Global Warming

2007-08-13 01:02:58 · 30 answers · asked by skinnyy21 2

what are some interesting facts about deforestation in relation to global warming?? i have an assignment to do on it, but i need some help picking a particular 'branch' if deforestation. what are some interesting things about deforestation i can take further? or good websites?
thanks.

2007-08-12 21:09:30 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-12 17:36:00 · 16 answers · asked by Valyn 1

Al Gore refuses to debate scientists who want to question the validity of Global Warming science. Lots of facts don't add up, and lots of respected scientists need to know how "activist scientists" came up with scientific figures so that they can verify and replicate some of the findings.

Considering how important Global Warming is to their adherents, and this is such an important issue that needs to be addressed immediately, why the silence on the facts?

I see questions all the time "What if it's true, wouldn't you be glad you did something, even if it wasn't"? Well, before you demand instant action, let's at least make sure there is a legitimate solution to a legitimate problem.

I see neither, except in money making "Buy Carbon Credit" Scheme, and political nutbags trying to remain significant.

Here is Al Gore. Why won't he debate scientists? Isn't it important enough?

http://digg.com/political_opinion/Al_Gore_REFUSES_to_debate_ANYONE_about_Global_Warming

2007-08-12 17:04:47 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous

This might fight global warming.

The difference between these microbes and plants would be that the carbon does not need to become part of the mass of the plant. The nagging problem with this might be that the carbon would burn!

2007-08-12 15:52:29 · 14 answers · asked by L Dawg 3

events to immediately ascretain that global warming was culprit of said weather event? When an unusual weather event or isolated incident occurs, global warmists somehow link it to global warming? First off, I am in Texas, I am a degreed certified meteorlogist, and I have heard among the most ridiculous reasoning behind the cool and very wet weather patterns this summer. Those who conoct these laughable theories have no training in weather. In fact most meteorologists I know, many have Docotorates and decades of experience and research under their belts are not global warmists. Another example, the 2005 was the busiest Hurricane season in recorded history. Global warming was cited as the culprit. Last year and this year were severely BELOW AVERAGE, yet the global warmists are no where in sight. If globa warming is the cause extreme weather patterns, when they abate, global warming is NOT the cause? You cannot cherry pick!!! Back up your claims with pertinent facts. I am waiting.

2007-08-12 15:50:04 · 16 answers · asked by aCeRBic 4

The comment is this: "These findings might seem to contradict the general notion of aerosol particles as cooling agents in the global climate system. " Conservatives have been quoting this statement by way of suggesting blame for global warming be transferred to dung burning Asia from industrial corporate America. But the quote speaks of the "cooling" of aerosol, not any warming. Is that in effect the same or is this quote being misused? Here's a link and the sentence is in the second to last paragraph: http://www.npg.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7153/full/448541a.html

2007-08-12 15:45:12 · 4 answers · asked by alan p 1

i really want to help...im a real big nature fanatic.....and i want to know if theres like...a website or something i can go to, to help fight the effects of global warming

2007-08-12 15:14:37 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-12 14:34:35 · 17 answers · asked by yacsaw 1

2007-08-12 14:21:55 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

Does any one think that this whole global warming thing is crap? dont get me wrong being environmentally friendly is a good thing. i recycle, and turn of my apliances when im not using them and i dont idle my car and all that stuff. but come on.. in the 70's they thought there was goin to be another ice age.. just wondering other ppls thoughts on this

2007-08-12 14:09:47 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-12 12:46:17 · 34 answers · asked by Anonymous

because i think it is not real.

2007-08-12 12:28:20 · 34 answers · asked by Thomas F 2

'Ten Year Climate Model Unveiled' - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6939347.stm - This is a new climate model created by the Hadley Centre that for the first time adds in certain natural climate forcings i.e. from ocean currents - quote - 'researchers said that the influence of natural climatic variations were likely to dampen the effects of emissions from human activities between now and 2009.' - this leads to much less warming over the next decade than previously predicted. (quote) 'The latest assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said that human activity was "very likely" causing the world to warm' - anyone who's familiar with the IPCC's line will be surprised by the words 'very likely', because they're lukewarm in comparison to their former steadfast assertions r.e. our absolute responsibility for causing GW.

So is this new model and the IPCC's apparent climb-down the first signs that officialdom may be softening their view of manmade GW?

2007-08-12 12:00:27 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-12 10:33:50 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous

There has been a flood of questions about this whole 1934 virtually irrelevant lower-48 states temperature correction. I can only assume it's because the right-wing bloggers and Rush Limbaugh made such a big deal about it and spread so much misinformation about it. Correct information about the incident is available here:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AgCxBALgHOtjhactMX_WFDjsy6IX?qid=20070810115452AAYt0LI

What I'm wondering is, why are GW deniers making such a big deal? Is it because they're relying on Limbaugh for their (mis)information and thus actually thought this was some big coverup? Is it because they're desperate for any news which can be construed in any way as being in their favor? Are they just extremely vocal? Or is it a combination of these factors, or something I haven't considered?

How can such an insignificant bit of information be blown so out of proportion and misunderstood so badly by so many?

2007-08-12 05:24:28 · 14 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

What would you do? Permanent winter, forever. What would you do to ensure your survival?

2007-08-12 04:36:47 · 11 answers · asked by nobody 2

Everytime there is a large Volcano that Erupts, the ash is thrown into the Atmosphere around the planet, which blocks some solar radiation and cools the planet. The result is refreezing of Artic Ice and other Glaciers. This happened in 1980 after Mount St. Helens. Tambora & Krakatau erupted in a period known as the Little Ice Age, which cooled the planet. Why cant we use explosives to trigger a Volcano that would help cool our planet?

2007-08-12 04:04:53 · 9 answers · asked by greatlakesmedved 1

Top scientists has evaluated 928 scientific studies and concluded that there IS global warming happening, and WE are the cause. (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686)
Now, why do some people belive they somehow has more information or knowledge about this than these experts who has been researching this for years?
Why do they think they know ANYTHING, or has any new angles on the problem (after searching 5 minutes in the web) that these scientist has not already taken into account for years?
And if anyone gives me that crap about the wrong data from NASA, do you homework, 3 mintue search and you will realize that has no value. AT least according to climate scientists (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/ ). But who listens to them these days?

2007-08-12 03:57:31 · 19 answers · asked by kjalnot 1

Now that NASA has admitted their information on Global Warming was very horribly wrong, and was effected by a computer glitch, and 1998 was NOT the second warmest year on record. In fact 1934 was the second warmest...WELL BEFORE cars and industrial pollution were an issue, AND the warmest on record was 1921!!! So we are NOT getting warmer, we are in fact getting COOLER. Will Spotted Al Gore and Yahoo...his personal fan club, stop with all the Global warming religion and BS?

2007-08-12 01:46:35 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous

I'm just wondering how this will affect the global warming debate.

http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+finds+Y2K+bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm

2007-08-11 16:46:12 · 14 answers · asked by Zimrie 1

2007-08-11 13:01:13 · 22 answers · asked by NewChallenges 1

I believe just so you know and the rules are:
1. No mention of Al Gore or his planes why you ask because other countries believe also so he isn't the only person who matters, he actually is scamming for money but he is scamming with a real live issue (at least I believe so, scientist believed before he did), and just because he uses energy doesn't prove global warming wrong it only proves that he is the equivelent of a preacher with a prostitute.
2. No being a jerk calling people stupid and such will not help
3. Use science and history as your arguments. Only use politics if you have real reason to

2007-08-11 10:55:45 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

If climate change is a very important issue, which I believe it is weather its occuring right now or not, what is preventing scientists from thoroughly understanding it. I know that the chemistry and physics of the atmosphere is complex, but It doesn't seem right that todays scientists are unable to understand the determining factors of climate well enough to reach a conclusion (within the scientific community) on how the climate would/will change under specified conditions. Is there actually a detailed, widely accepted theory on climate change.

2007-08-11 10:15:24 · 7 answers · asked by jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj 1

I was watching Discovery. It was a program by scientists that study and measure the rate of glacier loss in northern Canada. They said none of the glaciers were there 5000-10000 years ago because they melt down, then build back up over and over. They showed where Glaciers were melting and where they had made canyons before in the Rockies. They said it was natural.

2007-08-11 10:04:02 · 10 answers · asked by GABY 7

Everytime i hear them talk they say that science is sure global warming is man made when there are still critics out there. Then they call people ignorant who disagree with them when they are really the ignorant ones.

2007-08-11 08:53:41 · 20 answers · asked by Half-pint 5

I'm interested to hear anyone's opionion that does think that climate change is a hoax or not caused by man. I'd also like to hear informed responses to any particular arguments for this that are raised by answerers.

2007-08-11 08:06:47 · 21 answers · asked by JJ 2

I have seen several articles and models now that try to pin down what percentage of the greenhouse effect can be pinned down to what gas.

This article is as good as any of them:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142

Notice it says water vapour could account for 36 percent of the effect up to 66 percent (not including clouds). This is a rather staggering uncertainty. Also, this is only the variance that could be argued for water vapour. The cumulative statistical uncertainty is higher if you include the other greenhouse gases. If other scientists in other fields formed conclusions based off of numbers that were that uncertain then I think they would have a lot to answer for.

Can someone tell me if these numbers are true and why many climatologists are so sure about what is happening with global warming if these numbers are true?

As always, this is not meant to take sides but to better understand the issue. Sources are always a plus.

2007-08-11 07:36:43 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous

I've heard recently that the Republican's think that global warming was made up by the Democrats.Is this true,because I honestly don't know any replublican's except for my history teacher and we aren't allowed to talk politics in class

2007-08-11 05:23:31 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

Doesn't look good... at all. More people, cars, computers, telephones, planes, less trees, agriculture and water. Does it make sense?

2007-08-11 05:11:35 · 30 answers · asked by Turkish Property World 2