then why should we believe what you say, are you THE expert in this? can you really be confident enough and have enough scientifical, actual figures and stats to back your claims or are you so ignorant or naive or just wanting some attention.

i'm not sure what you have seen around here these days but i am pretty sure if you actually LOOK at the stats and numbers, the temperature of the earth itself has been increasing. Sure it goes up and down every x number of years but generally it has been going upwards. i.e. when the temperatures go up for certain years, it doesn't go down as much in others, so after a couple of thousand years, ie. now, its much worse than what it was a long time ago.

who said anything about selling ice from antarctica? even if they decided to, they wouldn't be able to sell anything because the ice would've all melted away by this so called "naturally occuring global warming"

I'm not sure what you've been watching or what world you have been living the past few years. and sure lets ignore all the talk from politicans and semi-experts. Then what about all the increasing number of environmental disasters and changes occuring around the world? I lived in Australia past 8 years and as each year went by, the avg temps increased and the rain became almost non-existent. At the moment in Korea, in the whole month I stayed here, it snowed twice. Thats never happened before in my life time. I used to see and play in the snow every weekend. Now its a miracle if I see any. What about all the increased number of strong tornados and cyclones, the increasing number of uncontrollable bushfires. The likes of flood occurring in an area which hasn't seen rain for couple of decades. Is this all "naturally occurring?" can you really say that you have not done anything to contribute to this? are you that ignorant to say that stop wasting money to save the planet that you are living in at this exact moment?

and what if global warming isnt a big problem as you say. Then why not spend some of your money to use less fossile fuel, save couple more trees and maybe give endangered spieces a chance to survive. The earth is much as ours as it is theirs, why don't you start caring and thinking about others than just yourself? Why can't we help the world for the sake of helping the world?

I realise this is long-winded rambling here but I've always wanted to meet someone like you and so nice to meet you

btw i would love to help you with your essay but i need a clearer question - like the requirements and what you're supposed to focus on so i can help develop your answers that way

I don't know that any of the debate over global warming is particularly relevant to the topic of the link between higher temperatures and natural disasters. However, if you want to shift the focus of your paper to deal with that debate, then here are some things you might want to consider.

1) We are currently living in the middle of an interglacial.
2) Global warming is much better than global cooling.
3) Most cost-benefit analysis indicates it would be far cheaper to adapt to global warming than it would be to try to prevent it.

You might also want to ask yourself what evidence you can find to support the idea that global warming is being driven by man-made CO2 emissions. Bear in mind that scientific consensus is not evidence. Neither are computer models in which half of the variables are guesstimates. I have no idea, personally, what evidence, if any, there is for this theory (not my area of expertise), and so take no stance either way. I do know that I have read a ton of articles on the topic, and not one has actually mentioned any tangible piece of evidence to support the idea of man-made global warming. Instead, the articles all tend to make use of heated emotional rhetoric.