Global Warming

whats a good hypothesis for global warming???And one that i can reasearch and stuff.

2007-06-05 04:47:01 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

* He launched his new project bof using only bussiness class planes for bussiness people.
* This will increase people to fly & increase the number of poluting planes in the sky.
* What he said by his tongue was contradicting what he meant in his mind!
* Word are easy to say , & it is easy to cheat people by them.
* PEOPLE BE MORE VIGILANT & DON'T BELIEVE EACH WORD PEOPLE SAY!!!

2007-06-05 03:42:10 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

According to the Arcimedes Principle, the volume of an object= the amount of water it displaces. The topic for World Environment Day 2007 is : Melting Ice A Hot Topic. The UNEP website talks about the melting ice caps and how they are flooding small islands. If the Archimedes Principle is correct, should melting ice lead directly to the flooding of small islands?

P.S. If I got anything wrong, please don't hesitate to tell me. I am only a kid whose mother told her about this Principle.

2007-06-05 03:42:08 · 11 answers · asked by Emilie W 1

I can't believe how much of it has melted - at least a quarter of it.

Now, the question... If 25% of the ice sheet has disappeared, then why hasn't the sea level risen at all yet? It hasn't gone up one centimeter.

Imagine if ALL of the Arcitc ice sheet melts. Four multiplied by a rise of 0 centimeters is still 0 centimeters.

I mean, we've all been told that all that melting ice will make the oceans rise.

Could the doomsday experts be wrong?

2007-06-05 02:44:02 · 17 answers · asked by Bill W 【ツ】 6

I dont have any idea what it means? can u please help?

2007-06-04 23:58:13 · 18 answers · asked by stardust 2

2007-06-04 23:07:13 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

Ice core samples taken from greenland show CO2 in the air in very high concentrations thousands of years ago. Scientists please respond, not the spoon-fed media politico response. I am interested in real science!

2007-06-04 22:43:47 · 12 answers · asked by Matthew K 3

Several leading global warming studies rely on the measured growth of trees for the last 1,000 years by inspecting the rings of the tree from year to year to estimate previous temperatures.

How can we use tree rings to predict a global average temperature when trees largely don't grow in the winter?

Wouldn't this mean that we tried to predict the temperature using only the data from the seasons of the year that the Tree grew?

Should we leave 1/4 of a year out of the previous estimations for an average temperature?

What other factors influence tree growth besides just the temperature and how to we account for them?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163999,00.html

2007-06-04 21:40:54 · 9 answers · asked by Nickoo 5

Please, if you know some of these answers please help me!!!

1: Can the ocean rise by 25ft in a matter of seconds?
2: Can a helicopter freeze instantly?
3:Can it hail as large as tennis ball?
4:How many tornadoes can there be in one place, say the size of new york?
5:Can a computer model predict the future?
6: Can the current in the water quickly switch direction?
7: Can people freeze in under 30 seconds?
8:What's the largest recorded hailstone?

Thank you so much please reply if you know the answers!!!

I need them quickly so thanks!!!

2007-06-04 21:21:57 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

I won't play games and make this sound like a question.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

1000 pages long. Well over 1000 references to the peer reviewed scientific literature. 150 authors, 600 reviewers. Possibly the most solid and most peer reviewed scientific document in history.

Chapter 2 is where the beef is about the causes of warming. 200 pages, about 500 references.

Why the IPCC report is the definitive work, and what the scientific community thinks about it:

"The drafting of reports by the world’s pre-eminent group of climate scientists is an odd process. For many months scientists contributing to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tussle over the evidence. Nothing gets published unless it achieves consensus. This means that the panel’s reports are extremely conservative – even timid. It also means that they are as trustworthy as a scientific document can be."

George Monbiot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

2007-06-04 17:59:36 · 13 answers · asked by Bob 7

i know its EVERYWHERE on EARTH but besides anarctica where else does it affect the most and why?

2007-06-04 15:41:02 · 13 answers · asked by babyxmystery 2

2007-06-04 15:25:34 · 3 answers · asked by Tiffany Patterson 2

We know from industrial production records approximately how much carbon we have brought up from underground and injected into the atmosphere by burning since the industrial revolution.
We know that the observed rise in atmospheric and oceanic CO2 is approximately equal to what we have dug/pumped up and burned.
We know from straightforward engineering physics that that much CO2 added to the atmosphere will result in about 1.5 watt/sq. meter reduction in the heat the planet looses to space.

The question is - if you feel that global warming is not occurring, what mechanism are you proposing to offset the known forcing of that much CO2?

2007-06-04 14:48:49 · 8 answers · asked by virtualguy92107 7

2007-06-04 12:56:20 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous

These are serious questions. Please do not bash or call names.


1. Why have we had periods of average global temperature higher than that of today if we are causing the warming?
2. Why was the increase in global temperature over the last century more in the first 1/2 of the century, prior to industrialization?
3. Why was there a reduction in temperature during the 80s?
4. Why are other planets in our solar system warming without human involvement?
5. Why is nobody reporting that solar flares have been measured hotter than during any period in history?
6. If people such as Al Gore TRULY believed that tragedy is coming, why do they not try to reduce in simple ways like flying commercially? They claim to be carbon neutral, but if I believed that humans could impact global warming, and believed that disaster was inevitable, I would fly commercial and live carbon negative.
7. Why do environmentalists not have Gore's head on a block due to the issues in number 6?

2007-06-04 12:53:17 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous

There seems to be a lot of media attention on Global Warming lately and a lot of it seems to have a political agenda. I'm wondering what that agenda is (or if there are multiple agendas).

Don't get me wrong. I'll agree that the planet is currently warming up, but it seems the causes are dominantly natural and the process is a lot more gradual than the media would have us believe. And I agree that we need to conserve natural resources, but for other reasons like reducing pollution. Try and be open minded.

2007-06-04 12:12:02 · 23 answers · asked by Dan 2

2007-06-04 11:54:07 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

any ideas on how to stop or reduce it somehow

2007-06-04 11:37:00 · 29 answers · asked by Daniela(: 3

What proof do the believers have? The scientists cant prove it. The hippy ones believe it just because they want to. Or is it just blind faith and obedience, like a religion?

2007-06-04 11:15:35 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous

the effect of Global Warming on chipmunks?

2007-06-04 10:57:33 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

Do you beleive that human activities have resulted in an increase in emissions of the so called 'greenhouse gases' (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide etc).

2007-06-04 10:16:14 · 14 answers · asked by Trevor 7

Shouldn't we forbid the lifestyle 'excesses' that Robertson wants to forbid even though he can't prove that they cause the harm that he alleges?

Of course not.

The same standard has to apply across the board.

2007-06-04 09:06:25 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous

Ok. I personally believe global warming is man made. But a lot of people have conradicted me. I have my facts - www.climatecrisis.com is a good site - but I want to hear the other side of the argument. Does anyone who says that this global warming is totally natural have proof? I'd really honestly like to see it.

2007-06-04 08:50:38 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous

I think that the fact that Antarctica's ice is melting might be attributed to the fact that the world is heating back up after the Ice Age. We wouldn't have known a hundred years ago on account of the limited technology we had one hundred years ago. granite it might be the carbon emission or other emissions, Waste product etc. etc. Your thoughts?

2007-06-04 08:08:44 · 16 answers · asked by pro1 1

Yes water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, but GW skeptics always conveniently forget to suggest what causes an increase in atmospheric water vapor. Water vapor doesn't just magically pop into the atmosphere - something has to cause its concentration to increase. So what do you suggest it is?

Here's an explanation that makes sense to me.

"Current state-of-the-art climate models include fully interactive clouds. They show that an increase in atmospheric temperature caused by the greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic gases will in turn lead to an increase in the water vapor content of the troposphere, with approximately constant relative humidity...thus water vapor acts as a positive feedback to the forcing provided by human-released greenhouse gases such as CO2."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#The_role_of_water_vapor

So why do GW skeptics keep trying to dismiss CO2 as a greenhouse gas and instead blame water vapor?

2007-06-04 07:57:34 · 6 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

If you give a doctor your symptoms and he gives you the most likely diagnosis, do you require him to prove it? Maybe in some cases, but what if it's something that can't be directly and conclusively proven?

The fact is that it cannot be proven that human CO2 emissions are the primary cause of global warming. It also cannot be proven that "natural" causes such as solar variations are the primary cause of global warming. The probability can be calculated to a high likelihood, as is the case with human CO2 emissions, but skeptics require "proof", which is impossible to provide.

All scientists can do is gather the data and make models such as this one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

which shows pretty clearly that greenhouse gases have been the primary cause of GW over the past several decades. Why do GW skeptics require proof that's impossible to provide, especially when they accept that GW is due to "natural cycles" with no proof?

2007-06-04 07:19:55 · 15 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

Yes in the 1970s there was a period of global cooling. This was due to increased volcanic activity and human aerosol emissions blocking sunlight and creating a degree of global dimming, which led to a short-term global cooling.

Skeptics claim that all climate experts in the 1970s were predicting a new Ice Age and that there was "mass hysteria", etc. etc. This is simply untrue

"In the 1970s, there was a book in the popular press, a few articles in popular magazines, and a small amount of scientific speculation based on the recently discovered glacial cycles and the recent slight cooling trend from air pollution blocking the sunlight. There were no daily headlines. There was no avalanche of scientific articles. There were no United Nations treaties or commissions...You could find broader "consensus" on a coming alien invasion."

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/23/18534/222

So why do GW skeptics keep bringing up the 1970s cooling as evidence against global warming?

2007-06-04 07:10:16 · 9 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

we are constantly told cardon dioxide is causing global warming yet the evidence to back it up isn't conclusive. We even have respected sciencetists in the field telling us that it is the sun instead that is driving the rise in temperture in the world. Why are we treating this theory that CO2 is causing globa warming as a proven fact and not discussing this?

2007-06-04 06:38:54 · 19 answers · asked by Shanahan 4

That you can not find any proof besides consesus, or that you can't get any support from the majority of the population?

2007-06-04 06:21:23 · 20 answers · asked by Opoohwan 3

about 10+ gigtons or billion tons per 100 square km for 1 meter sea water.

2007-06-04 05:48:26 · 16 answers · asked by toodd 4