Environment - November 2007

A certain global warming denier has made this claim. Here is the NY Times news story about it:

"Two weeks ago, detectors aboard a converted spy plane flying over New England and eastern Canada recorded the highest level of chlorine monoxide, an ozone-destroying chemical, ever measured anywhere around the globe. The level was half again as large as the amount recorded over Antarctica, the site of the infamous ozone hole discovered in October 1985.

The team of scientists who reported these findings in Washington on Monday could not predict when an ozone hole might open above North America. But they said that the level of ozone-thinning "precursors" -- chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's)...might soon expose large parts of the globe to increased cancer-causing ultraviolet rays from the sun.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CEFD61E3EF936A35751C0A964958260

Was NASA and/or their instruments lying to elect Clinton? Or did our CFC reductions simply avoid this scenario?

2007-11-26 06:20:05 · 14 answers · asked by Dana1981 7 in Global Warming

when people tell you to do your bit for the environment by not buying certain things but you just think it doesnt really make much of a difference because they'll still make it it's not always us that can help with this sorta stuff its the big companies you need to go to?
Well this could be completely wrong but like saying "dont drink bottled water the plastic is a waste and you can get it for free in your tap" you think well they're still gunna make them and these ones are already made so yeah....
i might be pretty stupid or something but thats just been something on my mind. =s

2007-11-26 06:14:30 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Other - Environment

How high does it need to go to end the daily gridlock we inexplicably accept as inevitable and "normal?"

2007-11-26 06:11:53 · 18 answers · asked by Phil McCracken 5 in Other - Environment

What I mean is that you say that the scientist who realize that global warming is a natrual cycle are funded by the big oil companies. The scientist who "believe" global warming is real need to be funded by somone to. or do you forget to mention that they are funded by liberals.

2007-11-26 05:55:38 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Global Warming

Global warming is a hoax, invented in 1988, that combines old myths including limits to growth, sustainability, the population growth time bomb, the depletion of resources, pollution, anti-Americanism and anti-corporate sentiment and, of all things, fear of an ice age. Those that espoused and supported the old myths have joined forced into a new group called “Environmentalists.”

Most environmentalists have no technical or scientific credentials whatsoever. What they have are major news outlets ready and willing to publicize their every utterance regardless of whether or not they are backed up by scientific proof. Atmospheric science requires highly technical knowledge and skills, not possessed by the vast majority of the so-called environmentalists, who yet feel qualified to demand that human activity subjugate itself to the whims of their new deity, Mother Nature.

2007-11-26 05:41:29 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Global Warming

2007-11-26 05:23:15 · 1 answers · asked by Anonymous in Global Warming

Why does the concentration of the earth's CO2 rise and fall within one year??

2007-11-26 05:20:41 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Global Warming

2007-11-26 05:16:43 · 6 answers · asked by jeffreygest 1 in Other - Environment

I can debate both sides of the argument but see no recourse.Wouldnt becoming more self substaining and less reliance on industry and the government be more in line with nature?

2007-11-26 05:14:57 · 2 answers · asked by Rio 6 in Global Warming

Many AGW doubters have compared global warming to the hole in the ozone layer and Y2K bug. These were both serious problems which we solved.

The hole in the ozone layer was caused by human clorofluorocarbon (CFC) emissions. Industrialized countries stopped these emissions in the 1990s due to the Montreal Protocol.

Some AGW doubters claim that the hole in the ozone layer was a trumped-up problem. Others claim that we didn't solve the problem because the hole continues to grow.

"At about 25 million square kilometres, the hole is the smallest it is been in five years."

"The effects of the CFCs will linger for a long time. The ozone depleting chemicals are some of the longest lived chemicals in the atmosphere - on average, typically 100 years or so,"

http://au.news.yahoo.com/071116/21/14zgv.html

Do AGW doubters understand this basic science, and can they see the parallel between CFCs/ozone layer/Montreal Protocol and greenhouse gases/global warming/Kyoto Protocol?

2007-11-26 05:03:43 · 17 answers · asked by Dana1981 7 in Global Warming

I don't know what to do about 5this but my first guess is kind of simple: Can't I just peel off, by hand, the front of the boxes and such - recycleing only the other side? Or is it imbedded inside of the paper too?

2007-11-26 04:41:09 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Green Living

Three that come to mind are Seitz, Lindzen, and Singer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Seitz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#Views_on_health_risks_of_passive_smoking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer#Publication_on_health_effects_of_tobacco

Seitz and Singer also don't think that increased UV radiation due to the hole in the ozone layer can be linked to increased skin cancer.

Why do you think these 'skeptics' share these beliefs?

2007-11-26 04:26:10 · 14 answers · asked by Dana1981 7 in Global Warming

i will have to meet a jury the coming week to present a work on some practical interventions that 3rd world countries specifically Ghana can adopt to deal with the menacing and delicate issue of climate change and global warning. it is a national essay competition and your contributions will be much welcomed to help draw Ghana a step ahead on her battle against climate change and its strings of problems.

2007-11-26 02:35:30 · 8 answers · asked by richard B 2 in Global Warming

I work for a company which seems to believe that flying around the country on a regular basis is the only option that they have to get our shops (retail company) running properly.

My question is...

Is planting dozens of tree's the best way to go about off setting our emissions? I still believe prevention is better than cure but not everyone believes that this is possible.

What other options do we have? I have heard that the benefit of planting tree's may not be the long term solution as they die and release the carbon again. Is this true?

2007-11-26 02:23:49 · 7 answers · asked by Hagar the Horrible 1 in Other - Environment

2007-11-26 02:17:32 · 7 answers · asked by ghazal r 1 in Global Warming

The question for policy-makers and society is “Will the ocean continue to take up anthropogenic CO2?” Our best evidence is that it will—but less effectively because of interactions between the ocean and the evolving climate.

Several factors come into play. Global warming will inevitably cause seawater temperatures to rise. Warmer water holds less dissolved gas than colder water, so the ocean will not be able to store as much anthropogenic CO2.

A warmer climate will also melt ice and increase rainfall near the poles, adding fresh water to the ocean. Fresh water is more buoyant than saltier water and “floats” on top of it, stratifying the ocean and slowing the mixing and circulation that transports anthropogenic CO2 away from the surface and into reservoirs in the deep ocean. The net effect will be even higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations and a further acceleration of global warming.

2007-11-26 02:15:48 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Global Warming

Science shows that global warming is correlated with high levels of CO2 in the air. And that high levels of CO2 in the air was common before an ice age. With that evidence, I think it is reasonable to assume that global warming will lead to an imminent ice age. Why are we struggling to slow down global warming but not preparing ourselves to survive the next ice age? If we are preparing ourselves, what are we doing?
This will be the first ice age that modern, technology-savvy humankind will have experienced. Why aren't we using science to plan our survival now while we have the chance?
I'm not some doomsday freak - I'm just very common-sense. It's makes perfect sense to me to stop freaking out about global warming and start planning on what we are going to do once the world starts freezing.

2007-11-26 02:11:54 · 9 answers · asked by MelT 3 in Global Warming

BUT: The big question is how long can it continue to do so.

Do you know that the ocean sucks up Carbon Dioxide? Since the Industrial Revolution it has increased by 30 percent.

The ocean actually absorbs it and it all settles deep in the bottom of the ocean. However, a disruption to the ocean and if that should ever rise to the surface would be catastrophic.

Read on.

http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=17726

So to those who continue to claim global warming is non-existent, why don't you expand your brains a little and see that it encompasses a whole lot more than just yapping about your dumb presidents of the past, present and future.

2007-11-26 01:57:21 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Global Warming

it's so help prevent/ stop global warming of course :)

2007-11-25 22:59:55 · 14 answers · asked by A 1 in Global Warming

Professional officials are coming to school and I was chosen to question him about his campaign.

Help me think of a smart question?

2007-11-25 22:27:56 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Global Warming

2007-11-25 21:57:56 · 5 answers · asked by James Crawley Maximus Meridius 7 in Global Warming

The newly elected prime minister of Australia will ratify the Kyoto protocol next month making the UNITED STATES the only country in the world to oppose it.

I have googled to seee whether Hilary Clinton would sign the Kyoto protocol if she were elected as president and found nothing (i dont know if she has said anything yet but...). And if you don't know do you think she will sign up?

If anyone knows her stance on this matter please say so with references if possible.

Also what are your opinions on the Kyoto Protocol?- are you happy witht the position your country is taking and should "developing" (note the " " marks) countries like China and India have some/the same objectives?

In my opinion, I am happy that the New Zealand governement has chosen to ratify Kyoto and countries like China and India should have some objectives too but not as as strict

2007-11-25 20:14:36 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Global Warming

Like, oil brings huge benefits in energy and materials, but at a cost to the planet. Like, is it a good or a bad discovery? What do you think.

2007-11-25 18:55:03 · 5 answers · asked by Johnny 5 4 in Other - Environment

We face Polar Ice-cape melting, Holes in OZONE layer,Global Warming etc., then inviting DOOM'S DAY quicker should countries have Nuclear weapons also ? why not all countries spend their Resources on Mass Welfare rather than Mass Destruction-World Leaders-please wake up and do something to SAVE MANKIND.

2007-11-25 17:49:09 · 15 answers · asked by shanpal 3 in Global Warming

what is YOUR opinion on nuclear fission as an energy source?

why so?

2007-11-25 17:15:00 · 6 answers · asked by .:KUDDLEZ:. ONE& ONLY 3 in Other - Environment

2007-11-25 15:05:51 · 12 answers · asked by will 1 in Alternative Fuel Vehicles

2007-11-25 14:26:14 · 3 answers · asked by foodforthought 2 in Global Warming

2007-11-25 14:22:14 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Global Warming

Is it financed using tax dollars...private interest groups...need some help here.

2007-11-25 13:59:02 · 5 answers · asked by Kristen P 2 in Alternative Fuel Vehicles

Don't you ever doubt it again after what you are about to see!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPQSqAdmmSU&feature=related

2007-11-25 13:52:53 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Global Warming