Global Warming

2007-12-30 04:53:20 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

As the power hungry human communnity continues to increase its need for Crude Oil and Natural Gas resources, with an increasing threat by global warming, what do you think will power the world in the future?

According to me, wind and solar energy have the best potential!

2007-12-30 03:44:16 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous

SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS does not equal FACT.

If it did, the Earth would still be flat and in the center of the universe.

2007-12-30 03:38:21 · 16 answers · asked by charbatch 3

I help!!! I have a green house ^.^

if you agree with me, if you want to help save our environment, before it's too late and we get our consequences, here's how you can help!! go to:
http://library.thinkquest.org/11353/gather/help.htm
http://www.justgive.org/html/guide/50waysenvironment.html
http://www.planetfriendly.net/property/stewardship.html
http://www.ecologyfund.com/ecology/_ecology.html

2007-12-30 02:40:36 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

and concentrate on real issues such as treating poverty and disease?

2007-12-30 01:55:02 · 13 answers · asked by charbatch 3

what great enemy, evil, can yahoo answers people come up with, to fight the great fight to make us all rich $$$ like A. Gore. lots of people got rich on the o-zone hole

2007-12-30 01:39:34 · 18 answers · asked by Old Grumpy Cranky 5

2007-12-30 01:17:58 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

Why was it so easy for a government to convince people that buying duct tape and plastic sheeting was a good idea to protect themselves against a nerve agent or anthrax attack, yet it’s so hard to convince people of an actual threat like global warming?

2007-12-29 18:10:41 · 17 answers · asked by Author Unknown 6

2007-12-29 14:44:43 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous

Only a handful of countries are reducing CO2 emissions. The developing world, especially China, builds 3 coal plants per week. Fossil fuel consuption continues to increase. Is it true that we already have so much CO2 in our atmosphere that no matter what we do, the earth will continue to warm and positive feedbacks will kick in?

2007-12-29 14:23:39 · 20 answers · asked by Ua 5

I enjoy the summer. Is it really something to get upset about?

2007-12-29 13:38:17 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-12-29 13:19:49 · 15 answers · asked by qwert 7

do u beleive in global warming or is it a bunch of bull?cause if i can remember correctly about 30 years ago they said there was going to be a global freeze!is it just something to get everybody hyped up about nothing?did al gore really desreve to win the noble peace prize for telling us stuff we already knew?whats ur point of veiw???

2007-12-29 12:52:14 · 15 answers · asked by ♥N!KK!♥ 2

The great debate as to wether mans eager consumption of fossil fuels contributes to, or indeed is the cause of, global warming seems to me a useless one. Does it really matter? None of the fossil fuels are an infinate resource, and the majority of what's left of the crude oil is to be found in areas of the world not exactly known for stability. Shouldn't we be making every effort to lesson our dependence on them as soon as possible, regardless of global warming?

2007-12-29 12:08:34 · 28 answers · asked by Judy L 4

Everywhere people are hurting plants. Should this be illegal?

2007-12-29 11:31:49 · 32 answers · asked by anoymus 4

The U.S. has 1221 USHC (U S Historical Climate network) stations located all over the lower 48. This are supposed to be one of the most up to date data collection systems in the world. They are all located away from urban areas to negate the effect of local heat islands.

When this data is averaged like the world surface data has been, it does not show the large increase the worlds average has reported. It shows not much warming over the past 70 years. This is when all the man made CO2 is supposed to cause dramatic heating.

How could this be? The US can't stay cool when the rest of the world is heating up. The article I read also said the US data correlates with the temperature data from the Sattelites measuring temperature which also does not agree with the large increase used by the IPCC.

Has anyone got info on this? I never read or heard about this before.

2007-12-29 10:23:14 · 14 answers · asked by GABY 7

2007-12-29 06:00:30 · 25 answers · asked by Count DiMera 2

A lot of people express doubt that humans are a factor in global warming. Can anyone provide a link to a recent (i.e. let's say within the last 2 years) scientific study in a peer reviewed scientific journal that concludes humans are NOT a significant factor in global warming?

Please don't post links to opinion pieces from the Wall Street Journal or personnel web-sites. I want to see actual scientific reports from respected professional journals (e.g. Science, Nature, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Geophysical Research Letters, etc.).

2007-12-29 05:49:46 · 7 answers · asked by Ken 5

2007-12-29 02:16:52 · 31 answers · asked by Anonymous

Well in the 70 we went through a mini ice age or so it was dubbed. Now we are having a warming trend or so they say. The media and even the "inventer of the internet" are scaring the hell out of every one for selfish reasons. Dooms day is lurking, devestation is looming! The question is what if it it a good thing? What would be the possitive aspects of so called Global Warming"?

2007-12-29 02:16:45 · 9 answers · asked by Robert H 1

So, what I want is well reasoned arguments with sources. I see lots of talk in this section but not often a really good discussion.

I see lots of claims and would love to know their origins, so if you have links to websites which you believe back up your arguments I'd really like to read them.

From this question I hope to gain better understanding of both sides of the debate. Although at the moment I would be classed as a "believer", I do not have all the information. Maybe you can confirm my "belief" or " convert " me.

Thank you for your time.

P.S any argument based upon Al Gore , be it negative or positive about him, its 120% meaningless. Please refrain from using him.

2007-12-28 21:46:14 · 10 answers · asked by Mang109 3

According to Lisa Moore, a scientist in the Climate and Air program at Environmental Defense and contributor to Climate 411, the top story was

"The Sun is (really, really) not responsible for global warming.

This paper wasn't breaking news, just an extremely thorough review of the science showing why the sun can't be blamed for global warming. The folks over at RealClimate said it best: "That's a coffin with so many nails in it already that the hard part is finding a place to hammer in a new one."

This link gives her top 10 global warming science stories of 2007:

http://green.yahoo.com/blog/climate411/72/top-10-global-warming-science-stories-of-2007.html

What do you think were the top stories?

2007-12-28 10:12:01 · 17 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

Antarctica is getting colder.
South America had one of its coldest winters in decades
Buenos Aires, snow fell for the first time since the year 1918
In Peru, 200 people died from the cold. Crops failed, livestock perished, and the Peruvian government declared a state of emergency
Johannesburg, had the first significant snowfall in 26 years
Australia experienced the coldest June ever
New Zealand, the weather turned so cold that vineyards were endangered.
Last January, $1.42 billion worth of California produce was lost to a devastating five-day freeze. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked President Bush to issue a disaster declaration for affected counties.
In April, a killing freeze destroyed 95 percent of South Carolina's peach crop, and 90 percent of North Carolina's apple harvest.
Charlotte, N.C. set a record low temperature of 21 degs F on April 8. This was the coldest ever recorded for April, breaking a record set in 1923

2007-12-28 08:50:15 · 19 answers · asked by Dr Jello 7

All too often 'Believers' resort to name calling, bullying, intimidation, lies, and other underhand tactics to "prove" their belief that AGW is real.

If AGW is real, if it is truly happening, then why do they have to resort to such low brow tactics? Why not take the high road and just tell us if it will be warmer next month and how they came to their conclusions?

If they have the facts, why not use them for their arguments?

Does the fact that they resort to intimidation tactics imply that AGW isn't really happening, and this is more a political belief than a scientific argument?

It seems to me that if AGW was real, it would be so easy to shut up the "skeptics" with facts.

After all, their is no debate over Ohm's Law, the speed of light, or any other science that is in fact real.

Not even the "believers" can tell you if it will be warmer or colder next year any better than a coin toss.

2007-12-28 08:27:24 · 21 answers · asked by Dr Jello 7

or just a lazy way of saying that this is good enough?

No one would ride in an airplane if it had a 99% chance of landing safely. At that rate, there would be hundreds of plane crashes every day.

Shouldn't we demand better? Shouldn't we demand that we know with absolute certainty global warming was real before we take action? After all, if we aren't sure that global warming is real, we could take actions that don't help or even end up causing more harm than good.

Shouldn't we demand that climatologist first be able to forecast the climate 1 month, then 6 months, then 1 year, 2 years then 5 years out first?

Why should we submit to lazy science that leaves so much room for uncertainty?

2007-12-28 08:18:01 · 27 answers · asked by Dr Jello 7

2007-12-28 07:35:19 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

"Amateurish" probably comes off as a condescending and offensive description, but honestly I don't know how else to characterize these arguments:

No SUVs on Mars
800 year lag a.k.a. CO2 lags behind temperature
It's just a natural cycle
It's caused by the Sun
Warmer is better
No warming since 1998 a.k.a. global warming has stalled

Even some skeptical scientists like Bob Carter make these kinds of claims. I call them "amateur" because if you just spend a little time analyzing the data, these arguments fall apart rapidly.

Yet they make up a huge percentage of the arguments made by the skeptics and deniers. We correct them all the time, and yet the same claims are made even by a few scientists and people on Y!A who should know better by now.

What gives? And is there another perhaps less offensive way to characterize these arguments?

2007-12-28 06:51:01 · 10 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

While reading the global warming questions, I often come across, "Well, we should be doing it anyway because it's a good idea." It occurs to me then, that to be honest, these people should use the same logic to prepare for any possibility, "because it's a good idea". So we need plans to protect against zombies, robots, aliens, rips in the fabric of time...

2007-12-28 04:57:48 · 45 answers · asked by Anonymous

A Swedish scientist named Svante Arrhenius made some incredibly impressive calculations regarding the involvement of CO2 in climate change over a century ago.

He concluded that decreasing levels of atmospheric CO2 could have been enough to trigger prior ice ages. Nowadays, the accepted explanation is that orbital forcing sets the timing for ice ages with CO2 acting as an essential amplifying feedback.

Arrhenius estimated that a doubling of CO2 would cause a 5-6°C warming. The IPCC currently puts the warming at 2-4.5°C.

Arrhenius also correctly predicted that increased CO2 would cause greater warming at higher latitudes, a night, and during the winter.

He believed that CO2-induced warming would be beneficial and could prevent the next ice age from happening. Of course, he also expected CO2 doubling to take about 3000 years; it is now predicted to take about a century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect_as_cause_for_ice_ages

2007-12-28 03:51:45 · 5 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

I know this would be bad, but fuel and power rationing is likely the only way to get greenhouse gases under control, considering the people that doubt the data. I would not want this to happen to anyone, but what if the gasoline ration was not enough (or just enough) to get you to work and back, what would you do?

How about power rationing? would it be prudent to put your electrical devices on power strips , and turn them off there to get rid of phantom power loads? Do you do that now (like I do) and want to tell the pros and cons?

Rationing sucks, but would it help?

2007-12-27 22:58:19 · 8 answers · asked by Jim! 5