Environment - February 2007

please state the website that says the information!

2007-02-06 14:52:10 · 3 answers · asked by r3jectedk1ss 1

Global warming junk science! Recent study said "we caused the tempeture rise but we can DO NOTHING TO CHANGE IT! Bunk science!!!!!!!

2007-02-06 14:47:46 · 7 answers · asked by Roll_Tide! 5

I see many people arguing over whether its real or whether it isnt... whether its man caused or whether it isnt.....
The truth is somewhere in the middle I would imagine...

Here is the thing though... lets just assume its man caused.... what is the plan to fix it... if we can't fix it then to hell with it enjoy your life.

I see these links and statements from scientists... But as someone in another link said.. even if we completely quit putting out any greenhouse gasses... the lingering effects will continue for like 500 years.

Now you know we cant completely stop any greenhouse gas emissions.

PLUS look at the top 25 polluted cities... look at the pollution hotspots in the world None of them are in the USA or Europe.
China and Russia are doing the vast majority of the polluting.
So what ya gonna do? doesnt matter if people in europe or the USA or whatever become more conservationist. It wont fix it.

2007-02-06 14:27:42 · 4 answers · asked by sociald 7

2007-02-06 14:26:41 · 2 answers · asked by Vicky 3

What I mean is this:

Global Warming is caused by the Sun, combined with excess greenhouse gasses. The gasses are being produced by man, but the gasses are also removed by plants. So in order to have "EXCESS" greenhouse gas, you need to produce more gas than is taken away. This means that you not only need to produce alot of greenhouse gasses, you need to also eliminate plants that clean the air. It could take a very long time to build up this excess greenhouse gas to the point where the greenhouse affect raises the global temperature to an undesirable level.

So here is my question: How long does it take to go from a state of normal greenhouse gas level and moderate temperature to a state of increased greenhouse gasses, with no noticable affect yet, to a state of increased greenhouse gasses WITH a noticable temperature increase?

This is an important question because couldn't the increase in temperature today be the result of Steam Engines and the clearing of entire forrests??

2007-02-06 14:10:59 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glaciers.html

Here is a site that has dozens of pictures of disappearing glaciers, melting permafrost, breaking ice-shelves, you name it pictures of global warming happening to the planet over the last 100 years. If you won't believe the words of all the reports then maybe this is a little more persuasive?

Or...

I bet they are all faked right? Those scientists...my they are SO good at using Photoshop to make those glaciers disappear!...they should have been graphic designers don't you agree?

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glaciers.html

2007-02-06 14:08:04 · 8 answers · asked by Thuja M 3

I know that flushing them is a bad idea as is putting them in the landfill.

2007-02-06 13:57:35 · 2 answers · asked by dierboy 3

You know that the questions in here are not based on the average everyday questions a person might be asking at random so my guess is that we are just doing people's homework for them. It's no wonder america is getting dumber everyday. I remember the day I used to be proud to be one. I think... I dont know. cant remember now. duh

2007-02-06 13:36:25 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous

I forgot about this thing I learned in 7th grade. it is like spontaneous _______________. People used to say that fogs magically appeared at ponds when it rained and now scientists call that theory spontaneous _____________. What is it?

2007-02-06 13:29:28 · 1 answers · asked by o_0 2

2007-02-06 13:16:54 · 2 answers · asked by hema 1

2007-02-06 13:10:35 · 4 answers · asked by connorlovenoodles 2

2007-02-06 12:56:05 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous

Science does not work on consensus. It deals with facts. Facts are facts and dont really care what people think?

2007-02-06 12:40:32 · 11 answers · asked by Tropical Weasel 3

what do you know about this topic? pros and cons, and web sites where i can find info please! and thank you!

2007-02-06 12:35:48 · 6 answers · asked by bugletti 1

what will happen to the ocean?

2007-02-06 12:09:41 · 2 answers · asked by mechlined 2

okay i realize driving big gas burning trucks and hummers and stuf are a big source of pollution. but, what about NASCAR? no one has though that maybe all the gas they burn driving in circles for 300 to 500 miles might just be a HUGE SOURCE OF AIR POLLUTON.

a stock car in the NEXTEL cup runs at about 4mpg. i dont know the length of the NEXTEL cup but it is most likely 500 laps. so assuming it is

500 miles divided by 4mpg with 22 cars on the track that is
500/4*22=2750 gallons of gasoline. NASCAR estimates that in the NEXTEL cup weekend they use about 6000 gallons. including the fact that NASCAR still uses lead additives in their gasoline.

NASCAR also estimates in one season they use almost 2million gallons of gasoline.

NASCARS have no mufflers and very loose emissions controll regulations.

do you think that if they stopped NASCAR all together that would benifit the enviornment significantly?

2007-02-06 12:02:15 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

Some Scientists say that the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere has been decreasing since the age of the dinosaurs. They say that T-Rex would never be able to survive on the earth (If there where T-Rexs on the earth) in this day. Some also say that decreased oxygen levels will cause disease to thrive!

2007-02-06 11:57:51 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

As liquid water is evaporated into the atmosphere, heat energy is _______.

2007-02-06 11:56:07 · 1 answers · asked by Justin 6

i am doing a speech to stop antarctic fishing to save penguins, and my teacher said to include how they benifit us. how do penguins help us?

2007-02-06 11:54:26 · 16 answers · asked by littledancer33 3

2007-02-06 11:40:59 · 3 answers · asked by Ariana 2

2007-02-06 11:37:14 · 3 answers · asked by christine_792005 2

It is little known that lying underneath one of America's areas of outstanding natural beauty - Yellowstone Park - is one of the largest supervolcanoes in the world. Scientists have revealed that it has been on a regular eruption cycle of 600,000 years. The last eruption was 640,000 years ago... so the next is overdue.

And the sleeping giant is breathing: volcanologists have been tracking the movement of magma under the park and have calculated that in parts of Yellowstone the ground has risen over seventy centimetres this century. Is this just the harmless movement of lava, flowing from one part of the reservoir to another? Or does it presage something much more sinister, a pressurised build-up of molten lava?

Scientists have very few answers, but they do know that the impact of a Yellowstone eruption is terrifying to comprehend. Huge areas of the USA would be destroyed, the US economy would probably collapse, and thousands might die.

2007-02-06 11:26:38 · 15 answers · asked by kayamat_ka_din 3

I Agree that man has contributed to the warming trend but I saw an interesting theory on the science channel the other night that according to geologists digging samples in the artic insist that all ice ages were preceded by a climate warming and that we are past due for another ice age. Have we already been through most of our global warming and now entering the new ice age?

2007-02-06 11:21:02 · 4 answers · asked by Enigma 6

Also with more people, would there be more problems other than drinkable water like pollution, wastes, etc.

Thank you for any information I can get.

2007-02-06 11:16:11 · 1 answers · asked by poker5495 4

2007-02-06 11:04:59 · 2 answers · asked by bandits_09 1

Check it out, tell me what you think:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

2007-02-06 10:57:29 · 18 answers · asked by Pete J 3

With the ever increasing progress of DNA technology, genetic testing is becoming more and more common. What would be some of the consequences (good or bad) that we would be faced with, if emplyers started requiring prospective employees to undergo genetic testing as part of their interview process.

2007-02-06 10:51:46 · 2 answers · asked by Patootiee 1

i need a reason besides they give off oxegen and that we eat them

2007-02-06 10:48:51 · 2 answers · asked by HEYYEAH! 2

YOU MUST TRY THIS!

Go to Yahoo! search page. Type in "failure". Look at the number 1 result!!!

haha!

p.s. sorry this isn't directly envir/eco related but you'll see it is indirectly since it refers to one of the worst people ever for the environment.

2007-02-06 10:37:45 · 11 answers · asked by Thuja M 3

If energy efficient bulbs are supposed to collectively contribute to the prevention of global warming, do you think manufacturers should be forced to only sell energy efficient bulbs, and at affordable prices?

2007-02-06 10:24:40 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous