Environment - December 2007

If humans are not the primary cause of the current warming, then...

1) How can a 38% increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations be having a negligible effect on the current warming, which is coincidentally happening at the same time? What natural effect is swamping out this significant greenhouse gas increase?

2) If the current warming is natural, why have we been warming at a rate 20 times faster than when the planet naturally comes out of an ice age (last ice age was 8°C warming over 8,000 years, current warming is 0.5°C over 30 years).

3) Why do the vast majority of scientists think that humans are the primary cause of this warming?

4) Why have climate models with a huge number of variables been able to hindcast the 20th century climate change so accurately if they're wrong?

5) Why was James Hansen able to predict the warming from 1988-Present so accurately if the basis of his model was completely wrong?

2007-12-11 08:35:50 · 11 answers · asked by Dana1981 7 in Global Warming

Its like these people don't want to state the main reason for Global warming, the massive overpopulation of the Earth? How can we solve this situation if we won't admit what the real problem is?

2007-12-11 08:29:37 · 9 answers · asked by Steve C 7 in Global Warming

The main points that most would agree on as "the consensus" are:

1) The earth is getting warmer (0.6 +/- 0.2°C in the past century; 0.17°C/decade over the last 30 years)

2) People are causing this

3) If GHG emissions continue, the warming will continue and indeed accelerate

4) This will be a problem and we ought to do something about it

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/just-what-is-this-consensus-anyway/

Do you agree with the scientific consensus, or do you believe the small number of skeptical scientists are correct and the consensus is wrong?

2007-12-11 08:18:08 · 14 answers · asked by Dana1981 7 in Global Warming

A new peer-reviewed study disputes the claim of former Vice President Al Gore and other green activists that global warming is caused by human activity and constitutes a "planetary emergency."
The study -- conducted by climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia -- finds that atmospheric warming patterns, or "fingerprints," over the last 30 years are not caused by greenhouse gas emissions. The report is published in the December issue of the International Journal of Climatology. Results from the study greatly contradict the findings of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
.
.
.
The report concludes that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and therefore "attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless -- but very costly."

2007-12-11 07:46:22 · 11 answers · asked by credo quia est absurdum 7 in Global Warming

2007-12-11 06:59:37 · 2 answers · asked by catsrule64 1 in Other - Environment

You can't see evidence that they're true. You can't personally do any experiments proving them. You probably don't know enough physics to read the scientific journals and decide the issue for yourself.

You have only the word of the scientific community. And there are scientific "skeptics" about those topics too.

So, do you not believe in them either?

Or, if you do, why is global warming different?

2007-12-11 06:44:32 · 17 answers · asked by Bob 7 in Global Warming

I sometimes wonder how many people are making tons of cash by putting fear into people about near future catastophic predictions.I`m in Canada and i can tell you i`m freezing my tail off as i type this,and a prediction of a brutal winter to come.Do you think it wise to question what Al Gore says before we throw our $dollars$ into his pockets?

2007-12-11 06:21:06 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Global Warming

it is 83 degrees here in north carolina.....shouldn't it be cold now? is it because of global warming?

2007-12-11 06:06:22 · 11 answers · asked by life guru 5 in Global Warming

I can only find the full paper downloadable for $25, and I'm not willing to pay that, but here it is if anyone wants to read it:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/117857349/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Abstract: "We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 'Climate of the 20th Century' model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data."

Do you think their argument has merit? Why?

No political rhetoric please - just scientific arguments.

2007-12-11 05:50:01 · 12 answers · asked by Dana1981 7 in Global Warming

Are we going to keep destroying habitats to build Wal-marts or new apartments? Are those builders who make thousands of dollars doing anything to replenish what they take?

2007-12-11 05:22:40 · 7 answers · asked by Kim S 1 in Conservation

is it cold wher u are?

its -3 here in yorkshire,england! aaah!!!!!!

2007-12-11 04:47:39 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Other - Environment

For not getting on board the environmental deal when the USA won't do it?

People don't realise than unless the USA is on board too, Canadians agreeing to do this will be suicide for us, and the USA profits every which way they can.

That's not fair, and I don't blame our PM for saying "THIS SUCKS" and "NO WAY".

Canada is not the one digging in their heels and we should not have to take the flack for the party that is.

Still I am convinced Canada will do everything they can and won't sit Idle, but I think EVERYONE should be on board so that we can finally move in the right direction on this. Agreed or not?

2007-12-11 04:42:09 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Global Warming

Global warmins is a great concern to many people around the world. It has become more popular after Al gore won the Nobel Peace prize. How can global warming be solved? (if it can) And what can common American civilans do about it to spread awareness.

2007-12-11 04:09:12 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Global Warming

If you were to find out that you are being lied to about Global Warming being a serious, man made threat, would you get angry about it?

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=c9554887-802a-23ad-4303-68f67ebd151c

2007-12-11 03:24:41 · 18 answers · asked by Jacob W 7 in Global Warming

CSU have just released their predictions for the 2008 hurricane season and are predicting 13 names storms, 7 hurricanes and 3 major hurricanes, do you think this this is an accurate prediction?

The long term average is 9.6 names storms per year, 5.9 hurricanes and 2.3 major hurricanes.

This time last year they made their predictions for 2007 stating they beleived there would be 14 named storms, 7 hurricanes and 3 major hurricanes. On each count they were out by just one (actual activity being 15, 6 and 2).

2007-12-11 03:16:43 · 9 answers · asked by Trevor 7 in Global Warming

Their names and the links to them, if you have them. This Q will be open for the full week.

2007-12-11 03:02:18 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Global Warming

2007-12-11 02:55:31 · 6 answers · asked by Man Man 1 in Global Warming

I am working on a speech about stopping global warming, and I need to tell people why we have global warming.

2007-12-11 02:52:55 · 23 answers · asked by Colter M 2 in Global Warming

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=c9554887-802a-23ad-4303-68f67ebd151c

2007-12-11 02:34:21 · 11 answers · asked by Rationality Personified 5 in Global Warming

The emissions spewed by all the idling cars, trucks and sport utility vehicles is something to think about. The environment is more important than convenience. I think there should be no such thing as a drive thru!

2007-12-11 02:10:49 · 11 answers · asked by name 1 in Global Warming

It makes me so angry when I hear people talking about Al Gore's work on informing people about global warming, and they're saying that global warming isn't real. That it's fake. How can they not see the changes. Hurricane Katrina might not have been so disaterous if the waters that it came into weren't so warm. If you are someone who doesn't believe that global warming is real or you ave any doubts at all that this is not something to worry about, watch Al Gore's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. This opened my eyes to how truly devestating global warming is going to be if we don't stop, and do something about it. What are your thoughts? Have you seen this documentary? If so was it as eye opening for you as it was for me?? I WANT YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS TOPIC!!!

2007-12-11 01:43:30 · 19 answers · asked by Emma W 1 in Global Warming

What caused global warming?
What is global warming effecting?
What are they doing about it?

2007-12-11 01:20:01 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Global Warming

Made me think of yet another reason why computer models suck. An increase in the ocean temperatures that is part of the accepted outcome of the GW thing will lead to a complimentary increase in the annual algae blooms and seaweed growth. Both of those organisms are huge carbon absorbers. That would seem to have at least an ameliorating effect on the whole balance of things, wouldn't it?

How much you want to bet there's not a single computer model out there that took that into account?

2007-12-11 01:19:34 · 5 answers · asked by thegubmint 7 in Global Warming

2007-12-11 01:11:47 · 8 answers · asked by hilton_b_2000 5 in Global Warming

Aristotle and Ptolemy, two very smart men, held in very high esteem by their peers, and with no specific agenda except for the search of knowledge once believed the Earth was at the center of the solar system and that everything revolved around the Earth. After all, what reason would they have to lie?

The consensus of the scientist agreed with Aristotle and Ptolemy, and soon their ideas were incorporated into the laws of the time by the gvmt of the time (the church). And this idea was taught in the schools.

It took skeptics like Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo to speak up and challenge the popular consensus. And I'm glad they did, and I proud to be associated with great skeptics like them.

Hansen and Mann are then modern Aristotle and Ptolemy and global warming is the new Geocentrism.

The believers are the church and the skeptics are Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo.

What are your thoughts? Do you see things the same way?

2007-12-11 00:38:32 · 7 answers · asked by Dr Jello 7 in Global Warming

especially at 0-60 spped?

2007-12-11 00:08:32 · 9 answers · asked by G.xi 1 in Alternative Fuel Vehicles

Please listen to another point of view for a minute. Melting ice is uncovering civilizations. That has to mean something.

2007-12-10 23:49:43 · 7 answers · asked by Ransom 4 in Global Warming

According to a new study on global warming, climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia found that the climate change models based on human influence do not match observed warming.

2007-12-10 23:31:08 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Global Warming

Looking for opinions on why this happened.

2007-12-10 18:43:11 · 14 answers · asked by hockey 2 in Global Warming

2007-12-10 17:58:25 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Other - Environment