Global Warming

I am looking to increase my ecological footprint to offset the work done by treehuggers. How can I do this without costing me more money or time. I am looking for lazy and cheap ways to do more. I can't go out and heat a 20 room mansion or fly private jets like Mr. Gore

2007-09-24 02:17:43 · 7 answers · asked by dane hoy 2

Which industrises in the U.S have lobbied agansit Kyoto Protocol as well as agansit improved efficency standards? why?

2007-09-24 01:33:33 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous

Personally I think Al Gore got on the global warming bandwagon for his own ego trip. But, if he is correct that global warming is occuring, and that we should do what we can to halt its progress, it seems we should do the simple things first. I found a simple pill that you put in your tank that reduces emissions by up to 75%. As anyone tried this or a product like it? It is at www.save-gas-and-globe.com.

2007-09-24 00:30:37 · 14 answers · asked by Lone Papa 2

2007-09-23 22:49:30 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

i think its getting slightly warmer what do you think?

2007-09-23 22:37:16 · 6 answers · asked by Maybe 2

sorry the same old debate, but could it happen?

2007-09-23 22:07:15 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-09-23 16:27:27 · 5 answers · asked by Gruntled Employee 6

The 'Old' Consensus?
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, September 21, 2007 4:20 PM PT

Climate Change: Did NASA scientist James Hansen, the global warming alarmist in chief, once believe we were headed for . . . an ice age? An old Washington Post story indicates he did.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Related Topics: Global Warming


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


On July 9, 1971, the Post published a story headlined "U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming." It told of a prediction by NASA and Columbia University scientist S.I. Rasool. The culprit: man's use of fossil fuels.

The Post reported that Rasool, writing in Science, argued that in "the next 50 years" fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun's rays that the Earth's average temperature could fall by six degrees.

Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, Rasool claimed, "could be sufficient to trigger an ice age."

Aiding Rasool's research, the Post reported, was a "computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen," who was, according to his resume, a Columbia University research associate at the time.

So what about those greenhouse gases that man pumps into the skies? Weren't they worried about them causing a greenhouse effect that would heat the planet, as Hansen, Al Gore and a host of others so fervently believe today?

"They found no need to worry about the carbon dioxide fuel-burning puts in the atmosphere," the Post said in the story, which was spotted last week by Washington resident John Lockwood, who was doing research at the Library of Congress and alerted the Washington Times to his finding.

Hansen has some explaining to do. The public deserves to know how he was converted from an apparent believer in a coming ice age who had no worries about greenhouse gas emissions to a global warming fear monger.

This is a man, as Lockwood noted in his message to the Times' John McCaslin, who has called those skeptical of his global warming theory "court jesters." We wonder: What choice words did he have for those who were skeptical of the ice age theory in 1971?

People can change their positions based on new information or by taking a closer or more open-minded look at what is already known. There's nothing wrong with a reversal or modification of views as long as it is arrived at honestly.

But what about political hypocrisy? It's clear that Hansen is as much a political animal as he is a scientist. Did he switch from one approaching cataclysm to another because he thought it would be easier to sell to the public? Was it a career advancement move or an honest change of heart on science, based on empirical evidence?

If Hansen wants to change positions again, the time is now. With NASA having recently revised historical temperature data that Hansen himself compiled, the door has been opened for him to embrace the ice age projections of the early 1970s.

Could be he's feeling a little chill in the air again.

2007-09-23 11:49:01 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous

how shall we start learning to live with it.????

2007-09-23 10:53:19 · 37 answers · asked by MOON WITCH 3

I want to start some sort of a project or fundraiser to help the Polar Bear's situation, or maybe even just global warming in general, what can i do?

2007-09-23 10:37:25 · 13 answers · asked by Parker E 2

do you? One degree rise in air temperature doesn't really provide all that heat necessary to melt solid ice, right?

2007-09-23 10:30:58 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

is global warming real or is it jus a myth

2007-09-23 08:40:53 · 12 answers · asked by chappy1234 2

Im doing a project on GW and i need to know what will happen if we dont try to stop GW? What is GW? I need ALOT OF FACTS! I have already looked at the yahoo GREEN so dont say that website. Thanks!

2007-09-23 08:26:09 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

I want my community to hear that I want to do something about Global Warming, me and my best friend are environmentalists, but we're kinda shy! We're those wierd emo/enronmentalist pplz @ school and we <3 it! How do we get ppl to listen?

2007-09-23 07:39:04 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

"On July 9, 1971, the Post published a story headlined "U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming." It told of a prediction by NASA and Columbia University scientist S.I. Rasool. The culprit: man's use of fossil fuels.

The Post reported that Rasool, writing in Science, argued that in "the next 50 years" fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun's rays that the Earth's average temperature could fall by six degrees.

Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, Rasool claimed, "could be sufficient to trigger an ice age."

Aiding Rasool's research, the Post reported, was a "computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen," who was, according to his resume, a Columbia University research associate at the time."

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=275267681833290

Where Hansen's climate models wrong then, or are they wrong now? Was there more money with global warming?

2007-09-23 06:55:29 · 6 answers · asked by Dr Jello 7

Hi there.

I have to present a speech...why nuclear power station shouldn't be built in our town.

I know people wouldn't want it because of the danger of accidents etc. but that's not enough for a speech ^.^
Why would you be against the build of a nuclear power plant in your town?
Thank You!

2007-09-23 06:34:25 · 8 answers · asked by cordelisseguy 1

2007-09-23 02:35:41 · 10 answers · asked by a-lee-see-ya 2

look at the facts, there is no proof. everything is just an opinion or best guess. but please look at the facts. in truth we really don't know whats happening. we only have records from 1880 to today. the earth is millions of years old. anybody will tell you looking at less than 1% of the data is never proof.
ps. in the mid 1970s people thought the earth was cooling

2007-09-22 22:27:15 · 17 answers · asked by marathoncook 2

I swear, If I was told that the ocean was rising and that part of my country was going to be consumed by the ocean, I would consider trying to build some sort of barrier to keep the ocean from consuming land. wouldnt building some sort of barrier to keep the ocean at bay be a wise choice? it may cost a lot but wouldnt it be worth it.

2007-09-22 17:20:10 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous

Take a look at this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070923/ap_on_sc/rising_seas;_ylt=AtQN2jC_NcOZZ.oEK3geQJ6s0NUE

2007-09-22 16:34:19 · 17 answers · asked by CFC4Life 5

Recently an advocate of AGW posted a graph from Wikipedia that was intended to prove that the surface record was not contaminated by urbanization. Climate models indicate that the troposphere should have warmed 1.3 times faster than the earths surface. The graph shows trends from 1982 - 2004, as listed below.

Surface : +0.187˚C/Decade (BLUE)
UAH : +0.163˚C/Decade (RED)
RSS : +0.239˚C/Decade (GREEN)

The UAH indicates that the surface warmed at a faster rate than the atmosphere, which disproves the CO2 theory. RSS indicates that the atmosphere warmed at 1.278 times faster than the surface which supports the theory, but the RSS correction involves utilizing a climate model to make it's corrections which seems suspicious. And the graph computes the slopes starting at 1982, which also is very suspicious. It seems that if the slopes were computed from 1979 neither would support AGW.

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

Thoughts?

2007-09-22 14:51:14 · 10 answers · asked by Tomcat 5

i just thoguht of something. GW is "caused" by co2 making tempetures higher what if??? The earth is naturally getting higher tempetures causing co2 to rise instead of the opposite??? just a idea the chart could be read differnetly could'nt it ?? you could say higher co2 =higher tempetures but also could be said that higher tempteures= high co2 levels???

(I think GW isnt caused by us)But would you possibly think it could be the other way around???

2007-09-22 11:11:29 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

This rise in sea level will effect San Francisco, New York, Silicon Valley, Kennebunkport, Florida, Texas and that is only in the USA. All this per the Intergovernmental Panel on climate change in Paris, Seth Borenstein of Associated Press, University of Arizona in conjunction with the US Geological Survey, Lawrence Livermore National Lab in California. Is it time to buy beachfront property in Arizona?

2007-09-22 09:40:12 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous

What political figure says basically that global warming doesnt exist or is against al gore, im aksing this because its part of a cartoon project i have to do in social. thank you

2007-09-22 09:35:29 · 6 answers · asked by bob bobsen 2

I am trying to Understand Global Warming. I am trying to do a project on Global Warming. Thank you.

2007-09-22 07:48:10 · 7 answers · asked by global_07_warming 1

This graph has been showing up a lot.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif

With words that imply it shows cooling.

But it's an optical illusion that is easily defeated.

Take a pencil (something thinner would be even better, but a pencil will do nicely).

Put it at 0.45 on the left end of the box and 0.6 on the right.

Pretty good fit to the data, yes?

Try it the other way, with 0.6 on the left and 0.45 on the right (or any other small decline).

Oops.

It's a cute illusion, caused by the clutter of monthly data points, a large y-axis compared to the changes, and including only a few years, including the unusually warm one of 1998 and the unusually cool ones of 2001-2002.

But, even with all that, the current warming rate of about +0.15-0.20 degrees/decade can still clearly be seen.

This graph is much more illuminating, though.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

2007-09-22 04:34:33 · 10 answers · asked by Bob 7

C02 makes up 0.04 % of the greenhouse gases, increases in temperature increase C02 not the other way round.

Nobody ever mentions Water vapour, quote from Wikipedia "Water vapor is a larger contributor to the greenhouse effect that CO2"

Greens always say that the temperature of the earth has increased by 1 degree fahrenheit over the last 100 years but they dont mention when the intial reading was done (1880) it was colder than average.

According to the Greens, during the post-war boom global warming should have pushed temperatures up. But the opposite happened. "As a matter of the fact, the decrease in temperature, which was very noticeable in the 60s and 70s led many people to fear that we would be going into another ice age,"

Quote from a website "Even in recent times, the temperature has not behaved as it should according to global warming theory. Over the last eight years, temperature in the southern hemisphere has actually been falling"

Still believe it?

2007-09-22 01:03:11 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

I know the cost is high right now. If we could get federal funding to help that would be great. I think it would be a small step in attacking climate change. I do think that it is a step in the right direction.

2007-09-21 18:08:07 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

If one offers governments a means to incrementally lower emissions that at the same economicalyl enables poorer communities but government takes no notice should we take them serious about emissions reduction.
If one offers a solution about water in out back towns and government takes no notice should we listen to them about the drought?
If one offers a means that helps the non producive quintile of society to gain an accumulation of wealth that reduces emissions and political parties ignore this should we take them serious about their social aims.
If in theory there is not any need to ever again connect a building to the grid so all buildins can be self sufficient in power and governments ignore this should we take governments serious.
If politicians are offered a means to improve the care of the aged but they ignore this should we take them serious about aged care policies.
How can governments reduce emissions when it is actively increasing debt?

2007-09-21 16:10:25 · 3 answers · asked by theanswer read it again please 3

Why won't polical leaders ride in hybrid vehicles on campaign tours? Lead by Example!

2007-09-21 15:51:15 · 7 answers · asked by Tom Clark 2