global warming?

Question

I am very concerned about global warming are enviroment should be our number priority do you agree?

Answer 1

Well i believe that all governments and law makers are also as worried as we are about the degrading earth we are having. After all it affects every single one of us earth beings.

However, the biggest problem with environmental issues is that the effects are often not immediate. As compared to issues like national security, public health and economy well-being, the consequences of bad environmental decisions always surface only when its too late. Just like the many cases of water supply poisonings and industrial accidents all over the world. Warnings are often given way in advance. However, they are often overlooked as making money is still the utmost priority.

Moreover, many environmental issues like global warming are not 100% proven yet. Scientists still cannot prove that CO2 emissions cause global warming. Even with the increasing evidence that global warming is happening, the cause of it is still very ambiguous.

Another possible reason for the difficulty in resolving issues is the scale of environmental problems. The effects are widespread and It is almost impossible to blame a single country or group of countries for most environmental problems. And with all major decisions, it is impossible to make all countries see eye to eye.

Answer 2

YES. We have one home right now, we plan to build another but only if the mortgage goes through.

Global warming may however be only a cyclical event that we have never recorded in history because we have not had the equipment previously.

Give this a gander.

The oil drilling conglomerate is currently displacing 40,000 spare miles of space underneath our crust every year. 50 years of drilling like madmen, 2,000,000, that's 2 million spare miles of displaced space. Now, I helped someone re-design a shallow well drilling machine, adding technology and such. I learned a little bit about oil. When they drill, they remove water 50%, oil 45%, Gas 5%. What do they put back? A cap on the well so a shallow well oil machine can pluck the rest of the oil off the top of the water table. Makes about 5-10 extra barrels a day.

WHAT FILLS THAT SPACE? Has anyone out there heard the term structural integrity? What about the gasses that are coming up through there, things that have not been on the surface of the planet for billions of years. Could this unknown filler be responsible for global warming?

Another theory is that liquid magma could fill the space and solidify throwing off the balance of the planet, causing us to rock off kilter temporarily until we level out. In the mean time our magnetosphere would fluctuate from no UV getting through to frying the planet on a daily basis.

We are the only planet in our system with tectonic plate movement. Our crust is cracked and we are mushy on the inside. And we are sucking out the hydraulic fluid of the planet.

Maybe.

Answer 3

I do agree that global warming should be our number one environmental priority. In fact I believe that global warming is such a serious threat that it should be the worlds number one priority over all others including things like the War on Terror, which are currently consuming far more money.

Others have cited other worthy issues but I think they fail to recognize the special nature of global warming. It has a few characteristics that make it particularly threatening and urgent:

1) It is a very long term problem. The most acute impacts of global warming will be building for the next 100 - 200 years and continually getting worse over that time frame. Weather might start to settle down after as much as 1000 years. It may be a few thousand years before sea levels stop changing. It will be more than 100,000 years before CO2 levels return to pre-industrial levels.

2) It affects the entire world. Very few other environmental issues have the pervasive impact that global warming is likely to have. Most other pollutants, while they may be wide spread, have relatively local impacts.

3) It affects sea levels. This is highly significant because many of our largest cities are sea ports. The impact this has both on human standard of living and on our economy is incalculable. The sea level impacts will be occurring simultaneously all over the world severely degrading our ability to respond to the crisis. Fortunately it will be slow, unfortunately it will continue for hundreds of years requiring repeated responses over the centuries.

4) It affects weather all over the earth. Changes in weather patterns will probably prove to be the most damaging aspect of global warming. Katrina and the hurricane season of 2005 is a very small taste of what is to come for the next several hundred years. Perhaps even more damaging is the likely changes in rainfall patterns. The potential impact on global food supplies is quite ominous. Heat waves in particular are another devastating consequence. Heat waves are already responsible for more weather related deaths than any other cause. The European heat wave of 2004 (if i correctly remember the year) killed an estimated 10,000 people - about 10X more than Katrina - and is thought to be at least in part the result of global warming. It is another foretaste of what we are in for.

As others have pointed out global warming is not our only issue and should not receive all of our efforts to the exclusion of all other issues. With this I agree, but it does deserve top billing.

Answer 4

I think this is a good question.

Personally I think Global warming is real, and much of it man related, and needs to be addressed. However I think that something has happened in the world of environment that is not good: it has become fixated upon this one thing and people are letting other equally and perhaps more important issues slip by... problems we have the power to address, which the mantra of global warming is distracting us from.

One such problem is eutrophication... yep, that's something you might never have heard of, and that's a pity. Eutrophication is the introduction of nitrogen into the coastal waters from farm and chemical runoff. It is a widespread problem as it is steadily destroying the fish hatching grounds on every major seacoast. The oceans are in trouble, and the heating from global warming certainly doesn't help, but the dangers of pollution killing the very source of about a third of the world's food supply might be considered as worthy of our attention.

I'm not saying there aren't people studying and trying to remedy it; but I am suggesting that by raising the banner of global warming too high, we lose track of the total picture.

In the end, how well our planet survives this period of human indistrialization will depend on us paying attention to all the details, and not doing the typical media oriented think of monothematically fixing on and arguing over one single aspect.

Answer 5

There is a lot of debate on both sides of the argument. Most of what people get in from T.V. and other regular news outlets is biased in favor of the side that says global warming is reality and we are causing it. There are two possibilities for this: 1) It's true; 2) It's only what a lot of people WANT to believe and they are trying to convince as many people as possible to think the way they do.

Confusing the issue is that there are politics and emotion at work on both sides in this.

For myself, when I read or see information presented in the news concerning this issue I always find it lacking - with obvious questions not only unanswered but unasked.

The bottom line is, unless you do your own research and approach the question from a completely unbiased, unemotional perspective you're not going to have anything close to a complete picture.

Answer 6

You/we should be concerned about global warming for the future generation and our grandchildren. Scientists are not 100 % accurate but they have enough data/record to make us aware and concern about mother nature.

A draft report prepared for the world's governments says that the Earth may heat up much more than current forecasts suggest.

The report, by scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), says average global temperatures could rise twice as much as they thought earlier.

Polar icecaps could melt, raising sea levels

It foresees a possible rise of 6C above 1990 levels. Five years ago, the IPCC was predicting a probable maximum increase of 3C.

Scientists believe the level of carbon dioxide emissions being forecast in the report could trigger the mass death of forests and significant rises in sea levels, as well as crop failures and extreme weather.

Fossil fuels

The report is only a draft, and it is liable to be altered before publication next May.


There's been no massive breakthrough in climate science in the last five years- Climate researcher Dr Mike Hulme.

But it is bound to loom large at next month's meeting in the Netherlands of the countries which have signed the Kyoto Protocol, the international agreement on tackling climate change.

That commits signatories to collective cuts in greenhouse gas emissions of 5.2% below their 1990 levels by some time between 2008 and 2012.

Many scientists say Kyoto is only a modest start, and that cuts in emissions of the main greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide (CO2), will have to reach 60% or more in the next half-century to keep climate change within tolerable bounds.

Climate science

The draft IPCC report concludes that the burning of fossil fuels and other forms of pollution caused by human activities have "contributed substantially to the observed warming over the last 50 years".

Coastal areas could be lost to the seas

Dr Mike Hulme, a climate researcher at the University of East Anglia in the UK, told BBC News Online: "This draft is consistent with what the IPCC has been saying all along - there's been no massive breakthrough in climate science in the last five years."

He says forecasting techniques have been refined, allowing for a wider range of scenarios to be predicted.

"The IPCC thinks the minimum amount of warming likely over the next century is just over 1C," he said.

Deadly consequences

"But the upper temperature range is significantly higher, because we now think we could be emitting 35 to 40 gigatonnes of CO2 a year by 2100" (a gigatonne is 1bn tonnes).

At present CO2 emissions are about 6.8 gigatonnes (Gt) annually.

In 1999, another IPCC draft suggested a probable upper limit of 29 Gt by the end of the century, about 75% of the maximum mentioned in this latest draft.


The UK has not been immune from flooding

An annual emission level of 29 Gt of CO2 would probably mean the mass death of forests, with the trees releasing the CO2 they had stored up, adding to global warming instead of restraining it.

It would be likely to make the eventual collapse of the Ross ice shelf in Antarctica inevitable.

That, in turn, could trigger a significant global sea-level rise, and the loss of huge and densely-populated coastal areas.

Other probable consequences of climate change on the scale suggested include crop failures, and much more extreme weather.

Answer 7

in North Africa,India,Mexico ,millions of people are effected by land loss and desertification


in recent times thousands of people have died because of exessive heat,usually old people.in India ,Mexico and France,
deforestation causing desertification,the desert conditions causing very cold nights and scorching hot days

in china, thousands of what used to be farmers are running for their lives from the dust storms that have burried their towns and turned their lands into dessert,the globe where they were got to hot for them .
and instead of producing food they are now needing it from some where else,and they will drastically effect the world food prices when they start buying water in the form of grains ,at any cost destabalising governments, in some countries ,could be the result
(are you seeing more Chinese around interested in agricultural lands ,we do here in Mexico)

this was man made global warming because of over grazing and fertilizers, and they are not the only ones
collectively this planet is drying up ,the Sahara is growing by 7 kilometers a year
and all of the desserts we know are a results of mans actions ,and they are increasing ,not getting less ,in the dinosaurs days ,there were no desserts.

so as far as the food production is concerned Global warming or some of its effects are serious,rising seas result in landloss

each degree rise in temperature means 10%crop loss

more landloss because of desertification every year,we have less areble land to produce food ,for an extra 70 million people ,

and there is less and less water (because of deforestation),to irrigate this production ,
and there are less and less farmers to do it..
who are overpumping deep carbon aquifiers
who are plowing more and more unstable lands because they have lost so many million hectares to desertification ,
because of bad farming practises ,such as using fertilizers and heavy machinary or over grazing

RISING SEAS
The northpole is melting ,and we will know it without ice in our life times.
this does not affect the sea level because it is ice that is already in the water.but the melting ice from Green land and the south pole ,are another matter.

Global warming is in theory reversable,but it will mean global co operation between all countries ,and taking into account human nature and the world politics ,it is unlikely that this will happen,

At least not untill we are all in the middle of planetary disastres and it becomes a battle for the survival of humanity every where.

SOLUTIONS
if you want to help the planet ,plant a tree every week ,if everyone on the planet did we we would be able to reverse the destructive processes

reduce carbon emisions,and they are already working on that by alternative forms of energy and regulations on carbon producing materials,aerosol cans,burning rubbish,industrial chimneys,powerplants etc.

the capture of carbon and the production of water and assist the aquiferous manta.

the world bank pays large subsidies for reforrestation to capture carbon and the best tree for this is the Pawlonia

Waterharvesting projects ,such as millions of small dams.to redirect over ground waterflows from the rains into the ground to supply subteranian water supplies.

the protection of existing forrests.

stop building more highways,urban planning to include vegetation stop building cities encourage people to return to the land to conduct their business from there which now has become possible thanks to the internet.

education to motivate people to auto sufficiency by building more home food gardens.

education on environmental awareness
education on family planning to curb over´populaion

Agricultural education and improvements to follow the principals or sustainability and soil management.

more environmental or land ,design to prevent bush fires,such as--fire breaks

,more dams.regulations and control for public behaviour

alternative effeciant public transport to discourage the use of the internal conbustion engine

recicling wastes,limit water use

i am a Permaculture Consultant for the department of Ecology for the regional government in Guerrero Mexico
http://spaces.msn.com/byderule

Answer 8

I am too.
We might not live long enough to see the major effects of it.

Answer 9

Nope, unless you can give concrete proof that we can do something about it....everything is debateable.