I'm sure that some how it's going to be Bush's fault.
2007-03-16 16:31:38
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
3⤋
Global warming advocates use the rise in Carbon Dioxide levels that "blanket" the earth in the atmosphere as evidence that human globalization/industrialization (the use of coal and petroleum to produce electric energy) is the main cause. The daily temperature spikes seen in many different parts of the world aren't indicative (or contradicting) about global warming. Carbon dioxide is one of the most important indicators because there is evidence that it creates a sort of insulation that keeps more heat within the atmosphere of the earth.
Geologist have been able to estimate Carbon Dioxide levels since Earth was first created. Previous global warming/cooling periods for the past 4 billion years have been directly related to these carbon dioxide levels. Therefore, if human industrialization is tremendously increasing this level of carbon dioxide (natural sources would be trees and volcanic eruptions) at a faster rate, then human intervention can also "reverse" or limit global warming.
2007-03-17 00:00:12
·
answer #2
·
answered by Dave 1
·
1⤊
0⤋
"Earth has been warming since the end of the last Ice age Right?"
Wrong. The warming experienced "coming out" of the Younger Dryas ended about 10,000 years ago, and there's been a very slight cooling trend since then.
And you are most likely correct- Earth's climate will probably start to cool. But it won't be for thousands of years. In the meantime, it's going to continue warming, and unless we do something it could have devastaing effects on human civilization.
2007-03-17 11:19:32
·
answer #3
·
answered by disgracedfish 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
That's easy: mankind. That is precisely what happened in the 1970's, when everyone was told that we were going precipitously towards another ice age. All scientific evidence added up to it, because we were experiencing the coldest winters ever recorded. The reason was because we were putting soot and smog into the air which was blocking the sun's rays. That, and atmospheric nuclear bomb tests. Many scientists, including Carl Sagan, saw a direct link between nuclear bombs, which began in the 1940's, and the drop in temperatures worldwide.
2007-03-17 00:01:55
·
answer #4
·
answered by Rando 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
You are OK to be skeptical about global warming, but don't do it for the wrong reasons. It has snowed much later than this date in Ohio before and will do so again. Global warming advocates believe that there is a warming trend, AND it is being amplified by the activities of people. You may not be able to fight Mother Nature, but it may not be a great idea to help it along, either.
2007-03-16 23:35:00
·
answer #5
·
answered by cattbarf 7
·
2⤊
3⤋
Science, and in this case the science of climatology, has a real burden to overcome. On the one hand, it comes to some conclusion or other and tells us about it, but then, because it is really science, and complicated by mathematics and computer models and all that hard learning stuff that people avoid in their day to day, because of that, scientists are at a loss when it comes to explaining their results to people who don't actually speak science.
It is much like the problem the doctor has trying to tell you about your odd problem. And trying to convince you that those herbs you want to take won't do any good. We make what sense of the world as we are able to with whatever training and information we have. And if the world turns out to be complicated and difficult to understand, well, heck- we can just pretty much go on as we have gone on and hope for the best.
Anyone who makes a case to you based on simple cartoonish pictures of how the world works is fooling you, either by intent or because they themselves are already fooled. You don't have to look very far in your own area of experience and expertise to see just how complicated the world is just under the skin.
2007-03-16 23:36:25
·
answer #6
·
answered by xaviar_onasis 5
·
3⤊
3⤋
If CO2 levels were not increasing rapidly towards 2 to 3 times the pre-industrial level of 280ppm, no doubt the earth would continue its natural cycles. Unfortunately, the level of CO2 has increased dramatically in the last century, and is STILL increasing. We can't look to the past to predict the future here.
2007-03-16 23:47:46
·
answer #7
·
answered by kevinb 2
·
1⤊
2⤋
You are so enviably free from the ravages of intelligence.
2007-03-17 00:55:50
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Contact us when you finish 8th grade.
2007-03-16 23:36:32
·
answer #9
·
answered by notyou311 7
·
1⤊
4⤋