Global warming!?

Question

Has anyone seen Al Gore's " An Inconvenient Truth"? If you Haven't, I suggest you do. If you have, what did you think of it?

You can rent it at your local movie store!

Answer 1

dont need to see it ,i know already whats going on

Is global warming a man-made menace?

not all there are natural cycles in the planets life
but a lot is influenced by mans existance ,and this is increasing with overpopulation,putting strains on Natural resources and increasing contaminations as well as destructions of essential componants the ensure living conditions for all life forms

some home truths

politicians and scientists who work for politicians have downplayed the facts because solutions are expensive and means change and change effects many people income,and most of the world is kept in the dark of the real things that are going on.


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)

,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.

collectively this planet is drying up because of bad farming practices like,over grazing and fertilizers,

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

Source(s) Lester E Brown is the director and founder of the global institute of Environment in the United states .he has compiled a report based on all the satalite information available from NASA,and all the information that has
come from Universities and American embassies WORLD WIDE ,
his little book--a planet under stress , Plan B has been trans lated into 50 languages and won the best book award in 2003.

Answer 2

This is the standard "greenhouse effect" calculation. It requires two pieces of information: the first is the solar irradiance, P, and the second is the mean absoptivity, a, of the planet. The product of the two is the solar energy absorbed by the planet, i.e.,

Ein=a*(pi*r^2)*P.

The absorptivity is usually determined by the earth's albedo, or the amount of solar energy that is scattered/reflected from the earth. This has been measured since the early 1900's by observations of the illuminated and dark sides of the moon in a particular phase. The result is is to commonly use 0.31 as the absorptivity of the planet. The mean solar irradiance at the earth's orbit distance from the sun (1.0au) is 1366 W/m^2. The pi*r^2 factor is the projected area of the planet (with a radius r) that is struck by incident solar radiation.

The conservation of energy assumption is that the earth reradiates the same amount of energy into space as it absorbs. This is calculated using the Stefan-Boltzmann law which quantifies the energy radiated from a body at temperature T as the product of the body's emissivity, e, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, s, and the body's temperature to the fourth power, i.e.:

Eout(T)=e*(4*pi*r^2)*s*T^4

s has a value of 5.7*10^-8 W/m^2. The 4*pi*r^2 factor is the surface area of the planet (since it radiates in all directions unlike its absorption profile).

Here is where the "greenhouse effect" theory becomes contrived. The emissivity of a body is, physically, identical to its absorptivity. So, in the variables stated above, e=a. However, the "greenhouse effect" theory, although content with using the mean, albedo-derived absorptivity, postulates a different emissivity that varies with atmospheric composition. This is the real "inconvenient truth" since it violates the generalization of Newton's third law.

If one performs the calculation properly,

Ein=Eout, or
a*(pi*r^2)*P=e*(4*pi*r^2)*s*T^... or since e=a
T=(P/(4*s))^0.25, or, quantitatively, using the values above
T=278K (5C)

The "greenhouse effect" theory uses the (unphysical) different values for emissivity and absorptivity

a=0.31 and
e=0.5 to get a value
(a/e)^0.25=0.89, or 89% of the proper calculation.

So, the "greenhouse effect" theory states that the temperature of the planet "should be" 248K (-25C). Then, after making the erroneous calculation, it identifies the atmospheric absorption as the magical reason that the measured global mean temperature is warmer than the flawed value obtained.

The value obtained from the proper calculation falls within the margin of error of the "measured" value of global mean temperature when such a mean includes the entire range from the earth's surface to the upper atmosphere properly weighted by density. This means that the only atmosphere-related terms in the calculation, i.e., absorptivity and emissivity, cancel in the proper calculation and therefore have no effect!

So, the "greenhouse effect" theory discredited, there is no "greenhouse effect" and, therefore, the atmospheric constituency cannot affect global mean temperatures.

An increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration cannot raise the earth's global mean temperature--final answer.

Answer 3

To answer the dissenters here:

Al Gore is not responsible for any of the science in the movie. He's simply an actor.

And 99+% of the world's scientists basically agree with him, although they may differ on some details.

Which is why these people, surely not Al Gore fans, basically agree also.

"The science of global warming is clear. We know enough to act now. We must act now."

James Rogers, CEO of Charlotte-based Duke Energy.

"The overwhelming majority of atmospheric scientists around the world and our own National Academy of Sciences are in essential agreement on the facts of global warming and the significant contribution of human activity to that trend."

Russell E. Train, former environmental official under Presidents Nixon and Ford

"We simply must do everything we can in our power to slow down global warming before it is too late. The science is clear. The global warming debate is over."

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republican, Governor, California

"Our nation has both an obligation and self-interest in facing head-on the serious environmental, economic and national security threat posed by global warming."

John McCain, Republican, Senator, Arizona

"These technologies will help us become better stewards of the environment - and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change."

President George Bush

As for the few scientists who disagree:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/fu...

"there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen."

They examined ALL 928 scientific papers published between 1993-2003 which contained the words "climate change". The number that said this was a natural process was zero.

This article accurately states the reality of this issue among scientists, as opposed to politicians or journalists.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity...

"the question of global warming was settled years ago for all but a few holdouts in the scientific community"

Answer 4

Thinking people know that Al Gore's statistics in the book and movie are flawed. Dr William Gray, who pioneered the method currently used in Atlantic hurricane forecasting, states that Gore's claims regarding the increase in number and intensity of Atlantic hurricanes are absolutely untrue. Who do you trust, someone with 50 plus years of climate and meteorology experience or a has-been politician? The bottom line is that you and thousands of others have been duped to line the pockets of Al Gore, and now you're advertising for him.

Answer 5

I dont like fiction,or forced on our children propaganda,to scare them,he's a hypocrite,and science cannot be based upon concensus,only fact,trial,retest and results ending in the same result,not opinions or an educated guess.Thirty years ago I heard the ice age was coming,from a consensus of scientist....where is it?

Answer 6

I think that is true, measured and proved. We know that if we don't act now, the further costs will be much higher than the cost of acting now.
The worst is that all the experts foresee an increase in the energy consumption. The title chosen by Al Gore is relevant.
If you want to know more about it please go to visit this site : http://www.ipcc.ch/

Answer 7

How does one see it? Is it in the theaters or anything like that?

Answer 8

It's the most important documentary ever made.

Answer 9

ONLY IN BEED WITH DOLLY PARTEN.

Answer 10

no not i