Will Chemistry, Physics or even Biology be the most useful in tackling climate change or are the contributions from all fields equally valuable?
2007-03-27 02:48:13 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment
Probably a mixture of Physics, Chemistry, Biology and Geology.
I think in the long term, however, the only real answer is to find and exploit a stable form of nuclear fusion (practically unlimited cheap energy with no significant waist products other than helium and water). So I think Physics will provide the final answer.
Lets just hope its not too late.
2007-03-27 03:37:20 · answer #1 · answered by Spacephantom 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
You can't look at the many branches as isolated problem-solvers. They're probably equally valuable because you can't evaluate an aspect of this problem while overlooking another. Maybe a solution proposed by chemists affects negatively an issue biologists perceived. We have to combine all these branches and their researches to reduce climate change.
Referring to WeirdNA's comment on whether we're contributing to global warming or not, it is well and long known that we ARE contributing greatly to the naturally occuring warming process that the Earth is undergoing. That dilemma is already in the past and we should forget it and focus on reducing everything that's causing the global change.
And referring to SANE's comment, a myth lacks facts, and there is an abundance of facts that evidence global warming. You can't ignore them, you may think that it's just hype like David M said, but you sould reconsider. The facts are real; small changes are happening, but they will become more evident pretty soon.
2007-03-27 03:52:29 · answer #2 · answered by intergalactica 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Political Science...
2007-03-27 15:13:05 · answer #3 · answered by justin jackson 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Environmental science will be the branch that will most be effective at reducing global warming because it integrates information from many sciences, such as geology, chemistry, physics, biology, and even engineering. Global warming has many components to it and no one science will be able to solve the problem.
2007-03-27 02:56:48 · answer #4 · answered by silvamex2001 1 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Clearly it's not science, it's engineering. Look at the main things we have to do.
Conserve energy.
Develop alternative energy sources, nuclear, solar, wind, biofuels.
Develop means to capture (sequester) carbon.
Only in the last do we need a scientific breakthrough. The others are more engineering. Building safer nuclear plants and disposing of the waste better are basically engineering problems.
2007-03-27 02:57:38 · answer #5 · answered by Bob 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Science will have very little to do with any decrease in global warming. The solutions, if any, will be developed by engineers.
2007-03-27 04:18:15 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Either psychiatry or psychology.
The Global warmers greatly exaggerate their fears and their figures. Hence the UN cut the estimates by half this year!!! Who can trust people who pluck the worst figures they can think of out of thin air?
Sky actually suggested that sea level could rise by 30 metres - there is not sufficient water on ice on earth to get anywhere near that!!
GW proponents when faced with a counter argument go in for character assassination instead of facing the question. Therefore it suggests to people that they cannot rebut what is being said so they resort to underhand methods.
The truth is that there are all sorts of things causing climate change some of which have not even been looked at yet. There is a crying need to take action in any number of ways. BUT - the GW fanatics are actually destroying their own cause by hype and exaggeration.
Therefore we need psychologists and psychiatrists to find ways to get them to look at the problem in a proper scientific way and stop their extreme behaviour which is probably more harmful than anything they are predicting.
People listen to reasoned debate and ignore hype!!
2007-03-27 03:05:23 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋
politics
if there is funding for those things, R and D especially, then the Technologies can progress. Mostly what holds it back is Oil Companies paying to squash those technologies, sometimes even while they pretend to be helping them along for PR.
2007-03-27 02:52:25 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
no science needed we can all make a difference
2007-03-27 03:35:58 · answer #9 · answered by lisa l 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
geology/geography/geophysicists.
They already track those things..the other guys just need to listen to what these guys are saying..
the GIS data already exists and has been coorelated/is ready for interpretation..
the other sciences need to come in and actually listen...
2007-03-27 02:52:17 · answer #10 · answered by m34tba11 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋