Global Warming

2007-12-12 11:45:37 · 6 answers · asked by jfr13 1

"Just last year two top scientists surprised their colleagues by projecting that the Arctic sea ice was melting so rapidly that it could disappear entirely by the summer of 2040.

This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."

"The Arctic is often cited as the canary in the coal mine for climate warming," said Zwally, who as a teenager hauled coal. "Now as a sign of climate warming, the canary has died. It is time to start getting out of the coal mines."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071212-AP-arctic-melt_2.html

Do you agree with Zwally?

2007-12-12 11:06:49 · 9 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/arctic-ice-gone-by-2040-scientists/2006/12/12/1165685679610.html


a year ago they were saying 2040 and now they roll it back 30 yrs.

i dont know what to believe anymore.

2007-12-12 10:58:14 · 10 answers · asked by inside and out 1

plz give a source with your answer like a website or something.

2007-12-12 10:52:27 · 2 answers · asked by jasonz619 1

Personally I would say it's fair to call Al Gore somewhat of an alarmist. For example, he mentions that sea levels could rise hundreds of feet without discussing the likelihood or time frames. While the scenario is possible, it's important to provide this context.

In general, an "alarmist" is someone who predicts unrealistic and alarming scenarios. Since all indications are that scientists' predictions are too conservative, I would not certainly not call them "alarmists".

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AiBHBPhyRNMzr41QhpHCsh7ty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071210195739AAdkrj2

I would say that a "denier" is someone who refuses to acknowledge scientific data. Especially when they specifically request data, are provided data, and continue to ignore it. A good example here:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ar3uYF61NoLWT9ZHLARiBxHty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071210112240AAaUubJ&show=7#profile-info-sSvPEf97aa

How would you define these terms? To whom do they apply?

2007-12-12 10:46:00 · 9 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

Good Luck. When you actually look you kool-aid drinkers will find out that ONE study in 2005 from the Scripps Oceanographic Institute is the so-called "proof" of man-made global warming.

I can link you to scores of peer reviewed studies in 2007 that refute man-made global warming:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8

Let's see you come up with a single study after 2005 that supports MAN-MADE global warming.

2007-12-12 09:42:16 · 5 answers · asked by c m 2

In 1988 James Hansen of NASA predicted the ensuing global warming. He created 3 different scenarios, depending on how human greenhouse gas emissions changed. Actual changes ended up being closest to his Scenario B.

"Scenario B is pretty close and certainly well within the error estimates of the real world changes. And if you factor in the 5 to 10% overestimate of the forcings in a simple way, Scenario B would be right in the middle of the observed trends. It is certainly close enough to provide confidence that the model is capable of matching the global mean temperature rise!"

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/

Graphically:

http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen88_forc.jpg

To hear skeptics talk about it, you would think Hansen said "the planet will warm" and left it at that! He used a climate model (a crude one relative to today's) and accurately predicted the ensuing warming trend.

How about giving him some credit?

2007-12-12 09:23:43 · 10 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

The bill calls for the United States to cut carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions by 70 percent by 2050 from electric power plants, manufacturing and transportation.

The legislation was introduced by Republican John Warner and Independent Joe Lieberman.

It would create a "cap-and-trade" system whereby companies would have pollution allowances that they could sell if they went below the emission limits, or buy if they found they could not meet the requirements.

The trading is aimed at reducing the economic impact of putting limits on carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels, the leading greenhouse gas.

An amendment by Sanders (I-Vt.) calling for an 80 percent reduction in emissions by 2050 instead of 70 percent was defeated 12-7.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315464,00.html

Climate scientists generally recommend an 80% reduction in emissions by 2050.

So what do you think of this bill? Too aggressive? Not aggressive enough?

2007-12-12 09:11:59 · 7 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

The issue is caused by industry and personal choices.
The effects may have major implications for the economy, health care, immigration, disaster relief, and the availability of water, food, and energy.
Deciding how to respond involves decisions on personal and societal mores and values.
The solutions must encompass industrial policy, transportation policy, regional planning, energy policy, international relations and collaboration, and so much more.

Since it's such an all-encompassing scenario, starts with people and ends with effects on people, and since most of the human scope of the effects are not studied or addressed in the course of environmental science, why does it get tucked away as an "environmental" issue? Most of us see the "environment" as being something outside of "us." Sure, the environment will change along the way, but isn't the issue far broader and greater, and ultimately more about our choices, and the effects those will have on us?

2007-12-12 07:44:13 · 10 answers · asked by J S 5

Since science is largely funded by the government, would not global warming exploit scientists by forcing them to lobby for funds by ignoring facts and focusing more on forming a "concensus" so they can recieve my tax dollars? Why does Al Gore along with Democrats want to head the country in that direction rather than leave science to the scientists?

2007-12-12 06:51:55 · 5 answers · asked by james 2

I know you AGW alarmist will say that you will not say your politcal views becasue global warming is not a politcal issue. But even so I would like to see reguardless of if you think it is politcal or not I want to see what people say.

2007-12-12 06:41:35 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-12-12 06:19:48 · 23 answers · asked by me45404 3

Here is what Cullen (who is a Weather Channel meteorologist with a PhD in climatology) said:

"If a meteorologist has an AMS Seal of Approval, which is used to confer legitimacy to TV meteorologists, then meteorologists have a responsibility to truly educate themselves on the science of global warming.

Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms. And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy. If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval."

http://www.weather.com/blog/weather/8_11392.html

Note that she did not say "if a meteorologist doesn't think humans are causing global warming...", she simply said they should be able to speak to the fundamental science of climate change.

Do you agree?

2007-12-12 06:14:27 · 13 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

The anthropogenic (man-made) global warming theory (AGW) is not perfect. However, it is by far the best theory explaining the observational data that the planet is warming. No other theory comes close to the accuracy of the AGW theory.

It seems like the skeptics' arguments boil down to this:

"I'm not convinced by the anthropogenic global warming theory, and although I have no valid alternative scientific theory to explain the observations, it's possible that one exists".

Since there are no explanations for the observed data nearly as good as the AGW theory, most skeptical arguments consist of trying to poke holes in the AGW theory rather than supporting a competing theory.

Even if there are some minor discrepancies in the AGW theory, should people not accept it as the default theory since it's by far the most accurate in explaining the observations?

Isn't it rather silly to hope that someone will magically come up with a better theory?

2007-12-12 05:26:11 · 14 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

i want to no the effects like flooding and stuff like that i would love ur help thanks x x x :)

2007-12-12 04:22:54 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

Some anthropogenic global warming skeptics have claimed that although Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) has remained essentially unchanged as global warming has accelerated rapidly over the past 30 years, the Sun may be responsible due to some sort of delay factor (perhaps related to the oceans' heat storage capacity).

Well examining the best available TSI proxy (from a Lean 2000 paper), the TSI increased from 1910-1950, decreased from 1950-1975, and remained roughly unchanged from 1975-Present.

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/tsilean.jpg

Examining the global temperature, it similarly increased from 1910-1940 (aerosol cooling overwhelmed warming effects from 1940-1950), decreased slightly from 1940-1970, and then increased rapidly from 1970-Present.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2005/ann/global-blended-temp-pg.gif

So the global temperature followed the TSI fairly closely for most of the 20th century.

Why is this no longer the case?

2007-12-12 04:09:55 · 5 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

As reported recently, "Greenland's ice sheet melted nearly 19 billion tons more than the previous high mark, and the volume of Arctic sea ice at summer's end was half what it was just four years earlier, according to new NASA satellite data obtained by The Associated Press."

Additionally, "Just last year, two top scientists surprised their colleagues by projecting that the Arctic sea ice was melting so rapidly that it could disappear entirely by the summer of 2040.

This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."

Those interested can read more at:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071212/ap_on_sc/arctic_melt_13

Will this finally sway those still in denial about climate change?

2007-12-12 03:23:30 · 9 answers · asked by Andy 5

If they don't stop using those terms someone might start believeing that global climate change is happening! Do you think it makes no sense to call a December tropical storm a freak weather event? Or a killer continent wide ice storm as never before seen? It's ONLY more than 1 MILLION people without electricity. And FEMA has ALWAYS been called out for two seperate events in the winter. Right?

2007-12-12 02:58:51 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

are we causing this also.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2006/161106suvjupiter.htm



or is it all a cycle...

2007-12-12 02:39:59 · 7 answers · asked by inside and out 1

Why do people keep on having babies? they're are MORE than enough people on the earth!!!! this is what mostly cause global warming!! aren't people stupid?

2007-12-12 02:30:15 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous

One tree each - it wouldn't take much time or cost much, but if everyone in the world did it, think of the difference it would make! I know it's not practical for everyone to do it, but if just a small portion of each country would plant one tree each, it would surely halp in the battle with climate change!
Would you do it? More to the point, will you do it?!

2007-12-12 02:00:04 · 15 answers · asked by claire 5

If the predicted amount of CO2 for 2030 is confirmed, we’ll have 55% more CO2 and a 4° C / 39° F temperature increase (which is the difference of temperature we’ve had between now and the Ice Age). It would probably destroy the world economy, animal and vegetal species, and threaten mankind.
IF NOT, WHY WOULD ANY COUNTRY IN THE 3RD WORLD SIGN A TREATY TO REDUCE CO2 EMISSIONS? WHY WOULD THEY SIGN A TREATY WITH UNEVEN CONDITIONS?
IF YES, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO STOP USING YOUR CAR SO THAT YOU POLLUTE AS MUCH AS ANY CITIZEN IN THE WORLD? WILL WE HAVE TO REDESIGN OUR CITIES, CONSUMPTION STANDARDS AND LIFESTYLE?

P.S. (By the way, are you happy competing with your neighbor and friends to see who’s got the best car? Having higher consumption needs is actually making you happier?)

2007-12-12 01:31:24 · 8 answers · asked by MAROBU 5

One fact that CO2 levels rise after the temperature, is commonly countered with a response of "That was true in the past, but thats not what is happening now."

This would mean that either the properties of CO2 has changed, or physics is being discounted.

2007-12-12 00:37:33 · 10 answers · asked by Jack_Scar_Action_Hero 5

For a country that's getting "slapped" for not doing "enough" I can say I am really proud of this announcement because I know I fought to have something down about one of the largest polluters in our area for YEARS without getting ANYWHERE, so the fact that Baird has given the top 700 polluters a deadline for reporting on Greenhouse emissions and then DOING something about otherwise risking huge fines, it is indeed a HUGE step in the right direction. However it should go even deeper than just fines. They have to be big enough to put a dent and incentive into their making these changes.

This is the type of thing that all countries should do and should have done from day one. Agreed?

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/071212/world/climate_talks_cda_6

Now I just hope environmentalists put pressure and raise awareness to the communities involved so they can keep on top of their local government officials too.

2007-12-11 23:58:45 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

We all share the same planet and nowhere else to go. Suppose all passenger cars are taxed according to the size of the engine, would you pay more registration fees, say ,twice as much to drive a 2,000cc engine car or three times for anything over 3,000cc car?

2007-12-11 22:20:59 · 8 answers · asked by mozart8 3

Warmer winters less energy consumed to keep warm, land is more productive as crop variety and yield increase, extra rainfall provides an opportunity to use water for hydro power and for sale to low rainfall areas.

2007-12-11 21:21:52 · 8 answers · asked by Biron G 1

2007-12-11 15:29:55 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

abc7 World News: Greenland's largest glacier is melting twice as fast today as it was five years ago. The ice this one glacier dumps out in just one day holds as much water as New York City uses in a year.

"Most of the fresh water in the world is stored in Antarctica and Greenland. If all that ice melted, sea level would rise more than 300 feet across the planet,

are we going to be extinct in the next 50 years?

2007-12-11 15:03:01 · 12 answers · asked by bball17 2

Sun, Not Man, Main Cause of Climate Change, New Study Says
By Monisha Bansal
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
December 11, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - 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.

That is contrary to the views held by former Vice President Al Gore, who accepted the Nobel Prize on Monday along with the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and who thinks that climate change is largely caused by human action.

Gore wants nations to tax carbon dioxide emissions and not build any new coal plants, among other steps. "It is time to make peace with the planet," Gore said in his Nobel speech, as reported by the Associated Press. "We must quickly mobilize our civilization with the urgency and resolve that has previously been seen only when nations mobilized for war."

The new report, which challenges the claims of Gore and the IPCC, was published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society.

The report was written by David Douglass at the University of Rochester, John Christy at the University of Alabama, and Benjamin Pearson and S. Fred Singer at the University of Virginia.

"Our findings basically are that fingerprints - that is to say the pattern of warming - that's predicted by greenhouse models does not match the fingerprints of observations, so there is a disconnect between greenhouse models and the actual reality of observations," Singer told Cybercast News Service.

"This means that the greenhouse effect - while real - is not very important in producing climate change," he said. "It's a lot smaller than what the models calculate."

Singer said the reason why the models "overestimate the effectiveness of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is that the models ignore what are called negative feedbacks which occur in the atmosphere, such as clouds, which reduce the effect of the greenhouse gases."

"Their models just don't consider them properly," he said.

But Bracken Hendricks, a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress, told Cybercast News Service, that the study is "radically out of step with the complete scientific consensus."

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is not just a report. It's not just a random gathering of scientists. It's the largest scientific body ever assembled," he said. "Their most recent assessment determined that there's 90 percent certainty that global climate change is happening and that it is caused by human beings."

But Singer said, "We have to remember that the climate has always been changing ever since we have records, and we have geologic records going back millions and millions of years. We know that there have been huge climate changes on the earth long before human beings actually came into existence.

"We are fairly sure that what's causing the warming are changes in the sun," he said. "These are very subtle changes that are very difficult to observe. The sun is really a quite variable star."

Hendricks, however, said because of the IPCC report, "the assertion that this is caused by increased solar activity or these sorts of things is out of step with the vast consensus."

"It's dangerous to get into a game of dueling science," he added. "We don't want to be gambling with the fate of the planet."

But Singer said because global warming is a natural event. "There is little point to try to control emission of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, which means that all of this legislation and all of these efforts to find substitutes for fossil fuels are pointless, useless and very, very expensive," he said.

Hendricks countered, saying that alternative energy will be a multi-billion dollar industry and "an opportunity to revitalize our global competitiveness" through innovation and job creation.

2007-12-11 14:23:24 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-12-11 13:36:13 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous