Global Warming

For the sake of this discussion, I will assume that humans are not a factor in global warming.

Can you tell me why we should not have laws on the books limiting the amount of greenhouse gases anyway?

People often say that the earth's climate is too complex for us to understand. Then shouldn't we do our best to limit our effect on the environment? If don't understand what we are doing to the climate, wouldn't it be best to reduce our contribution of any particular type of gas to the atmosphere?

For example, what if we increased water in the atmosphere from <1% to 3%? Do you know what would happen?

Why don't we say that the composition of the Earth's atmosphere is x and human activity should not alter it by more than y%?

I just don't understand why people are seemingly in favor of polluting the environment. Pollute in this case meaning to make less pure.

2007-08-17 07:04:46 · 25 answers · asked by ? 5

I do. I think things are too far gone, and whatever we do is too little and too late.

2007-08-17 05:43:33 · 31 answers · asked by Anonymous

Then when billions of people die because of storms, wildfires due to hotter temps and dryer seasons, flooding, and other terrible things, you can turn and say, "See!! I told you so...you owe me $5!! Sucker!! Global warming was true!!"

Because that is what I'm going to do...

2007-08-17 05:33:54 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous

what will the next piece of evidence of Global Warming that will be shown to be a sham? Will Algore correct an Inconvient Truth for his inconvient lies? See:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293510,00.html

2007-08-17 05:16:15 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

The temperatures globally rises much faster then the temperatures in the U.S. The temperatures in the U.S. is probably linked to the temperature of the North Atlantic Ocean. It transfers, throw the thermohaline conveyer belt, a lot of heat from the tropics to the U.S. on its way to the North pole. This congruity is predicted in climate models and may explain why the temperatures in the U.S. are not following the same patterns as much of the world.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

2007-08-17 04:25:11 · 5 answers · asked by Anders 4

We have found animals frozen solid in ice, their stomach still full of green vegetation. Poor beast was probably on the ice pack when it crashed into the ocean causing the ocean level to increase greatly, and putting large quantities of ice in the way of thermal distribution currents.
The fresh water does not sink even if it is colder. This brings these thermal distribution currents to a stop. It cools the atmosphere because of the large quantities of ice floating about in the ocean. It desalinates the ocean making it easier to freeze. The rise in ocean water increases the reflectivity of the planet causing more heat to be reflected back into space. Then the resulting snow and ice increases the reflectivity even more. This kind of event can cause an ice age to begin in one season. Don't throw out you long undies yet.

2007-08-17 03:16:30 · 8 answers · asked by everymansmedium 2

Should international efforts focus on dealing with causes or effects on of global warming?

2007-08-17 02:51:04 · 9 answers · asked by guanlin_loi 1

Global warming is coming, it seem like nobody is doing anything to prevent it from getting worse, why, we all want to be alive for the future right, then why doesnt anybody do something, its so simple, cant people walk instead of driving, cant people live without hairspray, and what does it take to plant one tree?

2007-08-17 02:34:54 · 13 answers · asked by JaYKaY 2

Is it because they're all older and it won't effect them because they'll be dead already?? WTF is their problem. My son will have to face this in his life. Why don't they end it?

2007-08-17 02:33:36 · 8 answers · asked by Jackie 3

2007-08-16 23:21:10 · 24 answers · asked by thinking 1

By "affect", I am asking if global warming impacts the magnitude and/or frequency of earthquakes. If you know of any sources I could read on the subject, that would be very helpful.

2007-08-16 19:35:32 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

I have watched a documentry called "The Great Global Warming Swindle", which believes that global warming is not because of C02 emisions, but the sun naturally controlls the earths temperature.
I have also watched Al Gore's "An Inconveniant Truth" which is another documentry that supports the idea that humans are contributing to global warming.

This got me thinking if it is a big hoax for scientists to make a profit, or if it is infact real.

What do you think??

2007-08-16 14:38:14 · 21 answers · asked by hellyeah_69 1

I know I am but it seems that its getting worse, and society is not paying attention.

What are your thoughts?

2007-08-16 12:59:53 · 34 answers · asked by aberhollister 2

2007-08-16 10:21:53 · 5 answers · asked by nursegoodbody 1

When coal is burned, highly radioactive elements are released into the atmosphere. Coal fire plants release more radioactive contamination into the atmosphere than nuclear power plants.

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

2007-08-16 10:12:00 · 5 answers · asked by PD 6

What is the actual measured impact of humans on the climate?

2007-08-16 09:40:48 · 15 answers · asked by robinfolsomca 1

2007-08-16 09:30:24 · 11 answers · asked by giantsman66 1

In the summer months I'm always hearing about global warming on the news. Yet in the winter and fall, I don't hear one word on the subject. If it's such a global crisis, why do I only hear about it 3 months out of the year?

2007-08-16 09:16:49 · 12 answers · asked by big_scott_larock 2

2007-08-16 09:06:33 · 16 answers · asked by David 1

With all the people, all the cars and all this rain is Britain sinking?

2007-08-16 06:12:32 · 12 answers · asked by tkf57 3

Honestly, I'm still wavering if I believe global warming is caused by humans or not. If major gaps that control the climate like the one in the linked story are still being discovered, how can we have a definitive, scientific answer?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070815/sc_nm/australia_ocean_dc

2007-08-16 05:51:36 · 13 answers · asked by Cadair360 3

Actions without understanding the cause of the problem always create unintended negative consequences.

To reduce pollution that destroys the ozone layer, the Kyoto protocol, under the Clean Development Mechanism paid poor countries to cut green house emissions. One of the pollutants, HFC 23 was targeted for reduction under this program.

What happened is that the poorer countries INCREASED their production of this ozone depleting gas because they could claim more carbon offsets and get more money – to the tune of $5BILLION per year!

http://boortz.com/nuze/200708/08162007.html#kyoto

The same is true with deforestation. Kyoto pays countries for planting trees, so first they cut down existing old growth forest in order to get the money to replant these forests they cut down! Deforestation is very profitable under Kyoto!

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/cb7f0eba-4a3c-11dc-95b5-0000779fd2ac.html

We creat more problems guessing. We need to know first!

2007-08-16 05:39:21 · 6 answers · asked by Dr Jello 7

When did record keeping start on global worming? What was
the warmest year / years? What was the temperature then and now? Can you give me a wed sight? Thanks for any help you
can offer.

2007-08-16 05:34:59 · 7 answers · asked by wayne g 7

There were no SUV's before there were CAFE standards.

Did the creation of the CAFE standards create the SUV market? I believe it did. Since trucks are exempt (and they should be) these behemoths are built on truck frames so they don't fall under the CAFE regulations.

If the CAFE standards are tightened to include SUV's, larger SUV's built on 18 wheeler cabs running on diesel will be created in order to supply the market for the demand of larger vehicles putting more pollution into the air then we have now.

A better option is to eliminate all CAFÉ standards. Sure, some cars would be bigger, but overall the fuel economy will go up because larger cars wouldn’t be built on truck frames anymore.

2007-08-16 04:02:32 · 7 answers · asked by Dr Jello 7

Is the price of gas falling below $2.50/Gal good, bad, or indiferent towards the economy and the environment?

Your thoughts?

2007-08-16 02:58:28 · 20 answers · asked by Dr Jello 7

Adapted from a list of questions posed to students and delegates after a tour / discussion about climatology, global warming, climate change etc. None of the questions seek to prove or disprove global warming and climate change, all have factual answers.

How did you do? After the discussion / tour most people get about 12 or 13 out of 20 correct. There's only 17 questions here and they're not following a discussion in which many of the answers are mentioned. I reckon 5 or 6 would be quite a reasonable score, more than 10 would be really good.


1) The earliest reliable temperature record dates from...
A) 1559, B) 1659, C) 1759, D) 1859, E) 1959


2) What are the first three letters of the name of that record?
A) Had, B) Has, C) Her, D) His, E) Hot


3) Which of these five figures is closest to the AVERAGE amount of water vapour in the atmosphere?
A) 0.01%, B) 0.05%, C) 0.1%, D) 0.5%, E) 1.0%

2007-08-16 02:18:24 · 3 answers · asked by Trevor 7

Assume a new report by someone like the IPCC was released in three months time. The report states that the world is warming faster than previously thought and the potential consequences of climate change are more dramatic than we've seen so far, not radically different but perhaps 10 to 20% more serious.

Would it prompt you to start acting on climate change, to do more than you're already doing, not to do anything...?

2007-08-16 02:09:31 · 16 answers · asked by Trevor 7

Assume manmade global warming was real and there was a way to halt it. Something that's been tried and tested, something safe and reliable - a silver bullet so to speak. It costs money but means we can continue just as we are now, no 'carbon taxes', no legislation, no changes to lifestyles etc.

Who should pay and how much would be acceptable? If it helps, assume the average weekly wage is $1,000 / £500 and the annual global income (worldwide GDP) is $60 / £30 trillion.

2007-08-16 02:08:20 · 17 answers · asked by Trevor 7

Should we act as individuals, leave it to science to resolve, let governments take the initiative? All of these, none of these, something else.

Maybe you think we should wait until we have a clearer understanding before deciding on a course of action.

Perhaps you don't feel any action is necessary and things should be left to run their own course.

2007-08-16 02:06:50 · 23 answers · asked by Trevor 7

are we being told the truth about mankind ruining the environment eg, global warming and so on...
why are all these things people are telling us so negative? is it because of the worlds natrual causes? is it our fault? or is the government just trying to make us frightened. The Ice Age that occured thousands of years ago...people survived, and the Ice melted, that wasnt because on greenhouse gases was it? Why are they telling us now that if the north and south pole melts, we will all die? wouldnt that just mean more land for us? The most detailed and interesting answer will be chosen for best

2007-08-15 23:48:10 · 18 answers · asked by Monie 2