I am so Glad to Have People in My Life Who Care

I was attending a cultural event at our university yesterday where Samir, a cinematic director with an Iraqi father and a Swiss mother, was presenting his latest work Iraqi Odyssey. The documentary is a tough pill to swallow, if you have a heart that is. It tells the tale of his family, how they …

Continue reading

Bénévolement à Zurich

Il y a beaucoup de demandeurs d’asile en Europe ces jours-ci, à cause de la conflictualité et la situation politique, au Proche-Orient. Quelques gens pensent, que les réfugiés doivent apprendre à s’adapter s’ils veulent rester dans leurs nouveaux pays. En même temps, il y a des autres comme moi, qui croient que …

Continue reading

Energy Conscious Behaviour


This short analysis on what would drive sustainable behaviour includes a short revision of antecedents to energy-efficient/pro-environmental behavioural intentions and these intentions in an interplay with possible behavioural implications.

Sustainable Behaviour Economics

Despite there having been amendments of the framework, the classical Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) and Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) as developed by Azjen and Fishbein (1975; 1980) explain how we form behavioural intentions from (1) attitudes, (2) subjective norms, and (3) perceived behavioural control (originating from self-efficacy theory).  Although TPB was developed based on TRA, for the purpose of his paper, we are going stick with the TPB. Using the model of TPB has accounted for around 1/3 of variance in actual behaviour (Armitage & Conner, 2001). By 2006, Conner has added two more variables in predicting behavioural intentions that I believe are relevant for this short investigation: (4) Anticipated Regret and (5) Moral Climate. Adding Anticipated Regret has been supported by Sandberg and Conner (2008). Other studies have shown that Moral Intensity has a moderating effect on environmental decision making intentions of managers (Flannery & May, 1999). A more recent study has seen Moral Norms as explaining 39% and 41% in recycling intentions and actual recycling behaviour (Chan & Bishop, 2013).

Although global warming, to some extent, does or will harm our health, the support of predictive power of the TPB model towards health-related behavioural intentions (Armitage & Conner, 2001) is not enough. A study on charitable behavioural intentions, shows the use of the TPB with moral norms, attitudes, perceived behavioral control and past behaviour significantly explaining around 70% of variance in charitable intent (van der Linden, 2011); the reason I bring charitable intent forward is that despite the idea that global warming represents a threat, it is a probable future threat, because individuals tend to discount future (Cabinet Office Behavioural Insights Team, 2011), which may probably not affect most humans – currently living – in any direct way. Hence, one may (as well) regard it more as a charitable behaviour, given the adequate queues, for individuals to reciprocate onto sustainable behaviour.

We shall just recognise some of the above (underlined) antecedents.

So what hinders us from saving our planet and our future selves?

Gifford (2011) claims that structural barriers like climate-averse infrastructure are to be removed wherever possible, but he himself believes this to be not sufficient either. He expands and says that psychological barriers also “impede behavioural choices that would facilitate mitigation, adaptation, and environmental sustainability”. Furthermore, he identifies the following 7 psychological barriers:

  1. limited cognition about the problem,
  2. ideological worldviews that tend to preclude pro-environmental attitudes and behaviour,
  3. comparisons with key other people,
  4. lower costs and behavioral momentum,
  5. discredence toward experts and authorities,
  6. perceived risks of change, and
  7. positive but inadequate behavior change.

A report by the British government has seen the following three barriers to energy efficient or pro-environmental behaviour:

  1. discounting the future,
  2. social norms, and
  3. defaults.

The barrier between environmental concern and pro-environemnetal behaviour was also well summarised by Blake’s Value Action Gap  from 1999 [reproduced from Kolmuss and Agyeman (2002)]:


Sure, benefits of pro-environmental behaviour are accrued over a long period of time and the costs associated with such behaviour performed now, are considered large. Because people who prefer smaller rewards today rather than larger rewards in the future, are they not being selfish? The idea is that a small reward now will benefit oneself in form of immediate cost-savings or personal ‘feel-goods’ and whatever little effect it has towards the outside world in the long-term, than larger pro-environmental commitments ensuring a smoother future for our children and children’s children extending itself to outer personal spheres. Well the preference of committing to a large-scale effort now, so that one’s children have it easier, may also be considered a personal preference, and hence also, selfish; but I reckon, considerably less than the former. Its says on the webpage of the EU commission for environment: “Sustainable Development stands for meeting the needs of present generations without jeopardizing the ability of futures generations to meet their own needs…” (EC, 2015). Here you have it. But some of us being very rational individuals, especially when it comes to being more energy efficient, one tends to objectively weigh costs and benefits – in the short-term – of investing precious resources like time and money into something to make our homes and lives more ‘green’ (Jackson, 2007). On the one hand there is a need of behavioural change without a 3rd-party reward system, like a voluntary behaviour change method that is “a change that occurs when individuals make choices for personal reward without a top-down mechanism, regulation of any sort, or a feeling of external compulsion” (Ampt, 2003), on the other hand, for those receptive to authoritarian methods, 3rd-party/government-led, top-down regulated measures are needed. For either methods, social marketing can be powerful.

To view some powerful guerrilla, spoof, digital or print social marketing ads, visit my Pinterest Board for Social Marketing. Models and theories and their uses in regard to behavioural change can be found here.

Either way, the barriers seem to match with the antecedents to behavioural intentions. We have attitudes that reflect concern but not enough for behaviour; we have subjective norms (that are based on our beliefs) influenced by social norms that promote other ideological views; we have the lack of perceived behavioural control and self-efficacy about pro-evironmental behaviour, firstly because we perceive our actions are futile, and secondly because we don’t believe to have the ability or other resources to achieve difference; we have anticipated regret of too much resources used without visible benefits; we do have past behaviours that wouldn’t reflect a very energy efficient use questioning the impact of a change in behaviour now; we do however have a moral climate that would suggest pro-environmental behaviour. At the end of the day, it seems to come down to, how your were raised, with whom you spend your social time, and mainly, how much resources you have available. Assuming some of these conditions are a given, let’s look at some sustainable energy systems.

Sustainable Energy Systems

Sustainable energy sources are now a constant buzz in the global community. But what  are they exactly?

All of this started to flourish when we ‘put a hole’ in the ozone layer, and greenhouse gases started to affect our climate. Read more about this in my previous blog post about global warming. Soon the idea of not pushing the (natural and already elevated) greenhouse effect even more through human activity (such as burning fossil fuels or deforestation) became more integral to our survival on this planet. This is when we came up with alternative, sustainable and/or renewable energy sources and systems. Following are the most prevalent:

  1. Anaerobic digestion: chemical dissolution of biodegradable material by bacteria
  2. Biofuels: is fuel that is derived from biological or organic materials
  3. Biomass: biological material derived from living, or recently living organisms
  4. Geothermal power: steam from reservoirs below the Earth’s surface
  5. Hydroelectricity: hydropower/gravitational force of falling or flowing water
  6. Solar energy: radiant light and heat from the sun
  7. Tidal power: hydropower that converts the energy of tides
  8. Wave power: transport of energy by ocean surface waves
  9. Wind power: extracted from air flow using wind turbines

Heat energy from modern renewable energy sources (like heat pumps, solar water heating, etc.) accounted for an approximate 4.2% of total final energy use; hydropower made up about 3.8%, and an estimated 2% was provided by power from wind, other solar sources, geothermal, and biomass, as well as by biofuels (REN21, 2014). Most of these energy systems are being technologically enhance day-by-day as we move forward towards an all renewable energy future. But we have a long way to go. The majority of our energy worldwide is still produced in power stations that burn coal, oil, and natural gases (all fossil fuels by the way) and some even from nuclear. But it’s not all bad news. An staggering 19% of all energy produced in 2012 was from renewable energy sources (10% modern, and  9% from biomass) and a 138 countries have policies in favour of renewable energy systems in place (REN21, 2014). Then again 2011 was a good year for investments into sustainable energy systems. This interactive map shows the  IEA/IRENA renewable energy sourcing targets for 2020 by country.

As previously mentioned, the removal of climate-averse infrastructure (like power plants) is one thing, but pro-active incentivising of (government) initiatives, tax-reductions, classroom based recycling, etc., are another must to fulfil the increasing demand of people to be sustainable. In the UK, The Renewable Heat Incentive scheme attempts to encourage people to be ‘green’ in their homes with the installation of renewable heating systems (Cabinet Office Behavioural Insights Team, 2011). The government could also force architects/civil engineers to comply with building regulatory instructions to build more insulated walls and buildings to preserve/deflect temperatures based on season. There are ways to employ top-down approaches to get individuals and business to behave more pro-environmentally, but many are seen as traditional methods and are looked down upon . These days, the individual man or woman and businesses have a lot more power.

What about on an individual level? Ever thought of getting solar panels fitted bags with charging stations inside? What about the fairphone instead of an iPhone? Did you count how many times Apple has changed their equipment, chargers inlets and other features not compatible with the very next version? Do buy at least a hybrid vehicle if not an electrical one, if the infrastructure of your city/community allows it. What about installing LED bulbs instead of incandescent ones? The latter are about 10 times more carbon emitting.  Or you could use a smartphone application like Green Outlet to estimate energy costs at home or other apps to control your thermostats at home. Are you sharing your processing power with super computers that are using the idle power to compute large data in fighting AIDS, cancer and space exploration? It seems almost that human curiosity and the need to know what lies beyond (what we even can grasp), and what follows current technological development, is very eminent, almost to an extent it being unbearable. We probably know more about the vastness of the observable universe – observable being the word – than the vast depths of our oceans. Do you realise how much energy is going into the development of new things, instead of stilling global hunger, defeating extreme poverty, beating cancer once and for all, or tackling the climate crisis?

The next post discusses Portable Technologies and Sustainability.

Works Cited

Ampt, E. (2003). Sustainable Development through Voluntary Behaviour Change. Travel Behaviour Research. Adelaide. Retrieved from http://helios.qwer.tk/~puk/wb/pdf/Sustainable_Development-Behaviour_Change.pdf

Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 471–499. http://doi.org/10.1348/014466601164939

Cabinet Office Behavioural Insights Team. (2011). Behaviour Change and Energy Use. London. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/48123/2135-behaviour-change-and-energy-use.pdf

Chan, L., & Bishop, B. (2013). A moral basis for recycling: Extending the theory of planned behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 96–102. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.07.010

EC. (2015). Sustainable Development – Environment. Retrieved April 26, 2015, from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/

Flannery, B. L., & May, D. R. (1999). AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF THE EFFECT OF MORAL INTENSITY ON ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICAL DECISION MAKING. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1999(1), B1–B6. http://doi.org/10.5465/APBPP.1999.27628081

Gifford, R. (2011). The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. American Psychologist, 66(4), 290–302. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0023566

Jackson, T. (2007). Motivating Sustainable Consumption: A Review of Evidence on Consumer Behaviour and Behavioural Change. London. Retrieved from http://www.sustainablelifestyles.ac.uk/sites/default/files/motivating_sc_final.pdf

Kollmuss, A. and Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behaviour? Environmental Education Research, 8(3): 239–60.

REN21. (2014). RENEWABLES 2014 GLOBAL STATUS REPORT. Paris. Retrieved from http://www.ren21.net/Portals/0/documents/Resources/GSR/2014/GSR2014_KeyFindings_low res.pdf

Sandberg, T., & Conner, M. (2008). Anticipated regret as an additionalpredictor in the theoryofplanned behaviour:A meta-analysis. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47(4), 589–606. http://doi.org/10.1348/014466607X258704

van der Linden, S. (2011). Charitable Intent: A Moral or Social Construct? A Revised Theory of Planned Behavior Model. Current Psychology, 30(4), 355–374. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-011-9122-1

Is Global Warming Real?


In short, yes, global warming is real. Read the current state of concerns, then a quick recap on the damage done to the ozone layer, and insights into the interplay of greenhouse gases, ice and the ocean.

2014-01-16 11.24.20

Ice and Future Livelihood

Alight, this is probably how earth is going to look like (video below), if sea levels rise by an approximate 65 meters (216 feet); this is destined to happen if global warming continues, accelerated by our carbon output. Research already shows that the melting of the ice at the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is in fact unstoppable (Rignot et al., 2014). This is apparently due to ocean water currents, especially the warm water circulation of ocean water beneath the ice, which keeps melting the ice that sits on bedrock that is below sea level (Rignot et al., 2014); and the warm water is believed to be penetrating these areas as an effect of the drastic climate change (Thompson, 2014). Especially the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, although considerably smaller than the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, is vulnerable because of this fact, and the complete dissolution may already result in a 3 meter increase in sea levels (Thompson, 2014) putting cities like Amsterdam, New York or Venice in immense jeopardy. Currently it is about 130 cubic kilometers of ice every year (ESA, 2013) and we will probably be feeling its effects already in the next 200 to 1000 years to come (Joughin et al., 2014); we are talking about our grandchildren and generations to come who will have to deal with the mess we have created. This is serious. We are not even going to talk about the conditions of when the East Antarctic Ice Sheet melts, as it contains 4/5 of all ice on this planet resulting in an unbelievable 65 meters increase (NatGeoSociety, 2013). I am merely going to mention altered deep sea currents, stronger hurricanes, new deserts, mass species extinction, unbearable heat and social upheaval if not even partial anarchy.


Although I am confident that in the decades to come we will find measures to slow down the warming more effectively and will probably be prepared for elevating sea-levels without it claiming millions, no – an approximated billion human lives living in coastal areas, we still have to act now, as individuals as well as together as humans who love their home planet. The efforts of Jason-3, the latest in a series of U.S.-European satellite missions that shall provide us with more insight on top of 23 years of data that already exists on global sea levels, will be helpful to understand how much we are affecting global climate change (Rasmussen, 2015). But why is this so important? Following is why.

A Short Overview on Global Warming

The idea behind the notion of global warming is that our planet is increasingly heating up, and as a result it derives  climate change. It roughly started with the human need to industrialise and develop beyond its own understanding. Whether or not China is the largest polluter now, Canada and the U.S. have the highest emissions per capita, or it was all initiated by the European industrial era that started in the 18th, took its toll mid-19th century (World Resources Institute, 2011), is irrelevant for our approach.

Despite the changes in atmospheric temperatures throughout the past 100’000 years, we are in an ‘interglacial’ period when CO2-levels are elevated (ESRL-NOAA, 2013), it is evident that current warming is not solely due to natural causes, but instead it seems humans are driving most of warming (NRC, 2010).

Lets look how we started to make things worse for us by using refrigerators and spray cans.

Ozone Depletion and Hole

Normally, our ozone layer, residing at the lower end of the stratosphere, would protect our troposphere (i.e. the crust-nearest part of the atmosphere/0-10km above sea level) and the biosphere (i.e. the surface where we live) from too much ‘intense’ radiation and the resulting heat being stored. Unfortunately for us, and quite ironically actually, back in the late 1920s, 2 chaps in order to prevent more fatalities from the use of refrigerants, were about to change the course of history: they came up with the ‘miracle’ compound Chlorofluorocarbon (CFCs) as a safe alternative. CFCs were then used as propellants in spray cans, in refrigeration units, solvents  and other cleaning agents (Welch, 2014). Massive amounts of CFC and other ozone-depleting gases – like halons, did bring about the largest hole within our atmosphere. Here is what happened:

1) In the stratosphere, the ozone layer that consists of ozones (O3), usually absorbs much of the ultraviolet (UV) radiation coming from radiation. These ozones are actually born from the interplay of Oxygen (O2) and UV.

2) The increased use of chemicals like CFCs and other ozone-depleting gases led for these gaseous compounds to enter the stratosphere.

3) CFCs exposed to UV, had the effect of chlorine (and in other cases bromine) broken apart from the compound. The now freely moving around chlorine/Cl1 strips away an oxygen atom from ozone/O3 reducing the ozone to an oxygen molecule/O2. The new compound Cl1O1 is then approached by an oxygen atom/O1 and it strips away the oxygen/O1 leaving behind an individual Cl1 and an oxygen molecule/O2. The chlorine is now free to destroy more ozone once again.

4) One single compound of CFC/one chlorine atom can destroy 100’000 ozone molecules (EPA, 2010).

It was only after 50 years, in the 1970s when CFC was declared a serious environmental threat, around the same time when the ozone depletion hypothesis was put forward . With holes in the layer, it does not only support an increase in heat that is let in and is trapped in our atmosphere, but these rays in form of radiation (i.e. UV, IR and other types of radiation, which are invisible to us) are dangerous to the living beings dwelling the surface of our planet causing cancer, cataracts, and damage to genetic material, if directly hit (ESRL-NOAA, 2014). And to top it all off, guess where the largest ozone layer hole is! Yes, exactly above the Antarctic, so the melting of the ice can begin. In 1984 the hole was barely there, and now it is as big as the Arctic itself and just above it; no, it’s not a coincidence.

Although most (i.e. 98%) of “the consumption of all ozone-depleting substances has now been phased out” since action has been taken from the mid-1980s (UNEP Ozone Secretariat, 2012, p. xi), the ozone hole over the Arctic, the CFC-alternatives and greenhouse gases are still here.

Watch video about the ozone hole over the arctic.

It seems, that the hole is not the end of our world. But we did this, and our planet has o recuperate. And by recuperation, I mean the planet seeks way to balance out the imbalance we have created. Hasn’t she always done that? So now that we know how we caused long-term damage to the ozone layer, lets look specifically at what the melting brings and how it is promoted by GHG. Only because her ways doesn’t mean we have to push her, right?

The Greenhouse Effect and Ocean Conveyor Belt

When Earth gets energy in form of heat from the sun, it manages to balance how much should stay and be stored, and how much ought to be released back into the atmosphere; or at least this was the case until we, humans embarked on our own, separate mission. Larger reflective surfaces like the ice caps, glaciers or clouds throw back around 30% of the energy into the atmosphere (Riebeek, 2010). But with the constant melting even this capacity is being compromised. And in the end, everything that is not reflected is ‘stored’, usually by oceans, land and the atmosphere and is known as the “natural greenhouse effect” that keeps our planet at comfortable temperatures (Riebeek, 2010; EPA, 2014). As the rocks and sand, seas and air warm, and eventually release heat, a considerable amount never makes it into the vastness of the atmosphere. This is because of greenhouse gases (GHGs) that bind and trap the energy. GHGs are “gaseous compounds in the atmosphere that are capable of absorbing IR, thereby trapping and holding heat in the atmosphere” (Lallanilla, 2015). About 90% of all human-produced heat trapped by greenhouse gases are additionally absorbed by the oceans, as they are vast and have high heat storing capacity (Levitus et al, 2012). Thus, what is leading to the unusual warming of our planet are the human-amassed long-lived GHGs in our atmosphere that either trap the reflected or the stored-and-released heat. These GHG molecules keep the heat alive like “tiny heaters” do (Riebeek, 2010). Melting ice flowing into the oceans and warming oceans are not to be taken lightly. This affects the thermohaline circulation tremendously. From thermo (heat) and haline (salt), two factors that influence density, these massive deep underwater currents move constantly from north to south and back again in a particular pattern around the globe (UCAR, 2011; NatGeoEdu, 2015). They move around the water, and turn it over in the entire ocean, upside down; this is “somewhat like a giant conveyor belt, moving warm surface waters downward and forcing cold, nutrient-rich waters upward” (NatGeoEdu, 2015). We have less nutrients from deep water being mixed into warmer surface due to lack of CO2 in deep waters that algae use for their photosynthetic processes, the first link in a very vast food chain and biological carbon circulation. These algae are consumed by plankton, further up the food chain, some animals would release the CO2 back into the atmosphere. The proliferation of these algae though is higher than the  consumption of algae by the zooplankton, leaving the algae, after having used all the nutrients, to die and sink to the bottom of the sea with CO2 bound to their cells (Lighthouse Foundation, 2013). This directly affects ocean nutrient distribution, all marine life, land fauna that depends on fishes, and global climate. Just to emphasise the sizes we are tapping into, a current e.g. the Antarctic Circumpolar Current is so large, that it moves more water than all rivers of our planet combined, and now take into account the faster melting Antarctic sea ice making sea water less denser, and you may draw the picture yourself.

Now, how does it all fit together? For once we have the capacity of oceans to hold CO2 reduced, as the oceans warm up; we have cold ice waters messing with deep water formation in polar waters as it is released on the surface from the melting; so oceans are heating up because of various factors like melting of ice, and greenhouse gases being absorbed threading the ecosystem of currents, living beings and climate.

It seems we contributed so much GHGs into our atmosphere that it is affecting the climate in our entire biosphere. The most controversial of these GHGs we have been adding so enthusiastically into our atmosphere are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). Compared to the pre-industrial period, the CO2 concentrations are 40% higher at current state (EPA, 2014), and at an all-time high compared to the past 800’000 years (NRC, 2010). Methane levels are at a soaring 250% since the pre-industrial era, and N2O at 118% (Solomon, 2007). While methane is 21 times more efficient at absorbing heat rather than CO2, methane only lasts 10 years in the atmosphere compared to centuries CO2 can last (Lallanilla, 2015).  In the past few decades, they have already made their effects clear in increasing water and air temperatures around the globe. It is however burning of fossil fuels and change in lands such as deforestation that have caused the most disruptions (EPA, 2014).

Here are some extended measures recommended by the EPA or by the NRDC that can be undertaken to prevent higher production of GHGs. More about the imbalance of Energy coming into our atmosphere and leaving it can be read on EPA’s Climate Change page.

To wrap things up…

If are you driving a car that uses fuel, always buy the latest gimmicks and gadgets, leave the heating on at home all day long to keep your room warm and cozy, buy non-biodegradable products that requires them to be burned or some other source of energy to put it away, or even eat meat, you are most probably supporting, and by supporting I mean disregarding, global warming and climate change, or at the least giving it a low priority. Remember, it is increased demand that will cause greater supply. Hence, with every new product you buy, or service your hire, think whether you are guilty of adding to what is already a mess.

The next blog post talks about what we can do to fight it in the new era of technology.

Works Cited

Earth System Research Laboratory – NOAA. (2013). CO2 at NOAA’s Mauna Loa Observatory reaches new milestone: Tops 400 ppm. Retrieved April 25, 2015, from http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/news/7074.html

Earth System Research Laboratory – NOAA. (2014). Stratospheric Ozone Layer Depletion and Recovery. Retrieved April 25, 2015, from http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/research/themes/o3/

EPA. (2010). The Process of Ozone Depletion | Ozone Layer Protection. Retrieved April 25, 2015, from http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/process.html

EPA. (2014). Causes of Climate Change. Retrieved April 25, 2015, from http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html#ref1

ESA. (2013). Antarctica’s Ice Loss on the Rise. Retrieved April 25, 2015, from http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/CryoSat/Antarctica_s_ice_loss_on_the_rise

Joughin, I., Smith, B. E., & Medley, B. (2014). Marine ice sheet collapse potentially under way for the Thwaites Glacier Basin, West Antarctica. Science (New York, N.Y.), 344(6185), 735–8. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1249055

Lallanilla, M. (2015). Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Causes & Sources. Retrieved April 25, 2015, from http://www.livescience.com/37821-greenhouse-gases.html

Levitus, S., Antonov, J. I., Boyer, T. P., Baranova, O. K., Garcia, H. E., Locarnini, R. A., … Zweng, M. M. (2012). World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0-2000 m), 1955-2010. Geophysical Research Letters, 39(10). http://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL051106

Foundation Lighthouse. (2013). The Greenhouse Effect and the Oceans. Retrieved April 26, 2015, from http://www.lighthouse-foundation.org/index.php?id=107&L=1

National Geographic Education. (2015). Ocean Conveyor Belt. Retrieved April 26, 2015, from http://education.nationalgeographic.com/education/encyclopedia/ocean-conveyor-belt/?ar_a=1

National Geographic Society. (2013). Rising Seas – Interactive: If All The Ice Melted. Retrieved April 25, 2015, from http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/09/rising-seas/if-ice-melted-map

NRC (2010). Advancing the Science of Climate Change. National Research Council. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA.

Thompson, A. (2014). Melt of Key Antarctic Glaciers “Unstoppable,” Studies Find | Climate Central. Retrieved April 24, 2015, from http://www.climatecentral.org/news/melt-of-key-antarctic-glaciers-unstoppable-studies-find-17426

Rasmussen, C. (2015). Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Jason-3 will add to record of the sea’s rise and fall. Retrieved April 25, 2015, from http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2274/

Riebeek, H. (2010). NASA – Earth Observatory – Global Warming. Retrieved April 25, 2015, from http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page2.php

Rignot, E., Mouginot, J., Morlighem, M., Seroussi, H., & Scheuchl, B. (2014). Widespread, rapid grounding line retreat of Pine Island, Thwaites, Smith, and Kohler glaciers, West Antarctica, from 1992 to 2011. Geophysical Research Letters, 41(10), 3502–3509. http://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL060140

Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, R.B. Alley, T. Berntsen, N.L. Bindoff, Z. Chen, A. Chidthaisong, J.M. Gregory, G.C. Hegerl, M. Heimann, B. Hewitson, B.J. Hoskins, F. Joos, J. Jouzel, V. Kattsov, U. Lohmann, T. Matsuno, M. Molina, N. Nicholls, J. Overpeck, G. Raga, V. Ramaswamy, J. Ren, M. Rusticucci, R. Somerville, T.F. Stocker, P. Whetton, R.A. Wood and D. Wratt (2007). Technical Summary. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis . Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

UCAR. (2011). Melting Arctic Sea Ice and Ocean Circulation | UCAR Center for Science Education. Retrieved April 26, 2015, from http://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/melting-arctic-sea-ice-and-ocean-circulation

UNEP Ozone Secretariat. (2012). Handbook for the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer – Ninth Edition (2012). Montreal.

Welch, C. (2014). The Ozone Hole-Chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs. Retrieved April 25, 2015, from http://www.theozonehole.com/cfc.htm

World Resources Institute. (2011). CAIT 2.0: WRI’s climate data explorer. Retrieved April 25, 2015, from http://cait2.wri.org/wri/Country GHG Emissions?indicator[]=Total GHG Emissions Excluding Land-Use Change and Forestry&indicator[]=Total GHG Emissions Including Land-Use Change and Forestry&year[]=2011&sortIdx=1&sortDir=desc&chartType=geo

  • Subscribe to Blog

    Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts.

    Join 4 other subscribers