Global Warming

please help

2007-05-25 06:51:07 · 10 answers · asked by pparul69 1

Think back in time to the late 70’s and early 80’s. What was the big environmental hype at that time? It was the hole in the Ozone layer. If you believe today’s environmentalists this is how they explained away the huge hole in their argument about why between the 40’s and the early 80’s, CO2 was increasing, but global temperatures were falling. Falling so much that at the time they were predicting the next Ice Age. They dismiss the obvious and documented connection between global temperature and solar activity in favour of this being a result of our use of CFC gasses and claim victory for preventing the next Ice Age.

So, here is the point. If the over use of CFC gasses was going to take us to the next Ice Age a mere 20 years ago and now they are banned we are heading for catastrophe over Global Warming. Surely the most effective way to prevent the Global Warming catastrophe in the short to medium term is to do a controlled release of CFC’s over a period of time back into the atmosphere to restore the balance. Not enough to damage the Ozone layer but just enough to halt any rise in global temperature and maintain current levels.

Personally I think it is all complete nonsense and they should take another look at the comparative data between solar activity, CO2 and global temperatures.

2007-05-25 05:56:42 · 16 answers · asked by Jack 3

Since we exhale CO2 every time we breathe, wouldn't that help to reduce the effects of Global Warming?

2007-05-25 05:46:03 · 14 answers · asked by sigguy 2

How does some compare Global warming on earth with dead plant I don't think it would be accurate at all!
You to got remember that this would be so much different than our atmosphere.
It would be hard for anyone to compare data. Because you have living plants that
consume the carbon dioxide here on Earth.

Really all of these dead planets trying to compare them to or earth
is kind of difficult and really complex one. You would have calculate
the fact that we have plants and they don't this would account for
atmosphere gases changing but not in other in other planets.

2007-05-25 05:23:39 · 3 answers · asked by rodney r 2

I'm not sure if it would make a difference, but wouldn't it do something? If there's less dark colors to absorb heat and more colors that reflect light rays out the atmosphere, it could make a significant difference, right?
This would also be great since it doesn't require a lot of money and its really not that hard to just repaint things that are black, so why don't we do it?

2007-05-24 18:41:31 · 13 answers · asked by Kevin T 2

How can global warming alarmists explain away the disappearance of previous ice ages?

2007-05-24 17:18:11 · 12 answers · asked by maxbaggins 1

are we all going to die from global warming?

2007-05-24 17:09:40 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

since i moved from calif to kansas i get real bad headaches , do you ever adapt to climate?

2007-05-24 16:06:42 · 9 answers · asked by susan r 3

If your question questions the eco-nuts belief in pseudo science. It will be tagged as a violation of guide lines. You can tag this one tree huggers. This is a violation just so you can see what one is..... GO KISS GORES ***!

2007-05-24 15:35:22 · 8 answers · asked by David A 3

On this website look the section
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece
May 8, 2007
Neptune News
Also look at this site
http://www.globalwarming.org/
look for May 8, 2007
Neptune News
Filed under: Climate Changes -

2007-05-24 15:11:37 · 10 answers · asked by rodney r 2

Questions for Al Gore
By Dr. Roy Spencer
25 May 2006

Gore's Inconvenient Truth....

Dear Mr. Gore:

I have just seen your new movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," about the threat that global warming presents to humanity. I think you did a very good job of explaining global warming theory, and your presentation was effective. Please convey my compliments to your good friend, Laurie David, for a job well done.

As a climate scientist myself -- you might remember me...I'm the one you mistook for your "good friend," UK scientist Phil Jones during my congressional testimony some years back -- I have a few questions that occurred to me while watching the movie.

1) Why did you make it look like hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, floods, droughts, and ice calving off of glaciers and falling into the ocean, are only recent phenomena associated with global warming? You surely know that hurricane experts have been warning congress for many years that the natural cycle in hurricanes would return some day, and that our built-up coastlines were ripe for a disaster (like Katrina, which you highlighted in the movie). And as long as snow continues to fall on glaciers, they will continue to flow downhill toward the sea. Yet you made it look like these things wouldn't happen if it weren't for global warming. Also, since there are virtually no measures of severe weather showing a recent increase, I assume those graphs you showed actually represented damage increases, which are well known to be simply due to greater population and wealth. Is that right?

2) Why did you make it sound like all scientists agree that climate change is manmade and not natural? You mentioned a recent literature review study that supposedly found no peer-reviewed articles that attributed climate change to natural causes (a non-repeatable study which has since been refuted....I have a number of such articles in my office!) You also mentioned how important it is to listen to scientists when they warn us, yet surely you know that almost all past scientific predictions of gloom and doom have been wrong. How can we trust scientists' predictions now?

3) I know you still must feel bad about the last presidential election being stolen from you, but why did you have to make fun of Republican presidents (Reagan; both Bushes) for their views on global warming? The points you made in the movie might have had wider appeal if you did not alienate so many moviegoers in this manner.

4) Your presentation showing the past 650,000 years of atmospheric temperature and carbon dioxide reconstructions from ice cores was very effective. But I assume you know that some scientists view the CO2 increases as the result of, rather than the cause of, past temperature increases. It seems unlikely that CO2 variations have been the dominant cause of climate change for hundreds of thousands of years. And now that there is a new source of carbon dioxide emissions (people), those old relationships are probably not valid anymore. Why did you give no hint of these alternative views?

5) When you recounted your 6-year-old son's tragic accident that nearly killed him, I thought that you were going to make the point that, if you had lived in a poor country like China or India , your son would have probably died. But then you later held up these countries as model examples for their low greenhouse gas emissions, without mentioning that the only reason their emissions were so low was because people in those countries are so poor. I'm confused...do you really want us to live like the poor people in India and China ?

6) There seems to be a lot of recent concern that more polar bears are drowning these days because of disappearing sea ice. I assume you know that polar bears have always migrated to land in late summer when sea ice naturally melts back, and then return to the ice when it re-freezes. Also, if this was really happening, why did the movie have to use a computer generated animation of the poor polar bear swimming around looking for ice? Haven't there been any actual observations of this happening? Also, temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?

7) Why did you make it sound like simply signing on to the Kyoto Protocol to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions would be such a big step forward, when we already know it will have no measurable effect on global temperatures anyway? And even though it represents such a small emission reduction, the economic pain Kyoto causes means that almost no developed country will be meeting its emission reductions commitments under that treaty, as we are now witnessing in Europe .

8) At the end of the movie, you made it sound like we can mostly fix the global warming problem by conserving energy... you even claimed we can reduce our carbon emissions to zero. But I'm sure you know that this will only be possible with major technological advancements, including a probable return to nuclear power as an energy source. Why did you not mention this need for technological advancement and nuclear power? It is because that would support the current (Republican) Administration's view?

Mr. Gore, I think we can both agree that if it was relatively easy for mankind to stop emitting so much carbon dioxide, that we should do so. You are a very smart person, so I can't understand why you left so many important points unmentioned, and you made it sound so easy.

I wish you well in these efforts, and I hope that humanity will make the right choices based upon all of the information we have on the subject of global warming. I agree with you that global warming is indeed a "moral issue," and if we are to avoid doing more harm than good with misguided governmental policies, we will need more politicians to be educated on the issue.

Your "Good Friend,"

Dr. Roy W. Spencer

Dr. Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. In the past, he has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville , Alabama . ??Dr. Spencer is the recipient of NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement and the American Meteorological Society's Special Award for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work. He is the author of numerous scientific articles that have appeared in Science, Nature, Journal of Climate, Monthly Weather Review, Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology, Remote Sensing Reviews, Advances in Space Research, and Climatic Change. Dr. Spencer received his Ph.D. in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin in 1981.

2007-05-24 14:47:07 · 37 answers · asked by BOB 6

2007-05-24 10:17:15 · 16 answers · asked by SpiderWoman 2

I gave my cows beano. No burps, no farts. Now, everyone needs to feed their cows beano!

2007-05-24 09:56:50 · 10 answers · asked by Bunny 2

Mom always yelled, "shut that fridge door, what are you trying to do? Cool down the whole damm neighborhood??" when we stood staring into the fridge. What if everyone in the world left their fridge doors open. It would cool down everything outside. Is this a viable option to the global warming trend?

2007-05-24 09:48:23 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous

With all of the research and the science that proves the existance of global warming, why and how do people continue to say its a lie. Who is perpetuating this "lie" and for what purpose?

2007-05-24 09:44:33 · 16 answers · asked by iluvnola 3

More than anything, it would be the topic Global Warming, but focused towards health and the consecuences.... it's for a course at college....

2007-05-24 09:17:39 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA:

put a grape seed in front of your car...

Imagine the seed is a cathedral in size... like 200-400ft high.
Your car by its size represents the quantity of fossil carbon used by the mankind in combustion since the beginning.

Now multiply the volume of the car by around 2400 and you have the volume of CO2 added in the atmosphere.

And of course I guess it has nothing to do with global warming...

2007-05-24 08:03:08 · 6 answers · asked by NLBNLB 6

2007-05-24 07:25:04 · 17 answers · asked by beany 2

My question, is the idea of global warming due to us? or was it going to happen either way and we just sped up the process?

The earth has already gone through climate shifts before, why couldnt there be another one?

I will not lie i dont know much on this subject but i am willing to learn if someone could help me out.

Thanx nikki

2007-05-24 07:03:21 · 25 answers · asked by Nicole S 3

Where I live it is really hard to meet somewone really intrested in global worming.
I think that more people should get involved. Better said all of them.

2007-05-24 06:47:31 · 20 answers · asked by AnGe 3

1 - Natural Variation of the Sun

2 - Man-made influences

Defend your answer with data and analysis.

2007-05-24 06:41:56 · 7 answers · asked by ? 6

I mean seriously it seems like it is all a con to just get MORE tax money out of us.
And temprature variations aren't unusal and we don't know everything about them. The world has been here for billions of years and we have only been here for a very small fraction of that, it is impossible for us to truly understand it already. no matter how advanced methods become.
PLUS!!!:Hundreds probably even thosands of scientist really don't agree with the concept of global warming. But many of them won't or can't speak out against it because they are threatened will being fired from their job, or being killed. man, what the left wing will do to keep their theory.
Because thats all that global warming is, a theory. And a disproven one at that.
"An Inconveinent Truth"? more like "Al Gores Conveinent Lies"

2007-05-24 06:21:38 · 34 answers · asked by QuestionMark 5

2007-05-24 06:16:13 · 13 answers · asked by Charlie D 2

I know it's started already... but when will it start killing us?

2007-05-23 20:32:31 · 26 answers · asked by CuRiOUS 2

During the "Holocene Thermal Maximum" time period?

Most "CO2 global warming" believers don't know that the earth was hotter thousands of years ago. All they do know is there were no SUVs back then.

Also, there was a spike in temperature around 15,000 years ago. (15,000 years is nothing compared to the age of the earth). That spike 15,000 years ago was actually a faster increase in temperatures than what we have today. And again, there were no SUV's back then.

It took less than 20 years for temperatures to jump at that point. That rapid temperature increase resulted in the earth leaving the ice age (which had lasted thousands of years).
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image160.gif

NASA: "Rapid changes between ice ages and warm periods (called interglacials) are recorded in the Greenland ice sheet. Occurring over ONE OR TWO DECADES, the warming of the Earth at the end of the last ice age happened much faster than the rate of change of the Earth’s orbit."

2007-05-23 18:57:49 · 15 answers · asked by a bush family member 7

2007-05-23 18:50:48 · 28 answers · asked by Anonymous

The current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is 383 ppmv, higher than at any time in the last 20 million years. Are human activities responsible for this, or have we seen an amazing rise in volcanic activity? What is the theoretical effect of adding this much CO2 to the atmosphere?

No best answer will be awarded to anyone who cites anything other than peer-reviewed science.

2007-05-23 17:20:27 · 9 answers · asked by Keith P 7

Just curious.

2007-05-23 16:03:44 · 15 answers · asked by robert f 1

2007-05-23 15:55:02 · 5 answers · asked by kelleygaither2000 1

What would be the point? Who would gain anything significant from making up global warming?

2007-05-23 12:15:45 · 20 answers · asked by Han 3