Global Warming

the most about global warming has now become the biggest producer of greenhouse gases? And shouldn’t the state as a whole be sued by the federal government for doing so? They would sue another state that was doing something constructive like creating electricity to run our homes.

2007-11-01 06:20:51 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous

I mean if we were able to remove all the underbrush that helped intensify the CA wildfires, would that help reduce global warming?

2007-11-01 06:11:53 · 14 answers · asked by Michael H 5

Article in the Yahoo News front page.

Trees are what convert carbon dioxide to oxygen. So? How do we prevent forest fires.

In the case of CA fires it was about a person setting fires. And also, http://www.kimclement.com prophesied about this before it happened. So? I see that God gave the devil permission to do this. And it has global affects.

What the devil meant for destruction, God turns for good.

2007-11-01 05:18:14 · 14 answers · asked by LottaLou 7

2007-11-01 03:59:45 · 7 answers · asked by daisyfay 3

is global warming causing all the beaches to erode and is global warming causing all the natural disasters in the world,and if so how can we make a difference

2007-11-01 02:16:18 · 9 answers · asked by tnsupermomwhit 5

Why not screening part of the solar radiation by scattering reflecting particles in orbit ?

2007-11-01 02:09:44 · 8 answers · asked by PragmaticAlien 5

2007-11-01 01:59:35 · 7 answers · asked by Jamal T 1

or 0n what basis carbon emission limit for perticular industry is set ?

2007-11-01 00:40:44 · 2 answers · asked by visit_haresh 1

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071101/ap_on_re_us/california_wildfires;_ylt=AlQVIC12I4.gX6109j6jksKs0NUE

2007-10-31 19:46:17 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

Lets do some math. This would only PROVE that cell phones are the reason are bees are dying which in sense is giving us 0.5-3 decades left of humanity!

Yes, bees are the last animal (including humans) that is needed for all of living species on land to exist. So, if it is infact cellphones, by the rate of technology we could be killing them at an excessive rate.

Think of the amount of cell phone rate increases there are from '95-02 - '03-05 and 06-present. Yes it is increasing fast. The districts that have the radiation fields moving is moving so fast.

We prove its technology by the rate they have been dying since the 90s and the geographical areas is the dead giveaways.

Places with less cell energy should be better than the ones that have more

I.E. Populated USA, southern ontario, bc canada, europe, austrillia, japan, china. How about the other continents not as technogically advanced.

We have to find an answer. We have to work together to fix this. FAST!!!!

2007-10-31 16:35:16 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-10-31 14:02:29 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

I have hidden a number as an answer to a question, on the yahoo answers section that is all about halloween. The first person to retrieve that number gets 10 points.

Clues Blond girl, Spanish Halloween.

.
.

2007-10-31 13:56:46 · 5 answers · asked by Tomcat 5

Until recently the polar bears had managed to escape the worst effects of global warming and their numbers were relatively steady.

Last year the Arctic ice melted to record low levels and new observations show the ice is melting faster than previously thought. As it melts it threatens the polar bears habitat.

Nine new studies make grim reading for the bears. The USGS concludes that by 2040 their numbers will have been reduced to just one third of present levels.

Recently the bears have been finding it increasingly difficult to hunt food, many have drowned, others have been crushed as their dens have collapsed due to melting accelerated by warmer temperatures. These things happen anyway but it's now happening more than ever.

Do we leave the bears to their fate or do we intervene to try to help them. What do you think we should do to assist?

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special/polar_bears/docs/executive_summary.pdf
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special/polar_bears/

2007-10-31 06:28:07 · 27 answers · asked by Trevor 7

Ron C has been proposing the synchronization of various climate indices (pacific decadal oscillation, north atlantic oscillation, el nino, etc.) could be responsible for the major climate changes over the past century. He references this paper:

http://www.uwm.edu/~kravtsov/downloads/GRL-Tsonis.pdf

I recall reading a bit about this theory, but I can't find much information about it. There doesn't seem to be much discussion about it on RealClimate as far as I can find.

Anyone have any input on the quality of this theory?

2007-10-31 05:28:49 · 6 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

Prove it...

2007-10-31 04:36:32 · 10 answers · asked by Richard the Physicist 4

When a boy admits to starting one and they already have an person in custody for starting atleast on other? The trees did not spontaneously combust.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071031/ap_on_re_us/california_wildfires

Before you tell me the fires were made worse by the climate changes, please tell me how extreme emviromental policies and activisim preventing the controlled burns, clearing underbrush and other activites designed to keep the forrest healthy was not a larger contributing factor.

2007-10-31 03:34:59 · 16 answers · asked by SNCK 3

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sunspot_record_041027.html

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.coyoteblog.com/photos/uncategorized/irradiance.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/02/index.html&h=393&w=640&sz=50&hl=en&start=75&um=1&tbnid=2dFLlwAYIQqyVM:&tbnh=84&tbnw=137&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsunspot%2Bcycle%2Btemperature%2B2007%26start%3D72%26ndsp%3D18%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-us%26sa%3DN

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/18692

2007-10-31 01:31:24 · 11 answers · asked by Larry 4

Al Gore is a retard.

2007-10-31 01:02:13 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

The Earth is millions of years old and has always gone hot , cold and hot.... part of it's natural cycle. The 'environmentalist' argument is that it's only been over the last 30 years or so that it all started. I'd look towards the 'Industrial Revolution' away back... which spewed out 10,000 times than we ever could today.

2007-10-30 23:46:08 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

In population , it has the second place in the world.Do you know the place?

2007-10-30 20:42:58 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-10-30 20:30:34 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

or is there to much hype around it like the Y2K Bug?

2007-10-30 13:10:40 · 25 answers · asked by Gerard D 1

* "Approximately 80% of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons released by vegetation, so let's not go overboard in setting and enforcing tough emission standards from man-made sources." - Ronald Reagan

2007-10-30 12:59:03 · 13 answers · asked by dueweke1697 1

Not only do they have no clue on what effect a warmer climate might have, but they also have no clue on what might be causing a warmer climate.

Yet they preach their "man is causing global warming" gospel with violence. And one of their tenants was that hurricanes would increase in number and ferocity.

NO HURRICANES at all last year

NO HURRICANES made landfall this year either

2007-10-30 12:54:26 · 17 answers · asked by Bill W 【ツ】 6

The science is settled, global warming is mostly man made. Why do you think people continue to deny the facts?

2007-10-30 12:11:33 · 12 answers · asked by Author Unknown 6

Ignoring other problems with Svensmark's galactic cosmic ray (GCR) theory discussed here:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=As6MMc8lLk5ZrMSOAhywS77sy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071030112550AA7AXSu

The main problem with the theory is that the GCR flux has had no long-term trends while global warming has accelerated rapidly:

http://www.realclimate.org/images/TheChillingStars.jpg

A more plausible attribution is total solar irradiance, but it cannot account for much of the warming either.

"...this would lead to a net warming not more than 0.062 deg.C. And that is the most generous estimate possible, using the ACRIM composite, the 2-sigma upper bound on the trend rate, and allowing for all the warming to be already in effect with no delay due to thermal inertia. The actual global warming over the time interval in question is, in fact, in excess of 0.5 deg.C.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/07/24/pmod-vs-acrim/

Can anyone provide an alternative scientific explanation?

2007-10-30 10:41:53 · 4 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

the atmosphere without buying a licence .
where are the people who go on about global warming now ?
lets fill the sky with black chokeing smoke as nothing will be said by the do gooders as they are probably haveing a bonfire too with fireworks .Oh nearly forgot about the smoke from all the armiments going off in the middle east .
Sould bonfire night be banned ?.

2007-10-30 10:25:03 · 10 answers · asked by geoffrey b 2

- what will our planet be like?
- what can we do, if anything, to improve matters?
- are, as I suspect, those of us who will be dead by then, do to help!
Am I depressed or realistic?

2007-10-30 08:36:53 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

There appear to be a number of problems with the Svensmark & Friis-Christensen GCR global warming theory. A new and good discussion here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/cosmic-rays-don%e2%80%99t-die-so-easily/

The biggest one being that there has been no long-term trend in GCR flux

http://www.realclimate.org/images/TheChillingStars.jpg

"In addition, there is no evidence of any long-term trend in the low cloud cover, and the GCR-hypothesis has a problem with explaining the trend in the diurnal cycle, enhanced warming in the Arctic and a cooling in the stratosphere."

On top of that, "the physical link between any ultra-small particles and much larger the cloud condensation nuclei is still lacking, even after the experiment performed in Copenhagen. Thus, the hypothesis is still speculative."

This theory seems to be fraught with problems, especially in comparison to the AGW theory. So why do people find it a more convincing explanation?

2007-10-30 07:25:50 · 6 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

Like LA, Denver, or Oakland? I can't imagine skeptics in cities where the pollution is visibly floating around, and you can feel it in your lungs. Just curious.

2007-10-30 06:48:26 · 8 answers · asked by Tim 6