Global Warming

Recently I had a dog turn on my son, this dog was raised with 8 kids never hurt any one then one day when he went to pet him the dog grabbed his neck and took him down, thank god I was there, but then I keep hearing of all these other dogs turning, there was a 6 month old baby that was killed by her dog, with in seconds, then there was the woman who was killed by 2 dogs out side of her apt., I could keep going, but it's defeating my point, have you witnessed your pet going crazy for no reason lately, and you think global warming has anything to do with it?

2007-10-30 05:24:03 · 12 answers · asked by JR 6

There is a very interesting discussion of these 2 TSI measurements here:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/07/27/pmod-vs-acrim-part-2/

which points out:

"One of the greatest sources of difficulty in matching up the various satellite data sets is the “ACRIM gap.” The lauch of ACRIM II was delayed, due to the shuttle Challenger explosion, so there is a roughly 2-year gap between the end of the ACRIM I data set and the beginning of ACRIM II, from early/mid-1989 to late 1991. However, two different data sets are available which overlap both missions: HF (Nimbus 7) and ERBS. Unfortunately, these two show different trends during the ACRIM gap. Depending on which one accepts as more reliable, one gets decidedly different results when joining ACRIM I to ACRIM II."

Willson & Mordvinov (2003, Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 30, pg. 1199) conclude that ACRIM is the more accurate composite, but the author here argues that PMOD is better.

Anyone know of another argument for either?

2007-10-30 05:23:46 · 2 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

An interesting discussion here:

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

Using ACRIM concludes:

"A better idea would be to fit a trend line to the residuals, which yields a slope of 0.01 W/m^2/yr, or 0.1 W/m^2/decade...If that trend were sustained throughout the 28-year duration of the data, it would lead to a net secular increase in TSI of 0.31 W/m^2, which would cause an increase in climate forcing of 0.076 W/m^2. That’s only marginally bigger than the climate forcing due to anthropogenic power generation. At a climate sensitivity of 0.75 deg.C/(W/m^2), it would lead to a net global temperature rise of 0.06 deg.C, far smaller than what is observed. Even using the ACRIM composite, satellite estimates of TSI will not support the idea that TSI changes are responsible for modern global warming."

Does anyone dispute the conclusion that neither TSI (total solar irradiance) composite can account for a significant fraction of the recent climate forcing?

2007-10-30 05:19:57 · 2 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

I know there is alot of hype about global warming nowadays and everyone is going "green", but is it really something we are doing or is it maybe just a temporary change in our climate? Please leave any infomation you have on the subject. what you think, why, scientific evidence......(not just the rantings of crazies like Al Gore please).

2007-10-30 04:11:16 · 16 answers · asked by kontradictor 3

Me and my friend are wondering if anyone thinks global warming is true. If you think it is give us some feed back on why it is. Thanks

2007-10-30 01:53:28 · 15 answers · asked by mvfootballplaya29 2

like it is going to kill use

2007-10-30 01:27:11 · 17 answers · asked by Cody W 1

2007-10-29 23:55:30 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

Seeing That the Howard govenment has its head in the sand of the last 11 years, should the average Coastel residents be worried about the violent storm's that will be the norm if there is nothhing done to combat this change, I do know that it is global, but someone has to make a stand before its too late,No amount of money is going to change conditions of the planet if there is nothing being done by the most Industry rich countries, they should be the first do it, and not wait for someone else,

If the storms that are appearing now , and coastel cities will bear the brunt of such wild weather that has never been seen before, The sea will rise, and no amount of protection on the area where they live will not protect them.

If the sea turns nasty anyone living on those area's will be hit hard , and very Hard at that. soil erosion , where will their houses go, reclaimed by the sea, it will rise you know,

With such wild wearther that is appearing of late .should you be worried

2007-10-29 19:33:09 · 3 answers · asked by the.texican 3

2007-10-29 19:17:46 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

HELP!

2007-10-29 15:46:44 · 6 answers · asked by anna786 2

I honestly belive global warming is not real and is just a weather cycle were going thorough, because we go throught cycles. Anyone with me on that

2007-10-29 15:18:01 · 24 answers · asked by kyle w 2

2007-10-29 14:37:28 · 6 answers · asked by Diana H 1

On possible drivers of Sun-induced climate changes
de Jager C, Usoskin I
J. Atm. Solar-Terr. Phys. 68: 2053-2060 2006
Abs: We tested the validity of two current hypotheses on the dependence of climate change on solar activity. ... Therefore, we can conclude that in so far as the Sun-climate connection is concerned tropospheric temperatures are more likely affected by variations in the UV radiation flux rather than by those in the CR flux.

Aerosol nucleation over oceans and the role of galactic cosmic rays
Kazil J, et al.
Atmos. Chem. Phys. 6: 4905-4924 2006
Abst: We investigate formation of sulfate aerosol in the marine troposphere from neutral and charged nucleation of H2SO4 and H2O. ... the variation of ionization by galactic cosmic rays over the decadal solar cycle does not entail a response in aerosol production and cloud cover via the second indirect aerosol effect that would explain observed variations in global cloud cover.

next!

2007-10-29 14:25:57 · 7 answers · asked by gcnp58 7

Several Alaskan villages are falling into the sea. This is mostly due to global warming. The permafrost (ground that was permanantly frozen) is melting and the buildings are sinking. Rivers are overflowing. The ice that would form on the shore and protect it from storms is forming later each year.

Here is an example - look at the two pictures, the first taken before a storm and the second one after a storm. They were taken from different angles, so it is hard to look at the shoreline and see the change. Look at how close the metal trashcan is to the edge in each picture.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/human-shishmaref.shtml

The cost to relaocate the 3 villages that are not expected to last 10 years:
Shishmaref, ~600 people, up to 200 million dollars
Newtok, ~315 people, up to 130 million dollars,
Kivalena, ~380 people, ~125 million dollars.
These are just the most serious cases.

2007-10-29 12:49:13 · 10 answers · asked by Amy W 6

All in the name of Global Warming, we are told. Any thoughts?

2007-10-29 12:17:22 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-10-29 11:21:57 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

So where are the super hurricanes the scientists and climatologists predicted? And dont tell me they were kidding or werent being serious when they made the prediction. I read weather channel blogs and saw it on the news, they werent kidding

2007-10-29 10:04:18 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

An oft-used AGW skeptic argument is that humans and SUVs weren't around hundreds of thousands of years ago to cause prior climate changes, therefore we can't be causing the current change.

Another skeptic recently commented that it's "an eye roller" to think that this is the first time climate change has been initiated by an "unnatural" cause (human GHG emissions).

The first argument is obviously illogical - the fact that humans have not caused climate change in the past does not mean we can't be causing it now.

The second argument puzzles me. The fact that our greenhouse gas emissions have been skyrocketing since the Inudstiral Revolution seems to me that they're a logical potential cause of the current climate change. The fact that according to natural cycles we should be in a cooling period right now, combined with the rapid acceleration in both human GHG emissions and global warming seems to make this an obvious candidate.

So why is this theory "an eye roller"?

2007-10-29 09:50:00 · 8 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

Why dont some people believe that climate change is real?

2007-10-29 09:31:56 · 5 answers · asked by Yippidyyappidy 2

Al Gore's movie has nine scientific errors in it!

http://britainandamerica.typepad.com/britain_and_america/2007/10/british-judge-f.html

2007-10-29 09:16:42 · 16 answers · asked by Ory O Oreo 3

The Holocene maximum peaked about 6000 years ago. It was much warmer than it is now and it lasted for about 4000 years, but the ice cores show that Ice existed on those continents for more than 500,000 years.

http://www.lakepowell.net/sciencecenter/paleoclimate.htm

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

2007-10-29 08:55:18 · 6 answers · asked by Larry 4

2007-10-29 08:43:06 · 18 answers · asked by Ory O Oreo 3

Personally I don't know of any liberal AGW skeptics. I'm sure they exist, but I've never met one. There are certainly a lot of conservatives who agree with the AGW theory (famous ones like Bush and Gingrich and Huckabee, even some who frequent Y!A), so I wonder why this isn't the case for the opposing viewpoint.

So I'm curious if anyone here knows a liberal who is skeptical of the AGW theory. If not, why do you think the theory is so universally accepted among liberals while there's so much of a divide on the issue among conservatives?

2007-10-29 07:28:29 · 10 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

Go to junkscience.com and prove scientifically that man is causing global warming.
Should be easy unless.......

that theory is just capitalist hating idiots exploiting brainless blind faithers.

2007-10-29 07:06:12 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

THE EARTH IS GOING TO BE KILLED BY US AS TOLD BY UNITED NATIONS. SCIENTISTS HAD GIVEN WARNING THAT WE HAVE ONLY 8 years TO SAVE EARTH FROM US.
NOW WHAT CAN WE DO TO ........................

2007-10-29 05:42:00 · 5 answers · asked by ilu 2

we all were told that global warming would produce more and stronger hurricanes. Well the last two years this has proven to be false since there has hardly been any activity this year and last year. So what happened with this whole hurricane business and global warming? Oh this link below says that this year could be the least active on record to.

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/

2007-10-29 05:37:10 · 12 answers · asked by Reality Has A Libertarian Bias 6

Therefore, wouldn't it be prudent to accept the possibility that anthropogenic global warming is suspect?

2007-10-29 04:25:06 · 13 answers · asked by Dr.T 4

2007-10-29 04:16:36 · 8 answers · asked by Dr.T 4

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/10/un-rights-exper.html

2007-10-29 02:03:41 · 8 answers · asked by Dr.T 4

So what is the fix? What is Al Gores idea to fix it? What is the Governments Idea to fix it?

Carbon offsets? Talking about it? Getting in a frenzy on yahoo over it?

I hear a lot of talk, but not much action. For me its just like everything else; be it Welfare, Social Security, Immigration, and the War. Talk Talk Talk and nothing. If they wanted to do something about it, Oil Usage would be done with tomorrow. But that ain't on the Menu...


Your thoughts?

2007-10-28 13:35:06 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous