what are the top web sites about global warming?

Question

I want to find out facts and ways that I can help the cause that are easy to understand

Answer 1

In the next 50 years or so , it's not very likely we're going to stop it, or even probably slow it down. But what are some things that we could do to slow or perhaps reverse it - there are a couple of untried theories which might work.

1. It's painful but if we stop using fossil fuels - basically if we stopped using all oil/gas and coal, the planet would probably only warm another 3-7 degrees and global warming would start to reverse itself in about 300 to 500 years as the Earth soaked up th excess CO2.

2. Plant large equatorial forests, agressive desert reclaimation , aquifer restoration and then agressive reforestation of the Saharra and other equatorial deserts, Because of the location, and presumably an ample supply of water, trees will grow fast and use up CO2 in the process. This could not only stop but reverse global warming.

3. Mechanical CO2 carbon storage - it's being done today - it's just not very efficient, the Oil and Gas guys figured this out - go figure why it they like the idea of putting CO2 where the oil and gas used to be.

4. Sulphur cloud generation, create factories which create sulphur pollution (like in the 1970's) , this will create acid rain but will cool the planet - this was actually suggested recently as a "fix" .

5. Seed the oceans with diatomes - small organisms made of elaborate calcium-carbonate for skeletons, when they die they sink from the surface where they live and become sediment on the sea-floor. (This may not work but it's been suggested that it could work.)

6. Solar sheilding - large orbiting solar sheilds - big circular disks that would act like a sun-shield on the poles of the planet. They could be either opaque or translucent letting in light but not radiation. Many of these would be needed to create the needed cooling effects.

7. Do nothing - it's all good , in 50-60 years we run out of oil, in 50 or so years after that natural gas. coal won't run out for 300 years but you can't run a car or an airplane on coal so pretty much if you wait long enough, we'll run out of stuff to burn and then the global economy will more or less collapse due to environmental pressures.

Because unchecked use of fossil fuels will lead to some rather "unpleasant" circumstances. Like a few hundred million Asians who will need new places to live since water and food will become scarce where it is now plentiful (India and the Chinese lowlands).

The western 1/2 to 2/3rds of the US will become a serious desert when the summer water supplies/river sources (the Eastern Rocky Mountain watershed) starts to really dry up. Just ask the farmers in Montana about salt seep and water sharing nowadays.

Australia is already pretty much already screwed and becoming a much drier place, (voluntary (maybe someday manditory) water rationing, common multi-year long droughts, wildfires etc).

Pretty much because there will always be people who say it isn't so bad or isn't happening at all, or we don't need to spend money to fix that since it isn't a problem anyway

Personally ... I'm going to bet on #7 - I don't like it but it just seems more like Human nature - (see Humans!)


Do Nothing - The end of Oil (and most other things we take for granted) http://www.amazon.com/End-Oil-Edge-Perilous-World/dp/0618239774
Planetary Shield - http://www.androidworld.com/prod60.htm
Mechanical CO2 storage - http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/01/carbon_seq/p55.pdf
Organic CO2 storage - http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/825265-gribrx/native/825265.pdf
Reforrestation - http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4487

Humans! http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1834532365017960527&q=genre%3Aanimation+humans%21&hl=en

Answer 2

Here: http://epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers/6345050%20Hot%20&%20Cold%20Media.pdf

And here: http://www.junkscience.com/

Edit:
I see ftm is following me around again. He just loves to chase me around telling everyone what I'm doing. I don't know why, but he does the same thing every day. His temperature data is from the northern hemisphere. This is GLOBAL warming not northern hemisphere warming and I'm not pooh poohing anything, I'm just showing where you can go to get the some facts in this matter and allowing readers to make up their own minds if it's true or not. Just go to the sites I mention and it will answer all the global warming questions you have. Yes, even ftm will learn something. He thinks he knows everything already, but I'll bet even he could learn a thing or two.

Here's an excerpt from ftm's wipikpedia site talking about Senator Inhofe: "In a July 28, 2003 Senate speech, he offered compelling evidence that catastrophic global warming is a hoax. That conclusion is supported by the painstaking work of the nation's top climate scientists." So the very site ftm uses to discredit my source actually discredits him.

ftm wants to talk about who's getting the money for global warming... check this site: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528&IsTextOnly=True
They want the skeptics silenced, I wonder why?

Answer 3

Here's the NASA FAQ on global warming: http://globalchange.nasa.gov/Resources/FAQs/glob_warmfaq.html.

Here's another good place to start. When you go there, check out the links in the upper left (Science, Impacts, etc). After you've read that, if you still want to know more, it links to a ton of other links.

"CapNemo" 's link is to “A Skeptic’s Guide to Debunking Global Warming Alarmism” compiled by United States Senator James Inhofe. This link very thoroughly presents the skeptics' issues. However, there really is very little real controversy in the scientific community on this issue. There's a small handful of vocal people, many of whom have strong ties to the oil industry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Global_warming_skeptics ) who are keeping the debate alive. Inhofe, himself, has sold out to oil money, "The contributions Inhofe has received from the energy and natural resource sector since taking office have exceeded one million dollars." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe )

EDIT: "CapNemo" is so dishonest. Ignoring the fact that Inhofe has sold himself to the oil industry, "CapNemo" presents a misquoted wikipedia entry (moving a quotation mark), so as to give the impression that the Senator's words were wikipedia's words. The whole paragraph quotes Inhofe and actually actually reads as follows:

"In a July 28, 2003 Senate speech, he "offered compelling evidence that catastrophic global warming is a hoax. That conclusion is supported by the painstaking work of the nation's top climate scientists." He cited as support for this the 1992 Heidelberg Appeal and the Oregon Petition (1999), as well the opinions of numerous individual scientists that he named (although most climate scientists, as represented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), now believe that climate change is an existing phenomenon)" ------- Please note WIKIPEDIA'S conclusion at the end that it is NOT a hoax!

Answer 4

Well it is very typical of the breed of what have been termed library scientists for over a hundred years maybe more. They read each others writings and then produce commentaries on what they have read summarizing what they like and do not like about the others paper. This is what they call peer review. Then others will read and comment on their paper rating it according to their likes and dislikes. It is meaningless chatter and verbosity because none of them have ever gotten their hands dirty in a real laboratory actually performing experiments with their own hands. This is what they have lab technicians for is it not, it is below their dignity to do it themselves. so because they have never really performed any hands on scientific work they have no idea about how to perform an experiment except from their readings and they only choose to document materials that agree with their preconceived assumptions arrived at from following the writings of their politically correct peer group it is no wonder they can achieve consensus on ideas that a real scientist would have a fall down rolling on the floor gut rending laugh over.

Answer 5

Sorry politics are involved. The answer is that Mother introduced plants a few million years ago. The plants take in the CO2 and hold on to the C and give us back the O2. So the problem is not there . The figures are what they want it to be . Not a true measurement.

Answer 6

Try nasa.gov. NASA does much of the leading research on global warming and climate change--and they have links to other good sites as well. don't waste your time on the conspiracy theory blogs and such--half of them are paid for by the oil companies and the rest are just whackos.