The United States emitted nearly 1 percent more greenhouse gases in 2005 than it did in 2004, according to an emissions inventory from the Environmental Protection Agency. From 1990 to 2005, the country's greenhouse-gas emissions rose 16.3 percent.http://LOUIS-J-SHEEHAN-ESQUIRE.US
The leading greenhouse gases released in the United States are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. In 2005, the combined output of these gases was equivalent to the emission of 7,260 billion kilograms of carbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide discharged by fossil fuel combustion accounted for 79 percent of the 2005 total. Forty-one percent of this carbon dioxide was from electricity generation, and 33 percent came from ground and air transportation, the agency reported on April 15. http://LOUIS-J-SHEEHAN-ESQUIRE.US
Landfills, coal mining, and natural gas systems are the major human-caused sources of methane, while nitrous oxide arises mainly from fertilizer applications and other farming practices, along with the burning of fuel for transportation. Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
expertise 882.exp.20 Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire
Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire. A small brain area often treated as solely responsible for face recognition actually fosters expertise at identifying items in any category a person strives to master, from birds to cars to made-up stuff, a new study finds.
http://www.theenvironmentsite.org/forum/members/louis-j-sheehan-esquire.html
Earlier investigations found that viewing faces activates a section of the visual cortex located near the back of the brain's outer layer. The most pronounced neural responses appear on the right side of the structure, called the fusiform face area, or FFA.
Activity there similarly surges as volunteers peruse whatever objects or creatures they know a lot about, say psychologist Isabel Gauthier of Vanderbilt University in Nashville and her colleagues. This brain response occurred in 11 car buffs as they examined successive pictures of vehicles of different makes and models and in 8 bird aficionados as they inspected images of different avian species, the scientists assert.
http://www.theenvironmentsite.org/forum/members/louis-j-sheehan-esquire.html
Neither car experts viewing bird species nor bird experts viewing various cars showed such FFA action. In both groups, however, FFA activity also rose markedly as volunteers looked at pictures of familiar objects, such as a chair and a television set, Gauthier's group reports in the February Nature Neuroscience. The researchers used functional magnetic resonance imaging devices to measure the extent of magnetic signal changes—an indirect sign of rising or falling cell activity—in three brain areas thought to support face recognition.
In a related study led by Gauthier, published in the June 1999 Nature Neuroscience, volunteers practiced placing members of an imaginary group—dubbed greebles by the researchers and consisting of plantlike objects with slightly varying shapes—into families. People who excelled at this task displayed elevated FFA activity during ensuing attempts at identifying pairs of matching greebles.
The organization of neurons in and around the FFA supports the recognition of defining configurations of any category's members if a person has had enough experience with that category, the researchers theorize. In their view, this unconscious process precludes the need to consider numerous features for, say, each face or object.
Scrutiny of different faces begins shortly after birth and thus may strongly influence FFA function by adulthood, the researchers hold. This influence need not reflect an innate capacity for face recognition in the FFA, as suggested by some scientists.
http://www.theenvironmentsite.org/forum/members/louis-j-sheehan-esquire.html
Earlier investigations found that viewing faces activates a section of the visual cortex located near the back of the brain's outer layer. The most pronounced neural responses appear on the right side of the structure, called the fusiform face area, or FFA.
Activity there similarly surges as volunteers peruse whatever objects or creatures they know a lot about, say psychologist Isabel Gauthier of Vanderbilt University in Nashville and her colleagues. This brain response occurred in 11 car buffs as they examined successive pictures of vehicles of different makes and models and in 8 bird aficionados as they inspected images of different avian species, the scientists assert.
http://www.theenvironmentsite.org/forum/members/louis-j-sheehan-esquire.html
Neither car experts viewing bird species nor bird experts viewing various cars showed such FFA action. In both groups, however, FFA activity also rose markedly as volunteers looked at pictures of familiar objects, such as a chair and a television set, Gauthier's group reports in the February Nature Neuroscience. The researchers used functional magnetic resonance imaging devices to measure the extent of magnetic signal changes—an indirect sign of rising or falling cell activity—in three brain areas thought to support face recognition.
In a related study led by Gauthier, published in the June 1999 Nature Neuroscience, volunteers practiced placing members of an imaginary group—dubbed greebles by the researchers and consisting of plantlike objects with slightly varying shapes—into families. People who excelled at this task displayed elevated FFA activity during ensuing attempts at identifying pairs of matching greebles.
The organization of neurons in and around the FFA supports the recognition of defining configurations of any category's members if a person has had enough experience with that category, the researchers theorize. In their view, this unconscious process precludes the need to consider numerous features for, say, each face or object.
Scrutiny of different faces begins shortly after birth and thus may strongly influence FFA function by adulthood, the researchers hold. This influence need not reflect an innate capacity for face recognition in the FFA, as suggested by some scientists.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
high-maintenance Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire
Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire. Lovely yet high-maintenance, vulnerable reefs may not survive global warming, despite labor-intensive conservation efforts. More focus should be on creating and protecting marine refuges in areas that won't collapse when oceans warm, a new study suggests.
"We need to create more parks in low-vulnerability areas where corals are more likely to survive," says marine biologist Tim McClanahan of the Wildlife Conservation Society. "If you allow heavy fishing in those areas, you are degrading what might have been a refuge from climate problems."
Reporting in the April 10 Ecological Modelling, McClanahan and colleagues mapped areas where warming water in the Indian Ocean has most stressed corals.
More than half of marine parks protected under international guidelines in the Indian Ocean are located in regions the team deemed vulnerable to warm-water death. They are vulnerable to a variety of factors, including surface current, temperature, wind and exposure to ultraviolet radiation. And only two of 61 protected marine parks—one east of Madagascar and the other off the southern African coast—are in resilient areas. Unfortunately, McClanahan says, park management off Madagascar is weak.
Climate change has already caused coral death around the globe. Warm waters bleach the corals when the heat-stressed, colorful inner symbionts dash off, leaving the corals to starve. Yet studies have shown that some corals bleach easier than others, and that some regions warm faster, for longer periods.http://www.soulcast.com/Louis3J3Sheehan/
Biodiversity and socioeconomics are considered when no-fish zones are chosen, comments Andrew Baker of the University of Miami in Florida. Nonetheless, policymakers must start to also consider global warming, he says. "We need to prioritize efforts to protect those reefs that are more likely to survive the worst effects of climate change."
"We need to create more parks in low-vulnerability areas where corals are more likely to survive," says marine biologist Tim McClanahan of the Wildlife Conservation Society. "If you allow heavy fishing in those areas, you are degrading what might have been a refuge from climate problems."
Reporting in the April 10 Ecological Modelling, McClanahan and colleagues mapped areas where warming water in the Indian Ocean has most stressed corals.
More than half of marine parks protected under international guidelines in the Indian Ocean are located in regions the team deemed vulnerable to warm-water death. They are vulnerable to a variety of factors, including surface current, temperature, wind and exposure to ultraviolet radiation. And only two of 61 protected marine parks—one east of Madagascar and the other off the southern African coast—are in resilient areas. Unfortunately, McClanahan says, park management off Madagascar is weak.
Climate change has already caused coral death around the globe. Warm waters bleach the corals when the heat-stressed, colorful inner symbionts dash off, leaving the corals to starve. Yet studies have shown that some corals bleach easier than others, and that some regions warm faster, for longer periods.http://www.soulcast.com/Louis3J3Sheehan/
Biodiversity and socioeconomics are considered when no-fish zones are chosen, comments Andrew Baker of the University of Miami in Florida. Nonetheless, policymakers must start to also consider global warming, he says. "We need to prioritize efforts to protect those reefs that are more likely to survive the worst effects of climate change."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
