Now that global warming is factual, can the damage be reversed or at least stopped?

Question

Can the destruction of global warming be reversed or STOPPED or just slowed down

Answer 1

It can be slowed down but not too sure about reversing the damage done. Will need a huge effort by all the countries in the world and I don't hold out much hope for the 3rd world ones being able to do much. America could be a great help if only they would recognise the danger which they have not yet done.

Answer 2

those suggestions sound valuable, yet does not paintings. one million.) Mass-transforming into flowers - it is called farming, and we don't have adequate land attainable to make adequate. If we could make yet another Amazon rainforest, we would could sparkling away a hell of countless land, which might have an effect because of the fact the land is used for some thing already! 2.) If we shrink the inhabitants strengthen, we can harm the international economic device and plunge each and every united states of america into harm - say our mothers and dads - whilst they retire, our technology will could pay the pensions of their technology. If one technology has 10 adults to one million of the subsequent technology, that one guy will could pay for 10 grownup pensions. 3.) Your argument does not prepare international warming - in basic terms because of the fact CO2 prevents infrared radiation leaving the ambience, it does no longer propose that we are spewing out adequate CO2 to truly have a considerable effect. And it does no longer propose that that's what's inflicting the earth to warmth up - it must be entirely organic! there have been international warmings and coolings in the final 2000 years besides, with no great replace in CO2 ranges, that countless evidence factors that way!

Answer 3

We may not stop global warming but we can SLOW it down significantly. However, if we don't do anything, by 2050, we would spew out 2.6 gigatons of carbon emissions in the U.S.

Here are things to do to overall reduce it to 0.8 gigatons in 2050:
1. Building more energy efficient heating and cooling systems.
2. Building more bulidings that uses far less energy. This would mean using solar power on roofs, double non-adjacent layered windows.
3. Driving hybrids and fuel cells.
4. Designing cities so they will be able to have mass transit systems like subways. Also, designing more efficient big rigs.
5. Relying more on renewable energy like wind and biofuels.
6. Storing excess carbon from power plants and industrial activities.

So, if we do these six things, by 2050, we would have reduced the carbon emissions from 2.6 gigatons of carbon emissions to 0.8. This is LESS than the current U.S. emission of 1.8 gigaton. This makes a BIG SIGNIFICANCE because of our choices. This also shows how powerful we are.

Note: This is just an estimate and doesn't include the increased reliance on cell phones, Internet, teleconferencing, and other advanced communications. Also, it does not include the carbon offsets by planting trees. It would probably be LESS than 0.8 gigatons.

Answer 4

After striping out the politics and propaganda, the climate change issue can be summarised very simply


There are two competing hypotheses

1. Changes in solar activity drive changes in climate
2. Changes in CO2 levels drive changes in climate

The available data fit the first hypothesis very closely, while the fit with the second hypothesis is weak and uncertain, and can also be interpreted as CO2 following temperature. The only rational course is to go with the first hypothesis.
The human contribution to the total CO2 in the atmosohere is a fraction of a percent, and half of that is from 6 billion people breathing. If we shut down industry, energy production, transport entirely it would make no measurable difference to CO2 levels.


the lesson of the history of the planet is that environments change, species adapt or die out.

Answer 5

According to the next to last page of the recent UN Summary for Policymakers, which is the bible of the GW thesis, global warming will continue for at least "a millenium" due to the existing greenhouse gas concentrations as well as ongoing emissions.

In other words there is nothing we can do to reverse it for hundreds of years to come.

Answer 6

“Now” that global warming is factual? I think it’s been accepted that global warming has been happening for some time now. I suspect what you really mean is…

Now that it’s a fact that humans are causing global warming…

And, of course, the answer to that is… it’s not a fact at all.

Many people will try to tell you that there is a “consensus” of scientists who agree that it is a fact. ‘Bob’, above, for example, says it in almost every global warming answer that he posts. The problem is that a consensus means nothing in science.

In science, the truth is not decided by majority vote. It only takes one non-consensus scientist to be proved conclusively correct and the consensus will collapse.

Examples…

Who was right about the sun being at the centre of the solar system? The consensus? Or Galileo Galilei?

Who was right about pellagra being caused by diet? The consensus? Or Joseph Goldberger?

Who was right about continental drift? The consensus? Or Alfred Wegener?

Who was right about smallpox? The consensus? Or Edward Jenner?

Who was right about germ theory? The consensus? Or Louis Pasteur?

Who was right about the existence of the atom? The consensus? Or Ludwig Boltzmann?

Etc., etc.

The truth is, when people start trying to prove something by saying “the consensus is…”, that usually means that the science is actually very weak and they are trying to persuade you to believe them. We don’t believe that the world is not flat due to consensus, it’s a *fact*. We don’t believe that the moon causes solar eclipses due to consensus, it’s a *fact*. Nobody, absolutely nobody, argues with these facts, because the evidence is overwhelming and irrefutable.

The same can not be said about the suggestion that global warming is caused by man.

The global warming alarmists try to “prove” their theory by using computer climate models to predict future temperature changes. But, so far, every one of the predictions has proved to be wrong.

I can’t overstate how important this fact is, because, in science, you prove a theory by demonstrating that reality conforms to what your theory predicts. The failure of the global warming alarmists’ predictions to match observed data shows that their theory is wrong.

In 1995 the scientists working on the IPCC draft report said, "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced." They also said, "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of observed climate changes to anthropogenic causes."

In the summary that followed, politicians removed those statements and replaced them with: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on climate."

It doesn’t matter how many times they tell us they’re right. Science tells us they’re wrong.

Anyway, having got that off my chest, to answer your question…

a) Yes, global warming can, and will, be stopped and reversed. It’s happened in the past, it’ll undoubtedly happen again.
b) What “destruction”? I wasn’t aware that global warming had caused any destruction. What destruction are you talking about?

Answer 7

A couple of tidbits about the geologic cycles of glaciation, and interglacials, the latter currently popularized as "global warming" this time around.

A warmer more humid environment will lead to more lush plant growth, and plants are carbon based. One effect might be greater rice harvests but of rice with a lesser protein percentage.

About increasing iron in oceans to capture carbon. We discussed back in the 1980s to release loads of simple iron filings where they'd settle into deeper cold ocean environments - carbon sinks.

This is all about 30 year old known information -- being twisted today to blame geologic processes of all things on humans -- and not just any and all humans equally, noooooooo -- humans with $$ resources to be gouged. It's nothing more nor less than reprehensible emotional blackmail to pick your pocket: manipulation.

Answer 8

Yes, only if we put a lot of sulphur particles into the atmosphere to reflect the sunlight, e.g. by burning a lot of dirty coal! Actually, the scientist who proposed it (and was taken seriously) proposed dispersing it by rockets. Talk about mad scientists!
But seriously, global warming is a natural phenomenon and not anthrogenic (man-made). Those who argue otherwise are indulging in 'bad' science and selectively using data. We cannot stop global warming as it is part of a natural cycle driven by the sun and cloud formation. Forget about the puny effects our emissions have on climate. Yet it serves the purposes of our politicians to push the anthrogenic line, and some of them have gone too far to admit that they have been wrong, so they keep plugging away at it.
There are too many moralists in this debate. We must let the facts and not metaphysics speak for themselves

Answer 9

HEre is the factual part of global warming:

the Earth HAS warmed about 1 Deg. F in the last 100 years. over the 1st half of the 20th century, the increase was 0.6 degrees. the 2nd half of the century, the increase was 0.4 degrees. hmmmmmm....if Humans were responsible, shouldn't the rise in temperature in the 2nd half of the 20th century GREATLY exceeded that of the 1st half???

The fact is, with the age of the earth, and the length of climatic cycles, trying to evaluate long-term impacts based on 100 years of weahter data is not only foolish, but irresonsible. it would be like observing 1 second of a persons life, and declaring that you could analyze their entire life.

the earth warms, the earth cools, and it does so without our participation. our "Influence" is less than 1%. there are other problems we could concern ourselves with. the earth will be fine. "Stopping" or "Reversing" the effects of global warming would be like an ant holding up a herd of thundering Elephants. in other words, there is nothing we can do about it. which is good to know, since there is nothing that we have done/ are doing to cause it.

Answer 10

Fact is that it is not Factual.

What is fact is that it is an agenda and a belief.

Watch this video before you come to conclusions. It is a documentary from Britain's Channel 4, that goes into detail 1 hour and 15 minutes of how wrong the "Global Warming" ilk are. It is based on real science and not hyperbola and political agenda.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU

it is a must view, for ANYONE that is a reasonable person with a brain.