Global Warming

http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Ingles2/FossilFuels.html
" Gold's thesis in The Deep Hot Biosphere is simple: Hydrocarbons have been in existence since the earliest times of the universe, and are part of the process of planetary formation. Their constituents, hydrogen and carbon, originated in the "primordial soup" from which Earth was formed. Earth's methane and petroleum, Gold says, are abiogenic - without biological origin." A GREAT READ for THINKING PEOPLE!

I tend to believe this because in Russia they drilled over 7 miles deep to get to a VERY LARGE oil pool!
Logically how can that amount of biological matter sink that deep?
http://www.vialls.com/wecontrolamerica/peakoil.html
Any thinking people out there?

2007-11-23 15:24:03 · 2 answers · asked by Rick 7

The fact of the matter is that we don't know what the climate will do in the future. The many factors input into climate models are not understood well enough for the models themselves to be used as fact.

"The bad news is that the climate models on which so much effort is expended are unreliable because they still use fudge-factors rather than physics to represent important [factors].... They are not yet adequate tools for predicting climate."- Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson

2007-11-23 13:18:48 · 7 answers · asked by punker_rocker 3

Scientists have long stated that global warming (the human induced part of it) is being caused by greenhouse gases. In fact, the whole theory of global warming is built around this premise.

But what if it were discovered that greenhouse gases weren't to blame and the warming was the result of some other human activity. Same warming, same consequences, same everything, just a different cause.

Would you still beleive the scientists? Would the new arguments have any credibility? Would you dismiss them as charlatans?

2007-11-23 11:17:05 · 11 answers · asked by Trevor 7

"Check the data about the eruption of Mount St. Helens. You will discover that it release thousands of times the "greenhouse gasses" than man has produced in our entire history. Then multiply that # by the amount of active volcanos in the last 10,000 years. I think it will make us seem somewhat insignificant." This was an A to this Q: How much of the recent warming has been caused by humans?
I would like to see arguments regarding how much of the warming over the past 100, 50, and/or 30 years has been caused by humans, and how much has been caused by other factors.

Pls provide evidence to support your argument. A's which do not provide supporting evidence will not be answering my question,& thus will be violating the community guidelines & will be reported"

The A was posted by someone who has yet to ask any Q at YA. Such people declare they have all the answers. & no Ignorance? So I have posed the Q for him.I believe all should put your assertions to the test of Public Opinion.

2007-11-23 09:49:24 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-11-23 06:40:16 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-11-23 04:52:56 · 12 answers · asked by ron 1

The proponents of manmade global warming have consistently stated it's because of greenhouse gases.

To counter this claim skeptics have provided alternative explanations but they're forever changing. Recent explanations have included cosmic rays, the oceans, increased solar output, Pacific decadal oscillation, blackbody radiation etc. Could someone please let me know what the current explanation favoured by the skeptics is?

Each of the many explanations is, in it's own right, claimed to account for the recent warming and thus prove human activity isn't responsible. Assuming the skeptics are correct and they're not just coming up with anything that might sound plausible, shouldn't the planet be warming many times faster than it is?

2007-11-22 23:34:36 · 10 answers · asked by Trevor 7

When the Vikings farmed on Greenland the only part of the country they could inhabit was the southwestern extremity as the rest was ice. Today, they could have landed anywhere as almost the entire coastal region is ice-free, up to 200km (120 miles) wide in some places.

What I'm wanting to know is how much more land is available now as a consequence of global warming? Ideally compared to when the Vikings landed there 1000 years ago or when temperatures peaked during the 'Medieval Warm Period'.

To avoid any confusion - Greenland was so named to attract settlers, it never was a green land. The story of how Greenland was settled and the propoganda behind the name can be read in the biography of the first person to settle there - Eric the Red.

2007-11-22 23:05:32 · 3 answers · asked by Trevor 7

There have been times in the past when the planet has warmed up and cooled down. How does the rate of historical warming and cooling compare to the current rate by which temperatures are changing?

Please feel free to use any global temperature record you like and compare the current warming/cooling to whatever time in history you like.

2007-11-22 22:40:50 · 7 answers · asked by Trevor 7

When lead was used, scientist said it was safe. But now they say it's dangerous. Once the 1900s scientist said that global warming was rubbish but now the whole world has joined together, SO WHATS YOUR OPINION

2007-11-22 21:33:35 · 11 answers · asked by mayani1234 2

2007-11-22 21:29:13 · 9 answers · asked by mayani1234 2

Greenhouse gasses are only one element in the many factors that control our climate.

The main greenhouse gas is water vapour, accounting for about 95% of it.

The total CO2 accounts for only about 3% of the greenhouse effect.

The vast majority of the CO2 entering our atmosphere is caused by evaporation from the ocean, after that there is respiration, decomposition and volcanic eruptions. The total caused by human activity is only a minute fraction of the total CO2 entering our atmosphere.

So in short

Greenhouse gasses are only one part of the story

C02 is only a minor greenhouse gas

Human contribution to C02 is only fractional.

So how can man made CO2 be the main driving factor in our climate? Or if you believe the alarmists, it is the only factor.

2007-11-22 18:34:44 · 13 answers · asked by mick t 5

2007-11-22 17:59:44 · 19 answers · asked by chints 1

2007-11-22 16:01:19 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous

Any intelligent person knows that volcanoes create large amounts of CO2.
So why should we trust Co2 readings from "largest active volcano on Earth" according to:
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Products/SProdsRegions.html

The Alarmists seem to trust these CO2 readings and this is their primary source of CO2 data. Maybe they ARE NOT Intelligent???

2007-11-22 07:04:30 · 4 answers · asked by Rick 7

I would like to see arguments regarding how much of the warming over the past 100, 50, and/or 30 years has been caused by humans, and how much has been caused by other factors.

Please provide evidence to support your argument. Answers which do not provide supporting evidence will not be answering my question, and thus will be violating the community guidelines and will be reported.

2007-11-22 05:26:37 · 8 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

Someone recently brought arsenic into the debate, so I want to expand on that. Hopefully I will not be reported for a violation, again. I know I run the risk, since I am challenging the dogma.

Here is my premise. Isn't it true that if we drink water with tiny amounts of arsenic in it, the arsenic will gradually build up in our system and we will die? The arsenic is a poison to our system. Lets assume I purposefully drop small amounts into someone's morning coffee, every day. If they die in a month of arsenic poison, the police would charge me with murder.

How does this compare to global warming? Well, the AGW crowd tells us that human use of fossil fuels creates vast quantities of CO2 that is the primary cause of global warming. Further we are supposed to believe that global warming is bad now and accelerating at an alarming pace. Eventually, the earth will be uninhabitable. In effect, burning fossil fuels is killing future generations.

Is starting my car murder?

2007-11-22 02:41:52 · 8 answers · asked by Will 2

2007-11-21 20:29:24 · 13 answers · asked by Rowan M 2

2007-11-21 14:05:36 · 3 answers · asked by loyal tax payer 2

1.488,000,000,000 Kg of CO2, compared to the 5,900,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg of Earth's mass equals

How would i do a smaller version of this experment to predict if the continues to happen how long would it for the earth to melt its for my science fair project

2007-11-21 13:19:35 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

Interesting story I read on line, about a MASSIVE number of jelly fish, that overwhelmed and killed 100 thousand farmed salmon.

Happened near Northern Ireland. The jellyfish are normally found in the Mediterranean Sea.

Here's the link to the story:
http://www6.comcast.net/news/articles/world/europe/2007/11/21/Jellyfish.Attack/?cvqh=itn_jellyfish


Opinions?

2007-11-21 12:35:40 · 4 answers · asked by Bohemian_Garnet_Permaculturalist 7

By removing oil from the earth, does this cause problems for the core, like not being able to stay on its magnetic axis, therefore, if the earth move about a fraction of a degree from its axis, will cause similarities such as global warming, ice melts at the poles and more imbalances through out the world

2007-11-21 10:46:22 · 10 answers · asked by WOODSAK 2

2007-11-21 10:05:38 · 5 answers · asked by damienabbey 2

China will seek to increase cooperation with Asian nations on climate change and will try to freeze its key pollution emissions at 2005 levels, Prime Minister Wen Jiabao said Wednesday.

Wen said he would propose an international climate change forum in China next year to improve the region's ability to address global warming.

"China in the next five years will be determined to reduce energy consumption by 20 percent (per unit of GDP) to reduce carbon emissions and will strive to keep carbon emissions at 2005 levels," Wen told journalists.

"China is earnestly addressing climate change because this is an issue facing mankind," the premier said on the sidelines of a summit of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and its six dialogue partners.

http://green.yahoo.com/news/afp/20071121/sc_afp/aseansummiteasiachinaenvironmentclimate.html

2007-11-21 09:04:58 · 9 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

I'm trying to gauge people's knowledge of some basic facts relating to global warming. Please answer true or false, and feel free to elaborate as much or as little as you want.

1) Greenhouse gases trap heat and warm the Earth.

2) Humans emit greenhouse gases, some of which accumulate in the atmosphere.

3) Humans contribute to global warming.

4) Humans emit approximately 150 times more greenhouse gases than volcanoes.

5) Total solar output has changed little over the past 30 years.

6) The Earth is continuing to warm.

7) There is strong evidence that galactic cosmic rays may be responsible for much of the recent global warming.

8) Warming on Mars proves that humans are not responsible for warming on Earth.

9) Past climate changes prove that humans are not responsible for warming on Earth.

10) A faulty surface temperature record makes us think that the planet has warmed more than it has in reality.

2007-11-21 08:32:48 · 15 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

I've commonly read that the recent global warming temperature increase has been a worldwide average increase of 1 degree Fahrenheit (+ - .32) over the past century.

However, I'm wondering what that average is? Is it a yearly mean increase? A daily mean increase? Some other measure?

If anyone knows I'd love to see a reference.

2007-11-21 08:05:43 · 13 answers · asked by Mojo 5

2007-11-21 07:31:12 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

One fact that we never hear is that Mars' polar ice caps are melting at the same rate Earths are. I wounder if the sun just MIGHT have something to do with it! And what about the fact that a single volcano can spew more greenhouse gasses into the air during one eruption than the history of all humanity combined.

2007-11-21 06:20:19 · 17 answers · asked by Kingler 5

I'm really interested in hearing some credible evidence on global climate change sceptisicm Dr. Jello. I will always welcome your warm insights. Whoops. Is this a violation? Was meant to be a challenge.

2007-11-21 06:15:44 · 6 answers · asked by Pink Panther 4

C'mon Jello. Any of you. Show me CREDIBLE proof backing up your claims.. or am I going to get no response to this one too? Uh huh.

2007-11-21 05:33:47 · 12 answers · asked by Pink Panther 4