Mile High Top Sites ®™

Fuel costs and global warming are becoming a bigger concern for people in their daily lives. If you are considering going green, wind is an energy platform with a lot of positives.

Reasons Wind Power Is a Viable Energy Solution

Using the wind to harness energy from our environment is hardly a new concept. Ancient Persians are believed to have been the first group to use windmills to turn grain grinding machines. The Dutch, of course, are also famous for their windmills and so on. In modern days, however, wind energy platforms are much more refined and used primarily for energy production.

To get energy from wind, we must focus on a concept known as kinetic energy. Do to micro-climate situations, wind is produced fairly readily in a natural process. The sun heats the ground, but does so at different rates. In areas where the ground is heated faster, the air rises as temperatures go up. Air from cooler surrounding areas then rushes in to fill the gap.

We then convert it into usable electricity by catching it with wind turbines. The wind is caught by the blades of a spinner, which turns, cranks a generator and electricity is produced. This process is natural and simple, but produces a monstrous amount of energy. If we could harness all the wind in the world, we would have more than 10 times the amount of energy we need for the entire globe. Of course, harnessing it is the problem. There are a number of reasons why wind power is part of our energy solution.

Why Wind Power Is a Viable Energy Solution?

• First, it produces no pollution or greenhouse gases.
• Second, it is renewable and will last for as long as our son – about another four billion years.
• Third, wind energy is available in practically any country, which means no reliance on foreign sources.
• Fourth, wind power produces more jobs per watt produced than all other energy platforms, including oil and coal.

Wind power is growing in use and popularity in places such as Germany and China. In the United States, California has three large wind farms that are used to provide power during massive energy use periods in the summer. The process is viable, but we must accept it and pursue better technology to wring the most out of the huffing and puffing of Mother Nature.

MANY scientists from around the world believe that global warming is here and that it will continue to worsen as developing countries push forward in industrial development. Some three billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) are spewed out annually into the global atmosphere through the burning of fuels, such as coal, oil, and wood, for energy, and through deforestation burning.

According to some scientists, the so-called greenhouse effect, resulting from the gases of fuel combustion, threatens to warm the atmosphere 3 to 8 degrees Fahrenheit by the middle of the next century. This increase would be fatal to corals and the reef communities.

But the death of the coral reefs would also adversely affect terrestrial life. Natural History magazine observed: “The coral reefs, however, are themselves key players in the greenhouse scenario and may be as important as tropical rain forests in reducing greenhouse gases. As they deposit calcium carbonate for their skeletons, corals remove a large volume of CO2 from the oceans. Without zooxanthellae [coral’s symbiotic-resident algae], the amount of carbon dioxide corals metabolize is drastically reduced. Ironically, damage to this undersea ecosystem could accelerate the very process that hastens its demise.”

Some scientists believe that other gases released by combustion add to the greenhouse effect.

Nitrous oxide for one, and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) for another. In fact, each CFC molecule is 20,000 times as efficient at trapping heat as one molecule of CO2. CFCs have also been targeted as the main cause for the thinning of the ozone layer, which protects life on earth from harmful ultraviolet rays. The ozone at the North Pole and the South Pole has thinned sufficiently to cause holes. That is more bad news for corals. Experiments exposing miniature coral reefs that were already stressed by warm water to tiny increases in ultraviolet light aggravated bleaching. The magazine Scientific American ruefully observed: “Even if chlorofluorocarbon emissions stopped today, chemical reactions causing the destruction of stratospheric ozone would continue for at least a century. The reason is simple: the compounds remain that long in the atmosphere and would continue to diffuse into the stratosphere from the tropospheric reservoir long after emissions had ceased.”

On a personal level, individuals can act responsibly by not contaminating the oceans or coastal areas with litter or pollutants. If you visit a reef, follow instructions not to touch or stand on coral. Don’t take or buy coral souvenirs. If boating near tropical reefs, set anchor on sandy bottoms or floating moorings supplied by marine authorities. Don’t speed or churn up the bottom with your boat propeller.

Don’t discharge boat sewage into the ocean; find docks and marinas that will accept it. Bill Causey, manager of the Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary (Florida, U.S.A.), noted: “Man is probably creating the problem that causes the imbalance. We have to become conscious of it globally. If we continue to heighten public awareness of the threat of losing a major ecosystem, then maybe we can change things.”

On a regional level, laws to protect coral reefs are being passed and enforced. The state of Florida sues owners of ships that damage its reefs. The owners of a freighter that plowed up several acres of coral when it ran aground paid a $6-million fine. Part of the money was used to restore the marine habitat. Presently, using special adhesives, biologists are attempting to reattach coral that was damaged by a ship in 1994. Another fine, of $3.2 million, was levied against a company for damages done to a Florida reef by one of its freighters. Other countries are enacting similar sanctions. Popular sites for diving, such as the Cayman Islands in the Caribbean, have limited areas where diving is permitted. Australia created its Great Barrier Reef Marine Park to control activities there. But as all have seen, the more divers, the more damage to the reefs.

Will All Nations Join the Fight?

On a global level, alarmed scientists and leaders conclude that the solution is beyond one nation or even a group of nations. Pollution is carried around the globe by circling currents of air and water, impacting the reefs. Individual nations have no jurisdiction beyond their territorial waters. Pollutants dumped on the high seas eventually end up on the shores. A unified global effort and solution are needed.

No doubt many sincere and capable people in the world will continue to struggle to save earth’s awesome coral treasures. A world government that is sensitive to and cares for earth’s environment is clearly and desperately needed.

Happily, the Creator himself will rescue the global environment. When God made the first humans, he said: “Let them have in subjection the fish [and all marine life] of the sea.” (Genesis 1:26) Since God didn’t abuse or exploit marine life, his mandate to mankind must have meant that man should care for the global environment.

The Bible foretells: “There are new heavens [God’s heavenly Kingdom] and a new earth that we are awaiting according to his promise, and in these righteousness is to dwell.” (2 Peter 3:13) In the near future, that heavenly government will completely cleanse this polluted earth, including its oceans. Then, citizens of God’s Kingdom will care for and enjoy the beautiful oceans and their marine inhabitants to the full.

Climate Modeling

If earth’s temperature is rising—no matter what the cause or causes—how will it affect us and the environment? Precise predictions are hard to make. Nowadays, though, scientists have access to powerful computers, which they use to create digital simulations of the climate system. Incorporated into their models are the laws of physics, climate data, and natural phenomena that influence climate.

Simulations enable scientists to experiment with climate in ways that are otherwise impossible. For instance, they can “change” solar output to see how this affects polar ice, air and sea temperatures, evaporation rates, atmospheric pressure, cloud formation, wind, and rainfall. They can “create” volcanic eruptions and examine the effects of volcanic dust on weather. And they can examine the effects of human population growth, deforestation, land use, changes in the emission of greenhouse gases, and so on. Scientists hope that their models will progressively become more accurate and reliable.

How precise are present models?

Much, of course, depends on the accuracy of the data and the amount of it fed into the machines. Hence, climate projections vary from the mild to the catastrophic. Even so, says Science, “surprises could spring from the [natural] climate system.” And some already have, such as the unusually rapid rate of Arctic melting, which has amazed many climatologists. Still, even if policymakers had only a rough idea of the consequences of present action or inaction, they could make decisions today that might reduce problems tomorrow.

With that possibility in mind, the IPCC examined six different sets of computer-simulated scenarios—ranging from unrestricted greenhouse-gas production to business as usual to severe restraint—each producing different climatic and environmental results.

In the light of the predictions, analysts urge a variety of measures. These include mandatory limits on fossil-fuel emissions, penalties for offenders, more nuclear power generation, and the introduction of more environmentally friendly technologies.

Are the Models Reliable?

Present forecasting methods “oversimplify poorly understood climate processes” and “simply ignore others,” say critics. They also point to the inconsistencies in computed projections. One scientist who participated in the IPCC discussions said: “There are some of us who remain so humbled by the task of measuring and understanding the extraordinarily complex climate system that we are skeptical of our ability to know what it is doing and why.”

Some would argue, of course, that using an element of doubt as justification for doing nothing is gambling with the future. “How would we explain this to our children?” they say. Whether the climate models are accurate or not, we can be certain that the earth is in serious trouble. Its life-sustaining environment is being assaulted by pollution, deforestation, urbanization, and the extinction of species, to name just a few factors that no one can successfully dispute.

In view of what we know, can we expect mankind as a whole to make an about-face so as to spare our beautiful home—and us too? What is more, if human activity is causing global warming, we may have only years, not centuries, to make the needed changes.

At the very least, making such changes would mean promptly addressing the root causes of earth’s problems—human greed, self-interest, ignorance, inept government, and apathy.

WHEN a car is well maintained, it can provide safe transportation. But that vehicle when abused and neglected can be dangerous. In some respects, the same may be said of planet Earth.

In the opinion of a number of scientists, human-induced changes in earth’s atmosphere and oceans have made our planet a dangerous place by contributing to more frequent and more severe natural disasters. And the future looks uncertain. “We’re in the middle of a large uncontrolled experiment on the only planet we have,” said an editorial on climate change in Science magazine.

So that we can better grasp how human activity might be affecting the frequency and severity of natural disasters, we need to understand a little about the underlying natural phenomena.

For example, what causes severe storms, such as hurricanes, to form?

Planetary Heat Exchangers

Earth’s climate system has been likened to a machine that converts and distributes solar energy. Because the Tropics get most of the sun’s heat, the resulting temperature imbalance sets the atmosphere in motion. Earth’s daily rotation causes this mass of moving, moist air to form eddies, some becoming depressions, or areas of low atmospheric pressure. Depressions, in turn, may develop into storms.

If you observe the general path of tropical storms, you will notice that they tend to move away from the equator—either north or south—toward cooler regions. In doing so, storms also serve as massive heat exchangers, helping to moderate the climate. But when the temperature in the upper level of the ocean—the “boiler room” of the climate machine—exceeds about 80 degrees Fahrenheit [27°C], tropical storms may acquire enough energy to become cyclones, hurricanes, or typhoons—regional names for essentially the same phenomena.

In terms of lives lost, the worst natural disaster in U.S. history resulted from a hurricane that slammed into the island city of Galveston, Texas, on September 8, 1900. Storm waves claimed between 6,000 and 8,000 lives in the city, plus up to 4,000 in nearby areas, and demolished some 3,600 houses. In fact, not one man-made structure in Galveston remained unscathed.

As mentioned in the preceding article, there have been a number of powerful storms in recent years. Scientists are studying whether this is linked to global warming, which may be providing more energy to storm systems. Changes in the weather, however, may be just one symptom of global warming. Another potentially harmful consequence may already be in evidence.

Rising Sea Levels and Deforestation

According to an editorial in the journal Science, “sea levels have risen 10 to 20 centimeters [four to eight inches] in the past century, and more is in store for us.” How might this be related to global warming? Researchers point to two possible mechanisms. One is the prospect of the melting of land-based polar ice and glaciers, which would add to the volume of the oceans. The other factor is thermal expansion—as oceans become warmer, their volume increases.

The tiny Pacific islands of Tuvalu may already be experiencing the effects of rising sea levels. Smithsonian magazine notes that data collected on the atoll of Funafuti shows that the sea level there has risen “an average of 0.22 inches [5.6 mm] annually over the past decade.” In many parts of the world, population growth means more urban sprawl, more shantytowns, and more environmental degradation. These developments may tend to magnify the severity of natural disasters. Consider some examples.

Haiti is an island nation with a high population and a history of deforestation. A recent news report suggested that as bad as Haiti’s economic, political, and social problems may be, nothing threatens the country’s existence more than deforestation. This threat became tragically evident in 2004, when torrential rains caused mud slides that claimed thousands of lives.

Time Asia points to “global warming, dams, deforestation and slash-and-burn farming” as exacerbating factors in the natural disasters that have plagued South Asia. At the other extreme, deforestation can worsen drought by causing soil to dry out more quickly. In recent years, droughts in Indonesia and Brazil have paved the way for record-breaking fires in forests that are normally too wet to burn. Extreme weather, however, is by no means the only cause of natural disasters. Many lands are subject to disasters that are generated deep inside the earth.

When the Ground Convulses

Earth’s outer crust is made up of plates of various sizes that move in relation to one another. Indeed, there is so much movement in the crust that several million earthquakes may occur each year. Of course, many of these go undetected.

It is said that about 90 percent of all earthquakes occur along faults at the perimeter of plates. Although rare, sometimes very destructive quakes also occur within the plates. According to estimates, the deadliest quake in recorded history was one that struck three provinces in China in the year 1556.

It may have claimed as many as 830,000 lives!

Quakes can also have lethal aftereffects. For example, on November 1, 1755, a quake flattened the city of Lisbon, Portugal, which had a population of 275,000. But that was not the end of the horror. The quake caused fires and also tsunamis estimated to be up to 50 feet [15 m] high, which raced in from the nearby Atlantic Ocean. All told, the city’s death toll exceeded 60,000.

Again, however, the scale of such disasters hinges to some extent on the human element. One factor is population density in high-risk areas.

“Nearly half the world’s big cities now lie in areas of seismic risk,” says author Andrew Robinson. Another factor is buildings—the materials used and the structural quality. The adage, “Earthquakes don’t kill people; buildings do,” is all too often proved true. But what choice do people have when they are too poor to build earthquake-resistant structures?

Volcanoes—Builders and Destroyers

“At least 20 volcanoes will probably be erupting as you read these words,” states a report by the Smithsonian Institute in the United States. Broadly speaking, the theory of plate tectonics says that earthquakes and volcanoes will occur in similar regions—in rifts, especially oceanic rifts; in earth’s crust, where magma rises from the mantle through fissures; and at subduction zones, where one plate plunges under another.

Subduction volcanism is the biggest threat to people in terms of both the number of eruptions observed and their occurrence near populated areas. The Pacific Rim, dubbed the Ring of Fire, is peppered with hundreds of such volcanoes. A small number are also found at hot spots away from plate boundaries. The Hawaiian Islands, the Azores, the Galápagos Islands, and the Society Islands all appear to be the product of hot-spot volcanism.

Actually, volcanoes have played a long and constructive role in earth’s history.

According to a university Web site, as much as “90% of all the continents and ocean basins are the product of volcanism.”

But what causes some eruptions to be extremely violent?

Eruptions begin with an upwelling of magma from earth’s hot interior. Some volcanoes simply ooze lava, which seldom moves fast enough to catch people by surprise. But others explode with more energy than a nuclear bomb! The underlying factors include the composition and viscosity of the molten material that feeds the volcano and the amount of gases and superheated water dissolved in that material. As the magma nears the surface, captured water and gas rapidly expand. With the right magma composition, the effect is much like soda that blasts from an opened beverage can.

Fortunately, volcanoes often give advance warning of an eruption. Such was the case with Mount Pelée on the Caribbean island of Martinique in 1902. An election was imminent in nearby St. Pierre, however, and politicians encouraged the people to stay, despite the ash, sickness, and fear that pervaded the city. In fact, most shops had been shut for days!

May 8 was Ascension Day, and many people went to the Catholic cathedral to pray for deliverance from the volcano. That morning, shortly before 8:00 a.m., Mount Pelée erupted, venting a searing mass of pyroclasts—ash, cinders, obsidian, pumice, and superheated gas—that ranged from 400 to 900 degrees Fahrenheit [200-500°C]. Hugging the ground, the resulting dark cloud of death rushed down the mountain, overwhelmed the city, killed almost 30,000 people, melted the church bell, and set fire to the ships in the harbor. It was the deadliest eruption of the 20th century. Yet, it would not have been so deadly if the people had heeded the warning signs.

Will Natural Disasters Increase?

In their World Disasters Report 2004, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies states that during the past decade, geophysical and weather-related disasters have increased by over 60 percent. “This reflects longer-term trends,” says the report, which was published before the catastrophic December 26 tsunamis in the Indian Ocean. To be sure, if populations in high-risk areas continue to climb and forests continue to decline, there is little cause for optimism.
Additionally, many industrialized countries continue to pump ever more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. According to an editorial in the journal Science, procrastinating on emissions reduction “is like refusing medication for a developing infection: It guarantees that greater costs will have to be paid later.”

Pointing to those costs, a Canadian report on disaster mitigation stated: “Climate change can be argued to be the most pervasive and far-reaching environmental issue ever dealt with by the international community.”

At present, however, the international community cannot even agree on whether human activities contribute to global warming, let alone how to manage it. This situation calls to mind the Biblical truth: “It does not belong to man . . . even to direct his step.” (Jeremiah 10:23)

Solar power has long been a minor power source compared to mighty oil. As oil prices rise and conflicts occur in oil countries, perhaps the issue needs to be revisited.

Solar vs. Oil

The industrial revolution was built on the back of oil and coal. There is no denying that solar played no part whatsoever. This is particularly true since solar cells were not invented until the 1950s! That being said, it appears indisputable that we have reached or are approaching a new debate about how we deal with our insatiable thirst for power.

At first glance, the mere mention of a comparison of solar to oil as an energy source sounds laughable. It is laughable when we are talking about large scale energy production, but the tide is turning.

In a comparison of solar to oil, solar power has numerous advantages. The power source for solar, the sun, is free. Solar is available as a resource in every country, regardless of location, economic strength and so on since the sun shines everywhere. The process of converting sunlight into electricity or heating produces no greenhouse gases. Whether you believe in global warming or not, solar still is advantageous in that it doesn’t produce pollution. If you live in a big city, you know how much pollution is in the air. You can often see it!

Flipping the coin, oil has some serious advantages over solar. We have already developed technology to efficiently convert oil to power. The cost of converting industry, vehicles and such to solar or any other power source would be huge. Oil also has an advantage in that it is easier to use in a wide variety of applications, such as vehicles. One simply can’t power a vehicle with solar power, not on a practical level. Finally, it is easier to use oil to provide power to massive energy platforms, such as electricity for New York City.

Are You For Solar Power Or Oil?

• Yes! - I'm For Solar Power!
• No! - I'm For Oil!

View Results

 Loading ...

For large scale energy needs, oil is still a superior choice to solar as an energy resource. The technology simply does not exist to provide solar energy solutions for vehicles, national electrical grid systems and so on. Advancements in solar technology, however, may be changing this fact in the very near future. Technologies such as quantum dots, essentially microscopic solar panels that could exist in the paint on your home, may make oil a thing of the past.

For now, oil remains the backbone upon which our energy needs sit. In the next 5, 10 or 20 years, however, new technological applications may change this. Don’t believe me? Then consider the fact oil companies such as Chevron are investing heavily in solar companies.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Air Travel

Air travel has become very popular in the last few decades. There are a wide variety of reasons that have contributed to the increase in popularity including convenience and safety.  The following are some of the positive and negative factors involving air travel.

Disadvantage: Airplanes Cause Pollution

The major shortcoming of air travel is the pollution caused by it. Emission of greenhouse gases by the airplanes into our atmosphere results in things like global warming. Global warming increases the average temperature of the earth’s atmosphere and people who want to avoid such a rise in temperature are alarmed by this effect.  ) Many airlines are trying to become more environmentally conscious these days.  One of the ways in which this is achieved by many of these airlines is to retrofit winglet devices that make the aircraft fuel efficient.  In addition, many airlines have started upgrading their fleet of aero planes to modern fuel efficient aircraft by spending millions of dollars.

Disadvantage: High Cost

One major disadvantage in traveling by air is its cost. You may be able to travel by car to many destinations at a very cheap price as compared to traveling by flight. You can take advantage of discount
airline travel to obviate the high cost of travel by air. Ultimate decision for flying or driving is dependent on whether you get a good deal on the airfare or not.

Disadvantage: Fear of Flying

Many people avoid flying for specific reasons. If anyone has travelled in a flight which has hit an air pocket you will see that they have gone through a lot of rough weather due to turbulence and this can be rather terrifying. 

Advantage: Speed of Travel

One of the greatest pros about air travel is that it provides the ability to get you where you need to go much faster than other forms of transportation.  Flying between two destinations in United States which are connected by air takes a few hours whereas going by car between these destinations might take a number of days. The savings obtained in this mode of air travel gives you an opportunity to enjoy your vacation for a longer period.

Advantage: Easy to Travel Long Distances

It is possible to cover long distances by flight in a reasonably short time whereas it is difficult to cover far off destinations by other modes of transportation.

We can fly to any destination around the world. In the event of your opting for other modes of transportation you will find the travel time is quite long as compared to flying between these destinations.

How Often Would You Like To Travel By Airlines?

• All The Time
• Sometimes
• Hardly Ever
• Never

View Results

 Loading ...

Advantage: Safety

It has been found in general that air travel is the safest form of travel as compared to other travel modes. Each year thousands of deadly car crashes happen.  Similarly, there is no dearth of train accidents. As regards to air travel related accidents you will find that the frequency of occurrences is relatively minimal. Decision making on the mode of travel has been very easy for many people who consider safety as the main factor for opting to fly.

Choosing air travel is a personal decision, based on the factors discussed above along with a multitude factors not discussed here.  For most travelers safety, speed of travel and cost are the over riding factors.  As long as cost remains affordable air travel will continue to grow in popularity.

Save Up to 50% - 75% Discounts on Airfare! - Save 50% -75% on Hotel Stays! - Free First Class Upgrades! - Deeply Discounted Rental Cars! - Cruises for $35/Day! - Learn More NOW! - Click Here!