Environment - December 2007

When I buy bread at my local bakery, the lady asks what kind of bag do I want....¿paper or plastic?

I decided to take my own cloth bag when shopping for bread

But I still wonder.....What´s better for the enviroment paper or plastic bags?

2007-12-14 09:49:55 · 10 answers · asked by paloma 2 in Green Living

2007-12-14 09:47:29 · 23 answers · asked by shyguy 1 in Global Warming

Little doubt that increased CO2 is causing some global warming resulting from human activities, but are there any global modeling showing how much global warming is being caused by man? Seems like that is an important question to be addressed, given that the costs that would be demanded to control CO2 emissions. Any links showing a cost/benefits anlaysis?

2007-12-14 09:19:36 · 7 answers · asked by Stewie Griffin 2 in Global Warming

2007-12-14 09:03:50 · 20 answers · asked by Chris J 1 in Global Warming

Because white reflects most of the heat back to the space?

2007-12-14 08:46:54 · 15 answers · asked by Carlos G 3 in Global Warming

If we really wanted to reverse global warming, couldn't we just limit each woman to one child (world wide)? Bringing the population down would stop the demand on our resources, and decrease pollution.

2007-12-14 08:37:03 · 15 answers · asked by madbax 2 in Global Warming

The anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory predicts that the lower atmosphere and surface should warm due to greenhouse gases trapping heat, while the upper atmosphere should cool.

One way to think about this is that the amount of infrared heat energy radiated out to space by a planet is roughly equal to the amount of solar energy it receives from the sun. If the surface atmosphere warms, there must be compensating cooling elsewhere in the atmosphere in order to keep the amount of heat given off by the planet the same

http://www.wund.com/education/strato_cooling.asp

If the Sun were responsible for global warming, any increase in solar radiation would heat the entire atmosphere.

So what's actually happening?

"cooling trends are exactly as predicted by increasing greenhouse gas trends"

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/the-sky-is-falling/s=ionosphere+cooling&qt=&q=&cx=009744842749537478185%3Ahwbuiarvsbo&cl

Can skeptics explain this discrepancy?

2007-12-14 08:26:04 · 9 answers · asked by Dana1981 7 in Global Warming

2007-12-14 08:17:50 · 18 answers · asked by babooshka_uk 2 in Global Warming

2007-12-14 07:08:39 · 8 answers · asked by Jes 5 in Global Warming

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20071210_GISTEMP.pdf

100 year trend?
claims of no 10 year trend?
claims of solar radiation cycles and current influence?
"cooling" in the 1900s?
What's the U.S. and world trend?

2007-12-14 06:56:49 · 11 answers · asked by J S 5 in Global Warming

From the questions I asked and the good answers I've received, yes even Anthropogenic Global Warming believers, feel that even if we can slow the increasing CO2, which is what they believe is causing Global Warming, they feel our Climate will continue to get warmer.

One of the main worries is that the Oceans and Sea levels will rise do to Ice Melting from the Polar regions.

Increased droughts

And that where we grow crops will change.

(I'm only mentioning things we have control over.)

So how can we deal with these things?

(To help think Army Corp of Engineers. Aquaducts in Rome. Basicly think of wonderous things man has built in the past. I helped with this question when I asked about whether man changed water levels in the ocean.)

2007-12-14 06:29:27 · 10 answers · asked by Mikira 5 in Global Warming

Al Gore dismisses everyone who does not agree with his "Carbon Tax, Global Warming Scam" as "Deniers".
If he is right on the subject, why the fear of debating his points with any and all detractors?
After all, he IS the All Knowing Global Warming Expert that everyone agrees with isnt he?
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=d5c3c93f-802a-23ad-4f29-fe59494b48a6&Issue_id=

2007-12-14 05:57:22 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Global Warming

a) a small amount of energy is destroyed
b) a small amount of energy is created
c) the total amount of energy remains the same
d) the total energy can be either increase or decrease

2007-12-14 04:53:41 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Green Living

We all know that automobiles contribute to the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. Would it be unrealistic to require all automobiles made after a certain year to be hybrid? This would certainly reduce green house gases. What do you all think abou the law itself, and how realistic would it be?

2007-12-14 04:52:29 · 21 answers · asked by Katy I 2 in Alternative Fuel Vehicles

If two products were available but one was a bit more expensive but it was made in an environmentally responsible country and the other in a non resposible countries (China, India, USA etc.) would you?

2007-12-14 04:36:43 · 22 answers · asked by groingo 4 in Other - Environment

No matter what the USA does, it will never be enough. The greedy countries that make up these conferences are never satisfied no matter how much they end up taking from America. They always want more.

So why should the USA go to these media shows just to get beat up by politicians who get their 5 minutes of face time in front of the camera? I'm sure blaming the US gets good reviews back home for these tin horned despots.

It's always the same thing. Next time the US should stay away from these conferences and just let the bashing go on with out us.

2007-12-14 04:26:57 · 13 answers · asked by Dr Jello 7 in Global Warming

And how do you know?
What do you base your answer on? Is it just the word of others, or your faith that global warming is real? Or do you have a formula that shows what the temperatures will be for different concentrations of co2?

How do you know your answer is any more correct than a coin toss?

2007-12-14 04:21:58 · 38 answers · asked by Dr Jello 7 in Global Warming

2007-12-14 04:09:28 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Other - Environment

Personally I'm currently blocked by 2 global warming deniers so I can't answer their questions. One is supposedly the top answerer in global warming, yet I guess can't deal with opposing views.

How can global warming deniers complain about the UN not allowing skeptics to speak at the Bali climate conference, and yet block answerers who disagree with them on Y!A?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ApJrc1P97bomnd1_wdg9te4Fxgt.;_ylv=3?qid=20071214080626AAl0X0I

What are these deniers afraid of which motivates them to block opposing views?

2007-12-14 03:55:22 · 16 answers · asked by Dana1981 7 in Global Warming

Some claims made in an open letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations by a group of scientists skeptical of anthropogenic global warming.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002

1) "The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years."

Ridiculous. In the Younger Dryas (abrupt cooling period about 10,000 years ago), the prevailing theory holds that the cooling was caused by a significant reduction or shutdown of the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation. This major natural change still only caused a cooling period one-third as fast as the current warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas#Causes_of_the_Younger_Dryas

2) "There has been no net global warming since 1998."

Flat-out lie.

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/t1998.jpg

Do you think they believe these claims?

2007-12-14 03:48:44 · 11 answers · asked by Dana1981 7 in Global Warming

2007-12-14 03:45:53 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Global Warming

2007-12-14 03:44:57 · 5 answers · asked by gabasnon 1 in Global Warming

If all humans were sacrificed, removed from the planet, then the Earth would be able to heal, and return to her normal and natural state.

Wouldn’t the destruction of the human species be the greatest gift we could give to Mother Earth?

2007-12-14 03:38:49 · 24 answers · asked by Dr Jello 7 in Global Warming

The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.

Does the principal of altruism fit the values of the believers of AGW? Should we perform self sacrifice to save the planet? Wouldn't the world just be better off if man didn't exist? Wouldn't the destruction of man be the greatest gift we could give the planet?

2007-12-14 03:35:12 · 6 answers · asked by Dr Jello 7 in Global Warming

i have to do this final project for my partisipation in government class and my final project is on how to reduce the nations garbage problem, and i am getting stuck on what else to put into my power point, i have already: recycling, machinery that is used to recyle, and thats about it!!!

2007-12-14 03:32:50 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Green Living

For the second time this week, the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) was kicked off the press schedule for the United Nations' climate conference in Bali, Indonesia.

“Earlier in the week, UN officials in Bali closed down the ICSC's first press conference there. Black interrupted the press conference and demanded the scientists immediately cease. She threatened to have the police physically remove them from the premises.”

Black is Barbara Black; Black is NGO liaison officer for the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Bali.

Yep nothing like winning a debate by making sure the other side can’t say anything. You might not like what they say, but they should have at least been able to say it.

2007-12-14 03:06:26 · 5 answers · asked by Richard 7 in Global Warming

I am not an american but I heard the american government refused categorically to reduce air pollution in their economy. So I wonder if the american citizen are aware of the great danger of global warming, or if you think it's bullshit. Do you care personally or do you think as your government does ?

Sorry for my english.

Regards.

2007-12-14 03:02:03 · 24 answers · asked by vinetodelveccio 5 in Global Warming

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=d5c3c93f-802a-23ad-4f29-fe59494b48a6&Issue_id=

‘Redistribution of wealth’

The environmental group Friends of the Earth, in attendance in Bali, also advocated the transfer of money from rich to poor nations on Wednesday.

“A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth.
http://www.climatenetwork.org/bali-blog/ngo-bustle-in-bali

Now the true motivatives are coming to the surface shouldn't they be question just as much as those who critize man-made global warming being in bed with big oil?

2007-12-14 02:58:18 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Global Warming

We have 100 scientists many of whom were on the UN IPCC who state that climate control is futile. In the open letter they stated:

“Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:

z The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.

z Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.”

Can we now get on with life the do the really important stuff, like ending hunger?

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002

2007-12-14 02:53:12 · 2 answers · asked by Richard 7 in Global Warming

After all many top scientist at the time like Sir Francis Galton and Charles Darwin believed Eugenics was real. Do you think you are smarter then they are? Should you dare question scientist like this?

Eugenics was supported by many people, including the Rockefeller's, the Carnegie's, and the Harriman family. There was support world wide for this "science".

And just like this Bali conference, there were three International Eugenics Conferences to present a global venue for eugenicists.

And some countries even adopted Eugenics as part of their political views.

How could anyone stand up against the science of Eugenics? Who dare think that they are smart enough to disagree with the science of the time? After all, the consensus agreed that Eugenics was real and we could breed humans just like animals.

Maybe you agree that we should adopt AGW as part of a political platform just like gvmts in the past adopted Eugenics?

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

2007-12-14 02:51:42 · 3 answers · asked by Dr Jello 7 in Global Warming