Global Warming

2007-06-20 19:20:18 · 32 answers · asked by skateboardboi 5

what are the chances something like that could happen in my lifetime?

2007-06-20 19:15:16 · 14 answers · asked by skateboardboi 5

i'm writing about global warming with a new twist on the old story, but i need temperature charts of U.S. Climate Normals from 1841 to 2000. please, i've been looking on my own and all i can find is
U.S. Climate Normals from 1971 to 2000, which is not dating far enough back. i need stats from before the coal burning days, then oil, then our newer "clean" fuels all side by side. any help would be greatly appreciated.
No, i am not looking for help on home work, this is a real artical i'm writing on my own spare time, anyone care to help me?

2007-06-20 19:03:53 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-06-20 18:23:33 · 18 answers · asked by mansi_3saini 1

can we only saw all the damage in this world and do nothing?

2007-06-20 16:26:36 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

Can you give me a short explanation of Global Warming?
How it is started?
how we can prevent it?

thanks in advance

2007-06-20 16:10:02 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-06-20 14:35:33 · 3 answers · asked by jim m 5

Yes after with 1-3 degree increase in the next 1500 centuries, we should start hoarding perishables to prepare for the worst like Y2K. Rediculous. My mom is still using the wheat and rice we got Nov. 1999! I'm embarrassed to say after I told her she is overracting way to much.

2007-06-20 10:55:19 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

Read the sunspots
The mud at the bottom of B.C. fjords reveals that solar output drives climate change - and that we should prepare now for dangerous global cooling
R. TIMOTHY PATTERSON, Financial Post
Published: Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Politicians and environmentalists these days convey the impression that climate-change research is an exceptionally dull field with little left to discover. We are assured by everyone from David Suzuki to Al Gore to Prime Minister Stephen Harper that "the science is settled." At the recent G8 summit, German Chancellor Angela Merkel even attempted to convince world leaders to play God by restricting carbon-dioxide emissions to a level that would magically limit the rise in world temperatures to 2C.

The fact that science is many years away from properly understanding global climate doesn't seem to bother our leaders at all. Inviting testimony only from those who don't question political orthodoxy on the issue, parliamentarians are charging ahead with the impossible and expensive goal of "stopping global climate change." Liberal MP Ralph Goodale's June 11 House of Commons assertion that Parliament should have "a real good discussion about the potential for carbon capture and sequestration in dealing with carbon dioxide, which has tremendous potential for improving the climate, not only here in Canada but around the world," would be humorous were he, and even the current government, not deadly serious about devoting vast resources to this hopeless crusade.

Climate stability has never been a feature of planet Earth. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually and, at times, quite rapidly. Many times in the past, temperatures were far higher than today, and occasionally, temperatures were colder. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was about 3C warmer than now. Ten thousand years ago, while the world was coming out of the thou-sand-year-long "Younger Dryas" cold episode, temperatures rose as much as 6C in a decade -- 100 times faster than the past century's 0.6C warming that has so upset environmentalists.

View Larger Image
(See hardcopy for Chart/Graph)
Andrew Barr, National Post
Email to a friendPrinter friendly
Font:
*
*
*
*
Climate-change research is now literally exploding with new findings. Since the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the field has had more research than in all previous years combined and the discoveries are completely shattering the myths. For example, I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of all energy on the planet.

My interest in the current climate-change debate was triggered in 1998, when I was funded by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council strategic project grant to determine if there were regular cycles in West Coast fish productivity. As a result of wide swings in the populations of anchovies, herring and other commercially important West Coast fish stock, fisheries managers were having a very difficult time establishing appropriate fishing quotas. One season there would be abundant stock and broad harvesting would be acceptable; the very next year the fisheries would collapse. No one really knew why or how to predict the future health of this crucially important resource.


Although climate was suspected to play a significant role in marine productivity, only since the beginning of the 20th century have accurate fishing and temperature records been kept in this region of the northeast Pacific. We needed indicators of fish productivity over thousands of years to see whether there were recurring cycles in populations and what phenomena may be driving the changes.

My research team began to collect and analyze core samples from the bottom of deep Western Canadian fjords. The regions in which we chose to conduct our research, Effingham Inlet on the West Coast of Vancouver Island, and in 2001, sounds in the Belize-Seymour Inlet complex on the mainland coast of British Columbia, were perfect for this sort of work. The topography of these fjords is such that they contain deep basins that are subject to little water transfer from the open ocean and so water near the bottom is relatively stagnant and very low in oxygen content. As a consequence, the floors of these basins are mostly lifeless and sediment layers build up year after year, undisturbed over millennia.

Using various coring technologies, we have been able to collect more than 5,000 years' worth of mud in these basins, with the oldest layers coming from a depth of about 11 metres below the fjord floor. Clearly visible in our mud cores are annual changes that record the different seasons: corresponding to the cool, rainy winter seasons, we see dark layers composed mostly of dirt washed into the fjord from the land; in the warm summer months we see abundant fossilized fish scales and diatoms (the most common form of phytoplankton, or single-celled ocean plants) that have fallen to the fjord floor from nutrient-rich surface waters. In years when warm summers dominated climate in the region, we clearly see far thicker layers of diatoms and fish scales than we do in cooler years. Ours is one of the highest-quality climate records available anywhere today and in it we see obvious confirmation that natural climate change can be dramatic. For example, in the middle of a 62-year slice of the record at about 4,400 years ago, there was a shift in climate in only a couple of seasons from warm, dry and sunny conditions to one that was mostly cold and rainy for several decades.

Using computers to conduct what is referred to as a "time series analysis" on the colouration and thickness of the annual layers, we have discovered repeated cycles in marine productivity in this, a region larger than Europe. Specifically, we find a very strong and consistent 11-year cycle throughout the whole record in the sediments and diatom remains. This correlates closely to the well-known 11-year "Schwabe" sunspot cycle, during which the output of the sun varies by about 0.1%. Sunspots, violent storms on the surface of the sun, have the effect of increasing solar output, so, by counting the spots visible on the surface of our star, we have an indirect measure of its varying brightness. Such records have been kept for many centuries and match very well with the changes in marine productivity we are observing.


In the sediment, diatom and fish-scale records, we also see longer period cycles, all correlating closely with other well-known regular solar variations. In particular, we see marine productivity cycles that match well with the sun's 75-90-year "Gleissberg Cycle," the 200-500-year "Suess Cycle" and the 1,100-1,500-year "Bond Cycle." The strength of these cycles is seen to vary over time, fading in and out over the millennia. The variation in the sun's brightness over these longer cycles may be many times greater in magnitude than that measured over the short Schwabe cycle and so are seen to impact marine productivity even more significantly.

Our finding of a direct correlation between variations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate indicators (called "proxies") is not unique. Hundreds of other studies, using proxies from tree rings in Russia's Kola Peninsula to water levels of the Nile, show exactly the same thing: The sun appears to drive climate change.

However, there was a problem. Despite this clear and repeated correlation, the measured variations in incoming solar energy were, on their own, not sufficient to cause the climate changes we have observed in our proxies. In addition, even though the sun is brighter now than at any time in the past 8,000 years, the increase in direct solar input is not calculated to be sufficient to cause the past century's modest warming on its own. There had to be an amplifier of some sort for the sun to be a primary driver of climate change.

Indeed, that is precisely what has been discovered. In a series of groundbreaking scientific papers starting in 2002, Veizer, Shaviv, Carslaw, and most recently Svensmark et al., have collectively demonstrated that as the output of the sun varies, and with it, our star's protective solar wind, varying amounts of galactic cosmic rays from deep space are able to enter our solar system and penetrate the Earth's atmosphere. These cosmic rays enhance cloud formation which, overall, has a cooling effect on the planet. When the sun's energy output is greater, not only does the Earth warm slightly due to direct solar heating, but the stronger solar wind generated during these "high sun" periods blocks many of the cosmic rays from entering our atmosphere. Cloud cover decreases and the Earth warms still more.

The opposite occurs when the sun is less bright. More cosmic rays are able to get through to Earth's atmosphere, more clouds form, and the planet cools more than would otherwise be the case due to direct solar effects alone. This is precisely what happened from the middle of the 17th century into the early 18th century, when the solar energy input to our atmosphere, as indicated by the number of sunspots, was at a minimum and the planet was stuck in the Little Ice Age. These new findings suggest that changes in the output of the sun caused the most recent climate change. By comparison, CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales.


In some fields the science is indeed "settled." For example, plate tectonics, once highly controversial, is now so well-established that we rarely see papers on the subject at all. But the science of global climate change is still in its infancy, with many thousands of papers published every year. In a 2003 poll conducted by German environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that "the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases." About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers at all.

Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the Little Ice Age, should be a priority for governments. It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada. As a country at the northern limit to agriculture in the world, it would take very little cooling to destroy much of our food crops, while a warming would only require that we adopt farming techniques practiced to the south of us.

Meantime, we need to continue research into this, the most complex field of science ever tackled, and immediately halt wasted expenditures on the King Canute-like task of "stopping climate change."

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4

2007-06-20 10:54:44 · 11 answers · asked by **Anti-PeTA** 5

2007-06-20 10:38:03 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

Last night and today I asked the same poll question on YA to determine the political affiliation, knowledge, and education of people on both sides of the global warming issue.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ahj_9Ts6XCPlEPR8x0ZiSSPsy6IX?qid=20070620093306AAiroBM
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=As51esLbobIHNR73Q9Efqv_sy6IX?qid=20070619214425AA4ugqF

I got 32 useable answers, pretty well spread along the political spectrum. Breakdown:

Every single person who did not believe humans are the primary cuase of the current global warming (non-believers=NBs) were right-leaning to conservative. Those who believed humans are the primary cause (believers=Bs) ranged from moderate to one socialist, mainly liberals.

Bs got their information from much better sources on average. Many NBs cited common sense.

Bs had better education, basically averaging a BS in science while NBs averaged a BS in a non-science.

Why is global warming such a partisan issue?

2007-06-20 08:58:13 · 17 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

Or do you feel his efforts are for Monetary reasons? He puts on these pig events in airconditioned areanas, he travels in huge motor homes with many people, he flies across country and al over the world....He has SUVs and doesn't show any personal changes in regards to Global Warming. What are your thoughts on this man?

2007-06-20 07:45:44 · 20 answers · asked by MysteriouslyMisty 2

Do you feel as though Global warming is an the effort of money hungry people who want to convince the world to buy their books and watch their films?

2007-06-20 07:43:36 · 32 answers · asked by MysteriouslyMisty 2

And the history of climate change throughout the centuries? A lot of people seem to be under the impression that "global warming" amounts to the earth just getting hotter and hotter until the glaciers melt and flood the planet, which will not be the case. The earth is pretty good at keeping herself balanced.

2007-06-20 07:25:48 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

There's cigarette butts being thrown out the window at EVERY single stop light I stop at and not to mention ashes. How badly does that affect our environment. Maybe if I have an answer I won't be screaming at the person in the car next to me, or it will give me even more reason to do so.

2007-06-20 06:51:37 · 10 answers · asked by Ana Perla 1

The price of oil would soar, probably to well over $100/barrel. The price of gasoline would go to over $5/gallon in the US, more elsewhere. The cost of everything we buy would skyrocket.

It doesn't matter how much various countries specifically import from Iran. The oil market is a world market and removing Iranian oil would affect every oil importing country.

Millions of people would lose their jobs. Others couldn't afford to drive to them. People would be going hungry.

A much better idea is to start a major program to develop alternative sources of energy, and cause the oil price to collapse. When OPEC first tried to raise oil prices the US did exactly that, and the price fell. Unfortunately, we then cancelled the programs.

2007-06-20 06:05:30 · 7 answers · asked by Bob 7

Has any body been working to find a bacterium that could deteriate a small amount of the greenhouse gases? An if so how long would it take to go into affect? I would like also like to know where one could find this information so I could look at it first hand. THX!

2007-06-20 05:50:19 · 4 answers · asked by Tbo 2

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1852182/posts
In the article, Mr. Bryson seems to be a very ligitimate scientist, and what he says makes sense. I don't know what to believe about global warming now. What do you think about it?

2007-06-20 03:49:43 · 12 answers · asked by Logan 2

like his fan club or the Discovery Channel. It's on youtube but where do I send it?

2007-06-20 03:27:24 · 5 answers · asked by this isnt how i really look 1

I've been hearing and reading so much about global warming lately, specifically that carbon dioxide emissions are to blame, and since America puts out a good amount, they're to blame. Now, I've seen Al Gore's little slide show and I don't believe it--there are too many 'what-ifs' through it. And I've seen the pics of the polar bears, even though I saw them before with a different caption. Most of all, though, I've seen the explanation of global warming--Carbon dioxide levels through industry are rising, and the summers are getting hotter and hotter. Therefore, carbon dioxide emissions must be responsible for global warming. Being a man who understands scientific method, there's something missing--you have to prove the theory through experimentation, not consensus and conjecture. So here's your chance! Prove to me that global warming is caused by carbon dioxide and American industry...or call me an idiot when you can't come up with an answer that fits your beliefs.

2007-06-20 03:22:21 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-06-20 03:00:04 · 3 answers · asked by lady D 1

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070620/ts_nm/climate_china_dc

2007-06-20 02:34:49 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

You are obviously a smart lot so I challenge you to come up with POSITIVE suggestions only to the following question:

Lets pretend the concept of Global Warming has never existed. Looking at the problems attributed to it today what can we do now and in the future to solve these problems?

Remember you can't use anything associated with Global Warming Arguments for or against because it never existed. Bet you can't do it. Lol.

2007-06-20 02:12:31 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

i live in a country in africa thats abit near the equater. its getting too hot.its so hot you would`nt know the difference between summer and winter! yes its that bad!!!! i personally want to reduce the causes of global warming because i am greatly affected by the intense heat.i dont know what steps i can take to do this.please help meto make a difference..

2007-06-19 22:46:45 · 7 answers · asked by sax 1

2007-06-19 20:52:57 · 8 answers · asked by Arthur M 1

I wouldn't listen to Al Gore if I were you.

There are a few problems with his little Hollywood film...

- Gore promoted the now-debunked "hockey-stick" graph temperature chart for the last 1,000 years in an attempt to prove man's overwhelming impact on the climate, and attempted to debunk the significance of the medieval warm period and little ice age.

- Gore insisted on a link between increased hurricane activity and global warming that most scientist believe does not exist.

- Gore asserted that today's Arctic is experiencing unprecedented warmth while ignoring that temperatures in the 1930's were as warm or warmer.

- Gore said that the Antarctic was warming and losing ice but failed to note, that this is only true of a small region and the vast bulk has been cooling and gaining ice.
- Gore hyped unfounded fears that Greenland's ice is in danger of disappearing.
- Gore erroneously claimed that the ice cap on Mt. Kilimanjaro is disappearing due to global warming, though satellite measurements show no temperature change at the summit, and the peer-reviewed scientific literature suggests that desiccation of the atmosphere in the region caused by post-colonial deforestation is the cause of the glacial recession.

- Gore made assertions of massive future sea level rise that is way outside of any supposed scientific "consensus" and is not supported in even the most alarmist literature.

- Gore incorrectly implied that a Peruvian glacier's retreat is due to global warming, while ignoring the fact that the region has been cooling since the 1930's and other glaciers in South America are advancing.

-Gore blamed global warming for water loss in Africa's Lake Chad, though NASA scientists had concluded that local water-use and grazing patterns are probably to blame.

- Gore inaccurately said that polar bears are drowning in significant numbers due to melting ice when in fact 11 of the 13 main groups in Canada are thriving, and there is evidence that the only groups that are not thriving are in a region of the Arctic that has cooled.

- Gore did not tell viewers that the 48 scientists whom he quoted as having accused President Bush of distorting science were part of a political advocacy group set up to support the Democrat Presidential candidate, John Kerry in 2004.

The above is a quote from here... http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061121... where you can also see the sources that support the conclusions.

Some politicians talk about "Global Dimming", but this theory has simply been put forward to try and explain why the observed rise in global temperature over recent years has been significantly lower than the alarmists predicted, but there isnoevidence for this. There is also the "Ocean Notion" which is the idea that the missing temperature has been sucked up by the sea. (To be released at some future time with "cataclysmic" results, of course!). This could only happen if theworld got much colder

In my opinion, the reason why the alarmists' predictions are turning out to be way off the mark, is simply because the science is bad and the "consensus" is wrong.

2007-06-19 20:21:02 · 23 answers · asked by mick t 5

In the 1970s, Reid Bryson was one of the few scientists to claim that the temporary global cooling was leading to an Ice Age

http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2007/05/who-heck-is-reid-bryson.html
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/23/18534/222

Global warming skeptics love to talk about the mythical global cooling panic of the 1970s. Now that same Reid Bryson (supposed "Father of Climatology", though who knows how he got that title and who gave it to him) is one of the few scientists claiming that global warming isn't caused by humans.

http://www.madison.com/tct/mad/topstories/197613

It seems like this guy is always in the scientific minority.

So first he helps create the global cooling leading to a new Ice Age theory, then he becomes a famous anthropogenic global warming skeptic.

Is this guy a global warming skeptic's wet dream or what?

2007-06-19 15:35:39 · 8 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

In Europe gas costs twice as much as it does in the USA so it seems logical just making it cost a lot more would reduce the use and the bad side effects caused by high use. Why not set it price at $11 per gallon everywhere so poor people would stop using it and the few who can afford to can have all they want and still generate less polution. That would save to food supply too.

2007-06-19 12:04:19 · 11 answers · asked by jim m 5

I met this girl the other day who was telling me how she uses washable, reusuable maxi pads. And I'll say that I'm glad I don't live in her dorm since she has to wash them in the laundry room. Her reason for using them is that she is trying to be as low-impact as possible. This is also one of the two girls who wanted to have the electricity shut off to their dorm room for the sake of lowering their impact on global warming.

2007-06-19 12:01:24 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous

Why did the temperature go down during the industry boom beginning in the '40s when co2 was on the upswing?

2007-06-19 11:56:16 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous