how can we stop global warming?

Question

we have started global warming how can it stop.

Answer 1

No, we didn't start it. Do you honestly believe the planet's climate stayed the same for thousands of years, until humans came along with factories for less than a millisecond of geological time? No, there have always been and will always be fluctuations. We don't have enough data. Even one thousand years is the equivalent of maybe a minute of our time in geological time.

Proof of solar warming:

Warming on Pluto (no SUVs, no factories, no cows)
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html

Warming on Mars (no SUVs, no factories, no cows)
http://www.mos.org/cst-archive/article/80/9.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html

Warming on Jupiter (no SUVs, no factories, no cows)
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2006-05-04-jupiter-jr-spot_x.htm?POE=TECISVA

Warming on the moons of the gas giants (no SUVs, no factories, no cows)
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980526052143data_trunc_sys.shtml
http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/1998/B/199801653.html

For a good sumup of planetary warming and more, go here.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/05/global-warming-on-jupiter.html

A proof of how trustworthy the methods saying our planet was cooling until the 20th century are.
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

You want more, mail me, I'll provide it. Or simply Google "jupiter warming"/"saturn warming"/"triton warming." These are a small selection of articles I have read and seen out there.

PS. Al Gore's film is truly trustworthy. I trust any man who gets the Antarctic and the Arctic mixed up.

Answer 2

hmmmm...this could be a tough one. Considering how the Earth's climate is controlled by solar radiation which streams from the Sun, we really can't. Solar radiation (made up of photons) heat the Earth's atmosphere which causes the air to move at different rates, kind of like a current in a river. These movements in our atmosphere is what we call weather. The impact of people on the earth's atmosphere is very little if any at all. Keep studying science and you will soon be able to recognise science facts rather than pop culture trends ie. 'global warming'.
The only thing that would really block solar radiation from striking the earth is a very, very large umbrella.

Answer 3

STOP u are the problem. CO2 is not the pollutant u claim and I will prove it to u. The CO2 is removed from our air by plants in a process called photosynthesis . This is also the beginning of our fossil fuel recycle system .Plenty of CO2 Will accelerate the growth of the plants ,and this makes our fossil fuel a renewal furl source . The plants die and washes down the river to the delta where it degrades to our fossil fuels. Where do u think all the fossil fuels came from the first time. The plants need CO2 just as much as u need oxygen. So pls. stop and let mother nature do her thing.

Answer 4

We could screen part of the Sun radiation by putting a cloud of reflecting particles in orbit mainly between the tropics.
Ask the scientists (which I am not) for the relevant mathematical models in order to find out what to do exactly.
Then some experimental test must take place to measure how it works.

Answer 5

1st mechanical pencil band the wooden ones they kill too much trees and make them cheaper for people to buy cause they want cheaper things
2ND idea
you know how line paper has big lines you can save half the trees they kill with this and its so easy your gonna bang your head against the door and say omg that is sssooo easy
just cut the lines in half

3rd FOR CARS
wind activating cars
put wind mils on top of the cars
and there has to be someway that they have to move if the is no wind soo attach a string to the mils and pull to spin it drive asap and as you go the wind will hit the wind mils powering the car as you go

Answer 6

Research, read, and understand issues relating to technology development of what was the "Integral Fast Reactor" program. It was canceled in a short sighted decision when oil became a very cheap source of energy. It is now starting to be revived plus some improvements as "Advanced Fast Reactor"

It will need political support from the public if we are going to dodge the green house bullet.

It was designed to extract 100 times more energy from uranium ore than is currently created and thus generates only a tiny fraction of the waste volume being generated by current thermal reactors.

It can take current stockpiles of waste and extract the remaining 99% of energy it contains while reducing it's toxicity rating as well as the duration it must be buried from tens of thousands of years to several hundred years.

Using all the uranium already mined there is enough energy in it to provide the total US need for energy for hundreds of years.

Fears of proliferation come from confusing the chemical PUREX process developed during the cold war from the pyro process that can not create weapons grade plutonium. And ignore much more likely sources of plutonium already available from Russia, North Korea, Pakistan, etc...

Other renewable sources of energy (solar, wind, waves, etc...) need time to improve and will grow into a decentralized industry in the future, but can not displace fossil fuels in time to avert significant climate change.

Solving fusion power has been a badly under estimated problem and looks no closer than it did 20 years ago.

Grown energy crops do not have the energy density to significantly displace fossil energy use even if all farmland is diverted to grow them and an efficient process can be found that breaks down cellulose into small hydrocarbon chains.

Conservation will take us far and can save us money but can not reduce our usage of energy any where near the level where fossil fuels could be eliminated.

Answer 7

conserving energy and gas is a good way to start. Don't use the car as much, walk or bike. When you buy things watch for the Energy Star seal, and don't leave the lights on and all that. Thats a small part, but if everyone did, it'd sure help.

Answer 8

Don't Sacrifice Liberty For Safety! Don't fall into the hands of evil fear-mongering eco-terrorists!

Answer 9

i'm no longer apprehensive approximately international warming..If the international is going to return to an end, it particularly is.. i'm unlikely to alter my entire way of life to place funds into grasping politicians wallet..i think it relatively is all a scare .To at last supply politicians ultimate capacity. human beings would desire to open there eyes ! :)

Answer 10

Global Warming Catastrophe Debunked By Scientists On Fox Special
By Rev. Louis P. Sheldon
Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition

May 23, 2006 - Fox News reporter David Asman hosted an important investigative report on Sunday evening entitled, “Global Warming: The Debate Continues.” This latest report was a counterpoint to a Fox feature that aired last November on the same topic. Asman’s report featured numerous scientists and Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) who chairs the U.S. Senate Committee On Environment and Public Works.

All of those interviewed for this show were skeptical of the claims made by former Vice President Al Gore and radical environmental activists on the causes, extent and potential damage that global warming might cause to the future of our planet.

Much of the hysteria generated by Gore and his cronies in Hollywood about global warming causing melting icecaps or the flooding of coastal cities, is unsupported by scientific data, according to meteorologists and climatologists who were interviewed for Asman’s special. In fact, many of the same environmentalists in the 1970s who were screaming about pollution bringing about a new ice age, are now claiming just the opposite with their dire warnings about global warming. They were wrong then; they are wrong now.

Those scientific experts who were interviewed by Asman pointed out that the computer models used by Al Gore and other environmental activists to predict future world flooding, etc., are notoriously unreliable. These models fail to take into account the extraordinarily complex nature of the environment. Two of the scientists interviewed by Asman said that activity on the sun may be a major factor that is overlooked by the Chicken Little environmentalists.

Radicals like Al Gore typically look at the worst-case scenarios—and those are based on flawed computer models—that fail to take into account future scientific breakthroughs. Gore and his cronies also ignore the current efforts being made by the Bush Administration to encourage such technology as energy plants that convert coal into gas—or technology that converts grains into low emission fuels.

Senator James Inhofe has called the claim that global warming is a man-made problem, as “the world’s greatest hoax.” I am convinced he is correct—and many reputable scientists agree with him.

Former surgeon and best-selling author Michael Crichton wrote “State of Fear” in 2004 to expose the radical environmental movement and its wildly inaccurate claims about future ecological disasters being caused by global warming. Crichton researched the environmental issue for three years before he began writing this book—and wrote a devastating critique of environmentalism in his author’s message in “State of Fear.” Crichton observed: “Nobody knows how much warming will occur in the next century. The computer models vary by 400%, de facto proof that nobody knows. … We can’t ‘assess’ the future, nor can we ‘predict’ it. These are euphemisms. We can only guess. An informed guess is just a guess.”

So, the next time Al Gore gives a speech about man-made global warming, melting ice caps, and flooded coastal cities, keep in mind that he’s just guessing—and basing his wild opinions on the worst case scenarios developed by unreliable computer models. (And, remember that this is Hollywood’s pick for the presidential run in 2008.)

Al Gore has a history of making statements that are unsupported by the facts. Entire web sites have been developed to chronicle Gore’s misstatements, including one published by National Review magazine several years ago. This is hardly a man who could be trusted with our national defense or environment if he became president.