Environment - June 2007

especially when flushed down the toilet

2007-06-04 10:54:09 · 9 answers · asked by Dee 2 in Other - Environment

When i take a bath would putting a night light in the bathroom instead of putting on the light save energy?

2007-06-04 10:22:23 · 23 answers · asked by natalie 2 in Green Living

Do you beleive that human activities have resulted in an increase in emissions of the so called 'greenhouse gases' (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide etc).

2007-06-04 10:16:14 · 14 answers · asked by Trevor 7 in Global Warming

It seems as though we have been changing our spiral bulbs at least as often as our old incandesent bulbs. The spiral bulbs are more expensive but we are told they use less electricity to put out the same amountof light as an incandescent of equal wattage. Publicity says they last longer. Are they really "green"? or economical? What is your experience?

2007-06-04 09:36:07 · 12 answers · asked by syrious 5 in Conservation

Shouldn't we forbid the lifestyle 'excesses' that Robertson wants to forbid even though he can't prove that they cause the harm that he alleges?

Of course not.

The same standard has to apply across the board.

2007-06-04 09:06:25 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Global Warming

Ok. I personally believe global warming is man made. But a lot of people have conradicted me. I have my facts - www.climatecrisis.com is a good site - but I want to hear the other side of the argument. Does anyone who says that this global warming is totally natural have proof? I'd really honestly like to see it.

2007-06-04 08:50:38 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Global Warming

My new mower uses 4 cyle oil.

2007-06-04 08:39:01 · 4 answers · asked by kriend 7 in Other - Environment

I think that the fact that Antarctica's ice is melting might be attributed to the fact that the world is heating back up after the Ice Age. We wouldn't have known a hundred years ago on account of the limited technology we had one hundred years ago. granite it might be the carbon emission or other emissions, Waste product etc. etc. Your thoughts?

2007-06-04 08:08:44 · 16 answers · asked by pro1 1 in Global Warming

2007-06-04 08:05:02 · 10 answers · asked by kris 2 in Alternative Fuel Vehicles

Yes water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, but GW skeptics always conveniently forget to suggest what causes an increase in atmospheric water vapor. Water vapor doesn't just magically pop into the atmosphere - something has to cause its concentration to increase. So what do you suggest it is?

Here's an explanation that makes sense to me.

"Current state-of-the-art climate models include fully interactive clouds. They show that an increase in atmospheric temperature caused by the greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic gases will in turn lead to an increase in the water vapor content of the troposphere, with approximately constant relative humidity...thus water vapor acts as a positive feedback to the forcing provided by human-released greenhouse gases such as CO2."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#The_role_of_water_vapor

So why do GW skeptics keep trying to dismiss CO2 as a greenhouse gas and instead blame water vapor?

2007-06-04 07:57:34 · 6 answers · asked by Dana1981 7 in Global Warming

The 10 names of the peopel in washington DC that had the electric car killed buy sueing the state of califorina to stop the man date of 2005?

2007-06-04 07:30:46 · 3 answers · asked by Sticks 2 in Alternative Fuel Vehicles

If you give a doctor your symptoms and he gives you the most likely diagnosis, do you require him to prove it? Maybe in some cases, but what if it's something that can't be directly and conclusively proven?

The fact is that it cannot be proven that human CO2 emissions are the primary cause of global warming. It also cannot be proven that "natural" causes such as solar variations are the primary cause of global warming. The probability can be calculated to a high likelihood, as is the case with human CO2 emissions, but skeptics require "proof", which is impossible to provide.

All scientists can do is gather the data and make models such as this one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

which shows pretty clearly that greenhouse gases have been the primary cause of GW over the past several decades. Why do GW skeptics require proof that's impossible to provide, especially when they accept that GW is due to "natural cycles" with no proof?

2007-06-04 07:19:55 · 15 answers · asked by Dana1981 7 in Global Warming

Yes in the 1970s there was a period of global cooling. This was due to increased volcanic activity and human aerosol emissions blocking sunlight and creating a degree of global dimming, which led to a short-term global cooling.

Skeptics claim that all climate experts in the 1970s were predicting a new Ice Age and that there was "mass hysteria", etc. etc. This is simply untrue

"In the 1970s, there was a book in the popular press, a few articles in popular magazines, and a small amount of scientific speculation based on the recently discovered glacial cycles and the recent slight cooling trend from air pollution blocking the sunlight. There were no daily headlines. There was no avalanche of scientific articles. There were no United Nations treaties or commissions...You could find broader "consensus" on a coming alien invasion."

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/23/18534/222

So why do GW skeptics keep bringing up the 1970s cooling as evidence against global warming?

2007-06-04 07:10:16 · 9 answers · asked by Dana1981 7 in Global Warming

we are constantly told cardon dioxide is causing global warming yet the evidence to back it up isn't conclusive. We even have respected sciencetists in the field telling us that it is the sun instead that is driving the rise in temperture in the world. Why are we treating this theory that CO2 is causing globa warming as a proven fact and not discussing this?

2007-06-04 06:38:54 · 19 answers · asked by Shanahan 4 in Global Warming

That you can not find any proof besides consesus, or that you can't get any support from the majority of the population?

2007-06-04 06:21:23 · 20 answers · asked by Opoohwan 3 in Global Warming

about 10+ gigtons or billion tons per 100 square km for 1 meter sea water.

2007-06-04 05:48:26 · 16 answers · asked by toodd 4 in Global Warming

GW skeptics keep asking "how do we know this is the ideal climate?", suggesting that climate change isn't a big deal because we don't know what the perfect global climate should be.

First off, nobody is suggesting this is the "ideal climate". What is suggested is that humans shouldn't alter the global climate drastically.

Secondly, if we do alter it drastically we can predict the effects. For example, global warming can cause droughts, floods, heat waves, super hurricanes, huge sea level rises, etc. etc.

Thirdly, the species on this planet (including humans) are adapted to the current climate. Obviously if the climate changes drastically, it will adversely effect most species, including humans. Many species which are less adaptable than humans will be particularly badly effected.

This "ideal climate" argument clearly doesn't make any sense whatsoever, so why do global warming skeptics keep bringing it up? Did Rush Limbaugh just talk about it or something?

2007-06-04 05:45:44 · 9 answers · asked by Dana1981 7 in Global Warming

This question comes after reading an article where China says that poor countries should not sacrifice their growth to the general concern about global warming and other environment issues. They have a point by adding that most of the green house emissions comes from the richest countries and that the effect of slowing their economy is far worst than the global warming effect. I belief that if we are able to travel to the moon and orbit the earth, we can find a better way to produce our goods and energy needs in a more efficient and cleaner way than today. Because of the fundings needed for research and development it needs to be done by the governments of the wealthiest nations. We as individual also need to play a part to be more efficient in the use of energy, water and goods. And this is not only is good for the environment but also for your own family budget.

2007-06-04 05:13:25 · 9 answers · asked by Dejavu73 2 in Global Warming

If you have a reason why global warming is real or not, say it.
I would like to hear everyones veiws. Mine are that it is not happening...

Also i am trying to convince my friend that it is not real if you have any eveidence saying that it is not happening please tell me that as well.

Thanks

2007-06-04 04:59:29 · 21 answers · asked by Matt B 1 in Global Warming

Have you heard about liquid coal? It's a transportation fuel made from coal that is expensive, inefficient, dirty, and releases large quantities of heat-trapping carbon dioxide into our air.

Despite these drawbacks, however, Congress is getting ready to throw huge subsidies at the liquid coal industry instead of investing those taxpayer dollars in efficient, renewable energy that will help solve global warming and decrease our dependence on oil.

What do you think?

2007-06-04 03:57:06 · 9 answers · asked by courage 6 in Green Living

I have tried leaving them open for several days with different sections left open. But, they still smell. Does anyone know what I can do? I can't stand to read them they smell so bad!!

2007-06-04 03:21:10 · 11 answers · asked by poupeechic 2 in Other - Environment

Raccoons have a better scent capability in comparison to dogs. They have been known to out fox the best of coon hounds as well as blood hounds. They also have paws closely relating to hands with a thumb joint to reach and pull. They are also easily domesticated when raised from young. They're smaller and faster and may have better reasoning than a canine. And how about helping people in their homes when they are disabled such as what they now use dogs for? There is no doubt that a raccoon couldn't open a cabinet or door, I've seen wild ones open latches that you would think was too sophisticated for the species.

2007-06-04 03:18:54 · 6 answers · asked by amberwolf_for_art 3 in Other - Environment

Read this artical and answer the question.


http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0603bordertrash-ON.html

2007-06-04 03:16:03 · 3 answers · asked by John Galt 2 in Other - Environment

Hey Yahoo,

I have the following thesis:

Human Population Growth has the most direct impact on Wildlife and Ecosystems.

If you agree, you are PRO this thesis: Research the following support and report (e-mail) your findings to the group by tonight or tomorrow.

If you disagree, you are CON this thesis: Same as above.

Pro support:
Human population competes for resources and space.
Regulate population
Education

Con support:
In China, they have regulated birth rate --research the negative impact of that.
Nations with higher education have a lower birthrate. (Europe + Japan population has a negative rate)
Innovation of new technologies.
Educated people realize they don't need as many resources


What are your thoughts?

2007-06-04 03:03:41 · 9 answers · asked by Salvador G 1 in Conservation

am getting really hot and bothered am from newcastle uk. this weekend was great wether i went ot the lakes with my bf and it was roasting. and i think its getting hotter each day. do you agree with me

2007-06-04 02:50:31 · 24 answers · asked by shell 5 in Global Warming

I just opened a box of sainsbury's own brand tissues and found a glossy bit of junk mail telling me how good sainsbury;s are for the enviroment and what they will do to save the planet. so my question is how many trees does it take to make this bit of junk and why cant I blow my nose on it without making a mess. great idea duuuuu

2007-06-04 02:43:43 · 3 answers · asked by saint_of_sinners_1967 2 in Other - Environment

2007-06-04 02:41:51 · 15 answers · asked by Peter P 3 in Conservation

What were your opinions on this movie? was there enough evidence in this movie concerning global warming or not? who do you think is responsible for it? do you think global warming is a natural event or Man-made? what would your solutions be?

2007-06-04 02:20:45 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Global Warming

I had to ask this question as I honestly do not know anyone who believes in it, or maybe they do but they certainly don't believe that us as humans contribute a vast amount in the overall scheme of things (a UN report states that livestock contribute more CO2 than all forms of transport combined). Surely everyone must now see this for the government propaganda that it is; just another way to screw an honest pound out of the hardworking taxpayer. It really makes me sick to hear politicians warbling on about how they are putting taxes up for 'environmental reasons' or to reduce CO2 emissions. Puhleese! I cannot believe that anyone is falling for this nonsense and those that do fall for it and are constantly harping on about saving the planet are putting a big smile on politician's faces as it just keeps on giving them excuses to raise taxes. Stop playing into the politician's hands!

2007-06-04 01:55:51 · 48 answers · asked by Anonymous in Global Warming

What are the major features of each kind? Are some found in places that others are not? What is the most common type? You may have to do some research. Write a paragraph or two for each kind of mountain you can find. Talk about a mountain that you live near if you do. Thank you!!!! The 1st person who answers all of theese q's will get 10 extra pts.!!! Thanks

2007-06-04 01:40:57 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous in Other - Environment