English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

18 answers

It would be better to direct the global warmers into space

2006-09-28 03:32:21 · answer #1 · answered by dopeysaurus 5 · 1 2

I’m no longer particular who informed you that CO2 doesn’t truly make contributions to global warming, yet they’re very incorrect. CO2 is one in all a number of greenhouse gases that exist in our environment. they offer you the mechanism by which different warmth power from the sunlight is retained, if this didn’t ensue then Earth may don't have any insulation and no technique of conserving warmth. this can see the mandatory global temperature drop by 33°C to an straightforward of –18°C, so chilly that existence couldn’t have developed and Earth can be a useless ball of ice floating in area. those greenhouse gases were area of Earth’s environment and it’s climate because the planet first shaped. Over the tens of millions and billions of years they have thoroughly replaced the face of our planet, without them Earth may be slightly recognisable. You requested how a lot share CO2 contributes to warming. this would look like an basic question although the actual and chemical courting that CO2 has with different gases contained in the ambience makes it no longer accessible to respond to. you could imagine of CO2 a useless ringer for the catalyst that enables water vapour to preserve warmth. Water vapour is the biggest contributor to global warming yet without the presence of CO2 it will be a lot less effective. in this appreciate, CO2 has both a real away and an oblique effect on the quantity of warming and for this reason a range must be utilized. This determination varies between 9% and 36%. The somewhat small, yet though important, contribution that people have had on warming the planet is less complicated to quantify. Of each and every of the greenhouse gases that we emit, it truly is CO2 it truly is the biggest contributor to the artifical ingredient of warming and debts for seventy one% of the anthropogenic warming.

2016-12-06 07:33:49 · answer #2 · answered by putz 3 · 0 0

Thats a good question, However one must understand how much it costs to send things into space. It takes a tremendous amount of fuel and manpower to create rockets or shuttles that can escape the earth's gravity. And assuming that global warming is going to raise several billion gallons of water around the world, unfortuneately, we don't have the economic strength or chemical/mechanical resources available to lift it all away.

Some numbers: The Space Shuttle Endeavour, the orbiter built to replace the Space Shuttle Challenger, cost approximately $1.7 billion. And each launch with minimum weight loaded on board is about $450 million per mission.

2006-09-28 03:36:56 · answer #3 · answered by Duff 2 · 0 0

Anyone who believes Global Warming and/or Cooling is a result of humanity needs to confer with actual science and not some Hollywierd rhetoric. It's all rhetoric. It's poliltical most of all. Don't worry. The Earth would warm or cool without our interference. And it is warming. But consider, one major volcanic eruption puts more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere than man has ever produced by the burning of fossil fuels. And what about forest fires?

2006-09-28 06:45:34 · answer #4 · answered by profile image 5 · 0 0

:-) Sure, just build a giant swimming pool pump on the moon, and siphon all the excess ocean water off the planet.

Or, it might be easier, to build an air conditioner about 1000 miles square, to cool the planet off, powered by all the gasoline that Iraq can produce for the next 100 years..

:-) NO, I'm joking, silly. Even if a 10 mile wide asteroid splashed into the Pacific Ocean, all the water it displaced would still remain on earth. Unfortunately, human life would end....:-(

2006-09-28 03:49:52 · answer #5 · answered by DinDjinn 7 · 0 0

Less water will not eliminate the global warming.

2006-09-28 03:38:34 · answer #6 · answered by Dr M 5 · 0 0

Suze, we kind of need water here on earth. In fact, there will most likly be wars over water in the coming 100-200 years. We dont want to throw it away even if we could.

2006-09-28 03:34:20 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I have a better idea. What we need is to encourage more animals to get rid of it. I propose we spend the next 10 years building an army of thirsty elephants, and millions of camels to store it permanently in their humps.

2006-09-28 03:37:17 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

But what if it condeses at one point in space, then drops all of a sudden by some comet rushing by right onto our heads?!!!

2006-09-28 03:35:25 · answer #9 · answered by cajunpalomino 3 · 0 0

kill two birds with one stone!simply send unwanted refridgerators(harmful to ozone)to arctic/antarctic,plug in,and fill with melted ice(water!),then simply empty out onto ice-fields,when frozen,adem-infinitum.voilla!three chunks please,waiter.(please ignore the fact electricity is needed to power above,Im on a roll!)

2006-10-01 07:46:33 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers