Global Warming

2007-08-30 19:45:44 · 19 answers · asked by dadadon 1

hi friends droughts are now a days are very common in many countries . so is it right to blame global warming for this?

2007-08-30 18:30:41 · 8 answers · asked by tanni 2

2007-08-30 16:12:25 · 15 answers · asked by meera 1

I'm only 14 and im concerned about Global Warming. I would love to help prevent it but i dont know how i can. Any suggestions on how i could help out???

2007-08-30 15:59:43 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

and if it is real when will it take effect

2007-08-30 14:54:25 · 17 answers · asked by Mr. Brownstone 3

every concept and cause has its skeptics. politicians use the media and their underlings to 'spin' their message and make it more accessible to the public. sometimes the spin works too hard though, and the politician loses credibility.

should or could proponents of global warming use some version of persuasion, of psychology, of 'spin' to present facts and conclusions? it seems absurd that it should even be necessary, but with the unwarranted criticism and skepticism about climate change, it seems psychology could be at least as useful a tool as a thermometer...

what do you think? would credibility suffer, or would it be worth it to use specially trained experts to better 'promote' the inevitable conclusion?

2007-08-30 14:40:37 · 17 answers · asked by patzky99 6

I was told by my Stock Broker that I should put all my money in company's that produce Air Conditioning products due to the onslaught of Global warming.

2007-08-30 14:37:21 · 8 answers · asked by hawk_barry 6

I am suppose to go on a ski trip to Utah this January. I was told today that due to global warming there is not going to be any snow. Should I sell my tickets now before everyone finds out?

2007-08-30 14:04:06 · 14 answers · asked by hawk_barry 6

I am afraid of suddenly loud thunderclaps.
I would hug my stuffed bunny til the stuffing came out during these storms. When I was dating, my girlfriend would hold me during these storms to comfort me. I can't find a girl down here in NC.
NASA just predicted that thunderstorms are going to intensify due to global warming. I wish I had a plush animal or a girlfriend to hug now.

2007-08-30 13:54:22 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous

Referring to this term commonly used today, is it just a coincidence that this invokes the more omnious term, "holocaust denier", or do those who use it actually feel that there is a connection in character between those who deny the existance of man-made global warming and the murder of six-seven million Jews by the Nazis in WW2.

2007-08-30 12:44:41 · 14 answers · asked by Erik 2

or do you admit that it plays a role in global warming?

do you admit that the 30% increase in CO2, 50% increase in CH4, 18% increase in NOx, and infinite % increase in alkyl halides over the last 100 years is caused by human activity?

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html

http://faculty.plattsburgh.edu/thomas.wolosz/global_warming.htm

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

2007-08-30 12:00:15 · 12 answers · asked by PD 6

There is an absolute slam dunk correlation of temperature with reconstructed Total Solar Irradiance. There is a correlation with increased solar activity and CO2 increase. The ACRIM TSI composite shows sustained increase in solar activity since the Mid 1980's. Most reconstructed TSI datasets show a 1 watt/century sustained increase. Some datasets show a 3 watt/century gradient.

If I run the wavetran model at 280 PPM : Out = 228.812
If I run the wavetran model at 380 PPM : Out = 227.807
Difference : Out = 1.005

That is only 1 watt since we started burning oil.

Wavetran Program
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/cgimodels/radiation.html

ACRIM Composite (Sattelite Measurement 30 Years)
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TSI_Composite.jpg

Reconstructed TSI ( 100's of years)

N. Scafetta1 and B. J. West1,2
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TSI_Composite.jpg

2007-08-30 11:58:12 · 11 answers · asked by Tomcat 5

Do you agree that this world may becoming to an end with polluting? If you want your future children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, and further on to live in a better world? Al Gore tried to say something to us and most of us hardly even listened. Sure there are some few "good" things people to about global warming, but that is just a few. Don't you agree that we should start doing more than just a few things to help our planet Earth?? For us and our future generations?

2007-08-30 11:37:07 · 11 answers · asked by Tara 4

Wow, more proof that "man made global warming" is a farce and nothing but insane scare tactics by lefties and commies.

Michael Asher
August 29, 2007 11:07 AM
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

2007-08-30 11:36:07 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

Mr. Jello asks this question - "is objective science dead"? Considering that he's blocked virtually everyone who isn't a global warming denier, isn't this question a tad bit ironic?

Is objective Jello dead?

2007-08-30 10:54:24 · 13 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

An analogy - take a school hall full of kids, ask them what's the capital of France, 999 say Paris and 1 says Rome. Would anyone believe the kid who said Rome was correct?

Is this what passes for science these days? What if 999 said Boston? Would that make it true? Of course not. It doesn't depend on the number of people who say something. It just takes one person to look up the data to find out what the right answer is.

At one time the consensus declared the Earth was the center of the universe. I'm grateful to that one man who did the research and determined that wasn't right.

Consensus "science" should be banished by the scientific community. There should be substitute for Objective Science.

2007-08-30 10:41:46 · 7 answers · asked by Dr Jello 7

just spent a month travelling lall over Florida and up to North Carolina and Atlanta, i think i only ever saw 1 type of recycling, no households seem to do it thats not very good is it,and was looked at as though i was mad when i mentioned it!
in Chester Uk where i live we recycle all our household rubbish it gets collected by the council every week

2007-08-30 10:19:34 · 40 answers · asked by lilian c 5

Peak oil will be the problem of most everyone alive today. The US is past peak oil, as are most of the countries in Europe. Mexico is expected to hit peak by 2010. Russia and the unknown middle east supplies are expected to peak around 2015. The BUSH administration expects peak oil production to hit somewhere between 2015 and 2020. After that its gonna be a fast slide down to cayoss for most of the industrial world. Sure, BP and Arch Coal are building a coal to gas facility in the midwest, but that won't be online for another 5 years and is nowhere near enough to supply the country with oil.

2007-08-30 09:21:50 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-30 09:16:58 · 15 answers · asked by flaflounder049 1

I'm doing a book report and using the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) where it says on the summary for policy makers on page 6. I think i'm reading the wrong graph, (I hate graphs), but its the one that says "Global Average Temperature" and is a steep slant upward. I looked to the left it looks down on the left as much as it is up on the right. But the numbers are real small on the side (.5 degrees). Is this right? Global warming means .5 degrees?

2007-08-30 08:41:27 · 12 answers · asked by james 2

2004 - Oreskes [geology background] examines 928 scientific journal articles and determines that 75% agreed with the consensus view (either implicitly or explicitly), 25% took no stand one way or the other, and none rejected the consensus.

2005 - Peiser [anthropology background] surveys 1117 papers including Social Sciences and Arts & Humanities papers, and also including editorials (not reviewed by Oreskes). Peiser determined that 40% agreed explicitly or implicitly, 57% were neutral, and 3% rejcted the consensus. He later backtracked to say that only 1 paper (less than 0.1%) actually rejected the consensus, and it was an editorial, not a scientific paper.

http://www.norvig.com/oreskes.html

2007: Klaus-Martin Schulte [medical researcher?!] examines 528 papers (unknown search criteria?) and finds 45% agree (implicit + explicit), 48% take no stand, and 6% reject the consensus.

So basically the only issue is whether papers are implicitly accepting the consensus or neutral.

2007-08-30 08:26:27 · 10 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

Some politicians like Newt Gringrich are now asking fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming.

Has Newt discovered that fighting the misconceptions of the majority is a losing political battle?

After all, if the majority of the people believed the Earth was flat and the Sun revolved around it, what political purpose would it serve to oppose them?

The voice of the people is the voice of God.

Do you agree?

2007-08-30 07:38:08 · 5 answers · asked by Dr Jello 7

Here's a discussion of the journal that it was published in.

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/aug/policy/pt_skeptics.html/

Note that ES&T is about as mainstream as it gets. It's the Wall Street Journal of the environmental business, published for many years by the American Chemical Society, a large and very diverse organization, not known for environmentalism. More here:

http://pubs.acs.org/journals/esthag/about.html

The study found that 32/528 papers (about 6%) question the reality of man made global warming. I wonder how many of the 32 also came from "Energy and Environment"?

2007-08-30 06:50:23 · 8 answers · asked by Bob 7

Top five most cited papers (out of 6,793 since 1988) in science journals that mention global warming according to Web of Science http://portal.isiknowledge.com/portal.cgi as of Aug 30th 2007. Is there any interest in seeing articles 6-10?

1. DECADAL ATMOSPHERE-OCEAN VARIATIONS IN THE PACIFIC http://www.springerlink.com/content/m5711482u6554132/fulltext.pdf
2. THE GLOBAL CARBON-DIOXIDE FLUX IN SOIL RESPIRATION AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO VEGETATION AND CLIMATE http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1034/j.1600-0889.1992.t01-1-00001.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=teb
3. Ecological responses to recent climate change http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v416/n6879/pdf/416389a.pdf
4. Climate response to increasing levels of greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v376/n6540/pdf/376501a0.pdf
5. Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6809/pdf/408184a0.pdf

2007-08-30 06:34:12 · 6 answers · asked by EnvChemist 2

I know this has already been asked by The Venerable Bede but does anyone KNOW what will happen if the jet stream stays where it is, for the forseeable future.

2007-08-30 05:07:50 · 7 answers · asked by frchrisfgn 2

You MUST pick one "denier" and one "believer."

And if you can't say nice things, don't say anything at all. :)

2007-08-30 04:58:56 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

With only 7% of papers in the last 4 years endorsing "man made" global warming, and only 45% total "accepting" man-made global warming as "fact," can we please, please, please drop the "myth of the consensus?"

48% of papers published in peer reviewed journals in the last 4 years are NEUTRAL on whether Global Warming is "man made" or not, and 6% reject it outright.

http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Than+Half+of+all+Published+Scientists+Endorse+Global+Warming+Theory/article8641.htm

It's a "theory," based on shaky computer models, bad data, and rhetoric. As this "follow-up" to the famous Oreskes work shows, science has moved on, and there is no longer a "consensus" in the literature.

2007-08-30 04:49:15 · 14 answers · asked by jbtascam 5

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=b35c36a3-802a-23ad-46ec-6880767e7966

DAILYTECH

SURVEY: LESS THAN HALF OF ALL PUBLISHED SCIENTISTS ENDORSE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY; COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY OF PUBLISHED CLIMATE RESEARCH REVEALS CHANGING VIEWPOINTS

Michael Asher
August 29, 2007 11:07 AM
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. T

2007-08-30 04:03:49 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous

or should I eat a beaver.

2007-08-30 03:56:42 · 16 answers · asked by Karl 6

In California, there are two symposiums coming up that promise to be full of facts presented by educators and those working more actively in the field. I'm asssuming other states offer such fare occasionally. Would you be willing to cough up the dough to hear about the topic from experts, in a forum where you can get answers to your questions?

The first link is to the conference in Sacramento Sept. 10-13. The 2nd event is sponsored by the California Biodiversity Council and takes place in Clarksburg from Oct.3-4.

http://ceres.ca.gov/biodiversity/sacramento07.html
http://climatechange.ca.gov/events/2007_conference/index.html

2007-08-30 03:27:08 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous