English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Explain answer

2007-04-06 07:15:54 · 11 answers · asked by james h 2 in Science & Mathematics Weather

11 answers

Global warming is as old as the solar system. But Algore is full of horse hockey. Mankind isn't capable of the kind of problems we are being blamed for. If you look at the Solar Weather website, you will see that global warming tracks EXACTLY with variations in the sun's output and the earth's location in space. Volcanoes, termites, and CATTLE produce far more CO2 than we do. And that crap about freon destroying the ozone layer? The sun decimated the ozone layer 500 years ago, and it did it in about 5 minutes. A few CFC's couldn't even find their way UP THERE anyway! It would make more sense to ban jet aircraft from flying in the stratosphere than to say that cars (which PRODUCE ozone incidentally) are the problem. Hey, if CFC's can get up there, why can't the O3 from cars?????

[Edit] While we DO need to clean up the planet and convert to renewable resources, lying to the people with scare tactics as the Liberals are doing will not help. Remember what happened to the little boy who cried 'wolf'.

2007-04-06 07:31:57 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

for the finest time.... you won't be able to tell even if global warming is authentic by technique of the way it feels outdoors. i'm ill and drained of folk declaring "guy it certain is warm outdoors, should be global warming" or it will be ******* summer season you dipshit. perhaps it being wintry climate had some thing to with it being chilly. Eh? perhaps? somewhat? there is not any doubt that the earth is warming. The question is ARE human beings causing IT? i imagine no longer. i imagine that it really is area of the organic cycle of the earth's climate. perhaps human beings influence it a touch, yet when so that they are no longer doing a lot, and money spent on all this global warming crap is money that would have fed starving kittens or some thing more advantageous sensible. maximum folk, by technique of which I recommend ninety 9.9%, have in no way seen a record of the temperatures for the finest million years. All we may be able to work out far decrease back is wide adjustments, yet in additional advantageous cutting-edge years we may be able to apply more advantageous precise methods alongside with varve counting and dendrochronology, and deep sea cores. The climate fluctuates so a lot more advantageous than you imagine. did you study the "Little ice age" from the middle a lengthy time period? Did you even comprehend that there will be little ice a lengthy time period? It merely lasted 2 hundred years and it wasn't an complete blown ice age notwithstanding it made the international a lot chillier. searching on the most cutting-edge temperatures over the finest 10000 years I genuinely have seen no reason to assume that the earth ought to no longer be warming at present. you are able to say that you've self assurance we are due for a cooling or a warming, yet in factor of incontrovertible fact that global lengthy time period climate replace prediction isn't precisely all the way down to a technology in any respect.

2016-12-03 09:50:20 · answer #2 · answered by gureczny 3 · 0 0

My stock Global Warming answer:

First, I suggest you read this article:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Anyway, on to specific points:

1. Oceans are heating up. Yes, it does take lots of energy to heat the oceans. If they are heating, think about how much energy we've already poured into the global environment. Also, only a few degrees temperature change can make a HUGE difference. The oceans in the arctic are maybe three degrees warmer than they were this point last century, but the arctic ice cap is melting in ways never seen before. For example, there never used to be open water in the canadian archipelego, even in the summer - now, there are miles and miles of open sea.
On the canadian archipelago: http://newark.cms.udel.edu/~cats/healy_2005/science/index.html
On sea ice generally:
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1603667.ece

2. Some people will say that solar activity is increasing as part of an 11-year cycle. Yes, solar activity is increasing, but most scientists believe that the effect on the earth's climate has been negligible.
From a NASA press release: "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..."
Source: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/19990408/

3. Many skeptics will say that what humans put out in terms of CO2 is far less than volcanoes, fires, or other animals. As for volcanoes, fires, and animals - those have always been there. They should not have any net effect on the planet's climate. The only changing factor among those and humans is humans and our increased activity.

4. If global temperatures increase, then the temperature difference between temperature zones will remain the same. So there will always be extreme weather events like heavy snowfall in Central Park in April. But you can't look at one data point and use it to make a trend - otherwise, you could say that all white people have red hair, because you just saw a white person with red hair. You'd have to ignore all of the evidence to the contrary.

5. One frequent question skeptics ask is "how did the last ice age end?" Well, that's hard to say. Ice ages have been on cycles for hundreds of millions of years, it's true, but the problem is that the last one ended right about the same time that people discovered farming. That might be a coincidence, but it might not - the question then becomes, "Did mankind's increased use of agriculture alter the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and warm up the earth enough to end the last ice age, or did the end of the last ice age contribute to farming?" It's a tough question, but you should read about the Early Anthropocene Hypothesis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_anthropocene

6. Finally, and I think this is the most persuasive argument ofr why we should change our behavior as a society: Both sides in the global warming debate have something to gain and something to lose. However, the anti-global warming side has much to gain by continuing to fight change - they have a direct expense that they can expect by having to change the way they do things, and by having to find ways to clean up their acts. Keep in mind that some of the most vocal critics of global warming theory are those who are either industry insiders themselves or who are funded by industry. On the flip side, those who are trying to convice the world of the reality of Global Warming have no direct benefit that they will gain - most do not own, say, environmental cleanup businesses. Their benefit is based entirely off of a belief in doing the right thing.

2007-04-06 07:18:30 · answer #3 · answered by Brian L 7 · 1 1

It is real. The average global has been increasing for the past 30 years. What is "horse crap" is when "experts" and "scientists" say that it is DEFINITELY caused by humans, or even CO2. The truth is that only a very small percent of the greenhouse effect is cause by CO2 (most is caused by water vapor), and only a very small percent of the CO2 produced on Earth is from humans (most is produced by decomposing plants, volcanos, etc).

2007-04-06 08:22:23 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Horse crap is real, global warming is not.

2007-04-06 07:25:24 · answer #5 · answered by lyllyan 6 · 1 1

Well real, but I question how much we're at fault. The sun is putting out .2% more energy than it did 40 years ago and Mars and dLuto are heating up. I suspect we have no influence on those planets. Here's an article from 2003 that no one seems to pay attention to.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html

2007-04-06 07:20:55 · answer #6 · answered by Gene 7 · 2 1

Ok it is real but I don't think its all our fault. There is global warming on mars and There is no one up there driving cars. So because It is happing on mars too that means that It can't be all our fault.

2007-04-06 14:24:26 · answer #7 · answered by Mr. Smith 5 · 0 0

Horse crap - these things are cyclical. In 1974, scientists were certain that we were about to have an ice age due to Global Cooling. I don't recall that we had an ice age.

2007-04-06 07:24:11 · answer #8 · answered by JessicaRabbit 6 · 0 2

Real! If you choose not to believe that is totally up to you.
But wouldn't it be nice to do our part to clean up the mess we have made and get better fuels, for our transportation, that don't cause smog and health problems?
You are either part of the solution or part of the problem-your choice.

2007-04-06 12:45:00 · answer #9 · answered by dragon 5 · 0 0

For those of you whose understanding of climate change or global warming comes from the main stream media (New York Times, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, CBS-TV, et al) this book is a must read, that is if you subscribed to the "chicken little" thesis that the sky is falling, or in the case of climate change that we will be unable to live on planet earth because rising global temperatures will destroy civilization.


The sub-title of Meltdown reads "the Predictable Distortion of global Warming by Scientists, Politicians and the Media" and in this he admirably succeeds in documenting and proving. The book is a compendium of headlines and stories found in the media mentioned as well as in a number of scientific journals, mainly Science and Nature. He also addresses some of the more outlandish stories, press releases, and declarations by organizations such as Greenpeace and the World Wild Life federation. Dr. Michaels provide chapter and verse, 12 of them, documenting the egregious errors and in some case patently false information foisted on the public at large by all of these organizations. That said the main stream media comes in for the most criticism.

His method is really quite simple. He looks at the data gathered in the real world and uses it to confirm or rebut the hypothesis that anthropogenic warming is causing glaciers to shrink and retreat, is the root cause of rising sea levels that are about to inundate the island of Tuvalu in the Pacific Ocean or that malaria is making a come back due to warming trends or a plethora of other disasters just over the horizon.

Though he doesn't explicitly say so, the book amply illustrates the incompetence, ignorance, and lack of skepticism by the science writers, as well as their employers, in the main stream media. They come across as cheerleaders with a bull horn instead of skeptical fact reporting and investigative individuals they claim to be. For example, in an USA Today article on the effect of warming sea temperature, the text tells us an increase of 10 degrees will cause a volume increase of .1%. The accompanying graphic shows a 100% increase that are in fact 1000 times more than the actual effect. Or more blatantly, the New York Times in its August 19, 2000 edition reported on Page 1 that "The North Pole is Melting". This story was based on an eyewitness report of a professor of oceanography on a Russian cruise ship in arctic region that had sited open water. According to the Times, "it had been 50 million years since the pole was awash in water". That the Times failed to exercise due diligence is obvious since as Dr. Michaels points out that public domain information available with just a few "mouse clicks" would save them from printing a retraction, of sorts, on Page 3 of Section D three days later. In fact open seawater is not unusual at this time of year and in fact a common occurrence.

Space and time will not allow me to discuss the problems Dr. Michaels found with peer reviewed papers found in supposedly scientific journals, but suffice it to say it certainly should make one question any article from now on that was "peer reviewed".

Though not footnoted, the book provides references to all scientific articles sited as well as specific dates and editions for all news articles and scientific journals. So if one is inclined to "fact check" this book they have a great starting point.
Because science is numbers related, there are a substantial number of charts, graphs, and data summaries that allow the reader to easily follow the great deal of data provided. Ironically many of them come from publications and individuals and who are the targets of his book.

Even if this book does not change your mind it ought to give one pause about most any article published in the mainstream press, and for that matter "peer reviewed" scientific journals that purports to prove that climate change is about to destroy the human race or life as we have know it.

2007-04-06 11:50:20 · answer #10 · answered by GREAT_AMERICAN 1 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers