Can you share your contribution of your knowledge about GLOBAL WARMING thing?

Question

well its a baby thesis actually, please help me.
I need a serious answer.
Please if possible give your maximum knowledge about it...

Answer 1

I've got to voice an opinion in this, because this is not the greatest first response I've seen. I am actually a meteorology major finishing up my undergraduate this coming spring, and I will tell you that at least on this campus, there is no met major or professor who thinks An Inconvenient Truth is anything more than junk science. Especially since the documentary won the Oscar.

If you want real information on climate change, climate in general, and global warming you cannot rely on mainstream media, it is far too skewed by the political aspect of it.

Climate change, while only recently in the public view, has been happened through natural processes since the formation of the planet. This can be from any single large event, or a from a chain reaction of any number of events causing cooling or heating of the Earth. Going back into paleoclimatology, you can see from the reconstructions of global temperature a time period called the Little Ice Age, which happened roughly during the Middle Ages in Europe, which was preceded by a warmer period. One of the graphics from the IPCC presentation points this out clearly, that climate does change naturally. Yet, in the same breath it can be (and has been) forced by humans.

The second graphic I've attached is a graph showing how radiative forcing is done by different things in the atmosphere, and not all of them are bad, but most of them are bad. Particulary methane, carbon dioxide and so on under greenhouse gases, along with the secondary pollutant that is tropospheric (or ground level) ozone. Bear in mind that in this graph, whatever is having the effect of warming the atmosphere has a positive bar, and whatever is cooling it has a negative bar. You notice when you get to the clouds and Aerosols part of the graph that there are lots of error bars. Particularly when you get to the second indirect effect of aerosols (dirt, soot, etc.), you notice how much COOLING, they could be doing. This all points to how much we still have to learn about our own atmosphere, especially since this second indirect effect could be counterbalancing all those greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

So as much as you may hear from the media that global warming is a definate thing, they are blowing more smoke then anything. With all that error in what we know of the natural atmosphere, it is not a certain answer that yes the world is warming. It is a complex issue, that still has many details to be worked out with both natural and manmade things involved. We don't know exactly how this new technology is effecting the atmosphere, even as much as we don't know very well how much clouds and aerosols are doing for the planet. So whatever you do don't be inclined to go to mainstream media to look for information about global warming and climate, and please don't look to Al Gore as the be all and end all truth of global warming. In fact if you were looking to write a paper on this, I don't consider Yahoo! Answers a great place to look for specific info either. But if you are looking for a place to get you started on writing something about this then I think there's enough between myself and others who've answered to get you started.

Particularly at the bottom of my links, will let you search the journals run by the American Meteorological Society, and they definately have some good stuff, look particularly at the Bulletin of the AMS for simple language then the tough stuff.

Hope all the links give you a hand, and since mainstream media is so bent one way, don't be afraid to do a little research on the subject yourself, a little leg work goes a long way.

Answer 2

global warming
global warming is an increase in average temperature of the earths atmosphere.we are putting large amounts of carbon dioxide into the air, and it "blankets" up in the atmosphere trapping warm air in the earth.

global warming is melting the artic. the artic is the earths natural air conditioner. without the earth will become unbearibly hotter. if the artic fully melts the ocean will rise 20 feet. think of every foot of the ocean having an extra 20 feet of water on it. places will flood. one place in india, home to 60 million people will flood. the world trait centre memorial would be under water. in the year 2050 it is estimated the artic will be ful,ly melted . huge amounts of people will be starving and looking for a home. a million species of animals will be extinct.

things you can do:
-change a regular lightbulb to a compact florescent lightbulb
-walk instead of driving more often
-for your washing maching use cold water instead of hot
-install a low flow shower head for your shower

global warming is not a joke. be part of the solution, not part of the problem!

Answer 3

Boy do I consider you! I additionally agree that persons would desire to get previous the Bush element. i replaced into in no way a extensive fan of his in any respect yet i'm fairly against what Obama has been attempting to do. This apology element is very infuriating. i think of ALL international places have contributed to the alleged international warming element, if this form of element even exists. I nonetheless can't wrap my head around it. I stay in an area that replaced into as quickly as lined with the aid of glaciers. right now, i replaced into working aircon. information going lower back to the early 1800s for my are show temperatures as intense, if not larger than right now. In those situations, it replaced into until eventually now the interior combustion engines that are supposedly to blame for extremely a lot of this international warming element. I do agree that all of us, contained in the US and everywhere on earth would desire to strengthen what we are doing to guard mom earth, yet i'm not on board to think of that we've led to this and specially that we contained in the US are from now directly to blame than the different united states. i'm proud to be American and don't sense we would desire to continuously make an apology for something in any respect. i'm ill of it and embarrassed through fact of it.

Answer 4

Ok, are you ready? It's another BIG LIE, just like the "new ice age" in the '70s, "al gore created the internet", and "guns are evil". All of these lies were perpetuated by the clinton regime, junk science, and believed by gullible people that can't, or won't, think for themselves.
And THAT's the REAL inconvenient truth.

Answer 5

Global Warming has two major components.

The first component is from natural forces over which we have no control.

The second component is from human activity, primarily carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuel.

To eliminate the component of Global Warming that is caused by carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuel, we would have to ban the burning of fossil fuels world wide. More recycling, turning out the lights and buying hybrid cars will not get you enough of a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions to stop Global Warming.

To ban the burning of fossil fuels would mean that we would have to shut down all transportation systems world wide. There could not be any use of automobiles, motor scooters, motorcycles, trucks, trains, planes or shipping.

We would have to stop heating our homes, cooking our food and heating the water that we bathe in. We would have to learn to bathe in cold water.

We would have to shut down all manufacturing, steel making and cement making.

We would have to stop the generation of electricity with fossil fuels.

We would have to enforce this ban world wide.

The People's Republic of china has already said that they will not cut back on their fossil fuel use.

The People's Republic of China alone produces enough carbon dioxide emissions to cause Global Warming even if you managed to get 100% compliance with a ban on the use of fossil fuels in all other nations.

We do not have the political will or the military capability to enforce such a ban.
.
We must accept the fact that Global Warming is a fact of human activity and is not preventable.

What we must do is plan now how we will ameliorate the effects of Global Warming.

The sea levels will rise. We must help poor countries protect their low lying areas with dike systems similar to those in Holland that are used to hold back the sea. For those areas that cannot be protected with dike systems we must help relocate those populations to higher ground.

There will be more frequent hurricanes and stronger hurricanes. We must help poor countries with their disaster preparedness for hurricanes and we must upgrade our own disaster preparedness for hurricanes.

There will be droughts in some areas of the world. We must help those parts of the world with supplemental water supplies and desalination plants.

We cannot prevent Global Warming, but with proper planning we can ameliorate (lessen) the effects of Global Warming if we start now.

Answer 6

Global warming that is a scam of the rich against the poor. what are U .

Answer 7

Watch an inconvenient truth and you'll learn about global warming. It's a documentary about the topic made by Al Gore. It's very informative and will really help a lot in your research. Good luck!

Answer 8

check the web for more scientific informations, unless this is a survey or info gathering on what gw is meant to individuals, i'll share.

Answer 9

my contribution to GLOBAL WARMING in people habitual, modern people using physical activity

Answer 10

Czech President Vaclav Klaus, drawing on his memories of Soviet oppression, recently declared that the global warming hysteria had replaced Communism as "the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy, and prosperity." The environmentalists continue to do their best to prove him right.

In making the parallel to Communism, President Klaus cited the use of environmentalism as a justification for global central planning. But it is not just the vast scale of the controls proposed by environmentalists that is so revealing; it is also the detail. There is no aspect of life too trivial or intimate (as Sheryl Crow infamously reminded us) to fall outside of this new ideological regimentation.

A bit of the flavor of the coming environmentalist police state is provided by a new Australian television show titled "Carbon Cops." In a bizarre inversion of the typical American home improvement show, the experts in this show descend on the hapless homeowners to measure their "carbon footprint," the amount of fossil fuels involved in the manufacture and use of every item in their house. The "carbon cops" are shown rummaging through a family's smallest household items, searching for global warming contraband--and then scolding them for "polluting" the atmosphere with carbon dioxide. According to a report in the Sydney Morning Herald:

Each week they don their orange monogrammed shirts to cordon off the toxic home of an Australian family. They arrive with energy-auditing gadgetry, sobering statistics, and lips and eyebrows curled in withering admonishment. They rate these people, shame them, then challenge them to do better.

And what sort of things are these people supposed to be ashamed of? One family, the Barries, are scolded for their overuse of light bulbs, "Dad's overseas business travel, their swimming pool and boat," while the Lane family is taken to task for their "six TVs, three DVD players, five or six computers, 12 freshly laundered towels a day."

In case you don't get the message, the author of this report sums it up for you: "Taken together, the case studies are not about individual scapegoats as much as an indictment of Western affluence, negligence, and self-obsession." Ah yes, the inexcusable self-indulgence of wanting to bathe with freshly laundered towels. How can we live with ourselves?

The victims on this television show are voluntary, the only weapon used against them is social disapproval, and the whole thing could be laughed off--if not for the fact that our political leaders are preparing the way for the real carbon cops who will enforce the "carbon taxes" and impose the "cap and trade" rationing scheme needed to meet the environmentalists' goal of constricting the world's energy use. Australia's "carbon cops" may be fictional, but they are the harbinger of a real attempt to use the power of the state to strip us of the accoutrements of prosperity: our light bulbs, our cars, our televisions, our freshly laundered towels.

Part of what Vaclav Klaus was sensing--what gives this all the faint whiff of totalitarianism--is the global warming alarmists' eagerness to reach into the smallest details of our private existence and re-arrange our lifestyle to fit the austere requirements of their political ideology. A recent article in the Sacramento Bee captures the paternalistic fervor in the California statehouse:

Besides the light bulb bill [a de facto ban on the sale of incandescent light bulbs], the Assembly voted this month to require toilets that use less water, ban restaurants from using trans fats, and to create a $250 million program to subsidize sales of solar water heaters costing $6,000 apiece. The Assembly considered, but rejected under pressure from the auto industry, legislation designed to benefit the environment by assessing a $2,500 surcharge on the sale of gas-guzzling vehicles to fund rebates for fuel-efficient models.

But those with a lust to control every detail of human life are not content merely to control what we do. They also want to control what we think.

We have seen in recent decades the largest peacetime outpouring of government propaganda, all devoted to convincing us that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing a global warming catastrophe. The German government, for example, has begun paying authors to inundate Wikipedia with articles boosting "renewable resources." So much for the Internet as the ultimate free marketplace for ideas: now one cartel will be supported by government subsidies.

Along with the campaign to subsidize government-approved speech, there always comes an attempt to suppress speech that challenges the official line. The designation of those who challenge the global warming scare stories as global warming "deniers"--smearing them as the equivalent of Holocaust deniers--has introduced the hard edge of dogmatism and character assassination to the public debate. The implications of this phrase were made clear by another Australian. (Apparently Australia, like Britain, is a few steps ahead of America in how seriously it takes its global warming dogma.) Referring to a British historian who was jailed for denying the existence of the Holocaust, leftist Australian journalist Margo Kingston growled: "David Irving is under arrest in Austria for Holocaust denial. Perhaps there is a case for making climate change denial an offense--it is a crime against humanity after all." (This quote appears at Kingston's former blog; see item #8.)

Kingston is a leftist provocateur and has gone beyond what the mainstream of the left has so far contemplated--but only a little beyond. Back in the United States, the left is still gingerly working to prepare the ground for green censorship, with Al Gore branding right-wing dissent an "assault on reason" that has "broken" the marketplace of ideas--which requires government intervention to fix. The fix is now being prepared in the form of a regulatory assault on right-leaning talk radio, among other initiatives.

For those seeking to justify this kind of all-encompassing government control, global warming is the best candidate to come along since the collapse of Marxism. Like Marxism, environmentalism steals the "scientific" aura of an established field--but in this case it has invaded the "hard sciences," which carry greater prestige than economics. And unlike previous environmentalist crusades, global warming is a threat that is global in scope and total and all-encompassing in its detailed application to human life. Other pollution scares--DDT, acid rain, the ozone layer--required only the banning of a single product or control over a single industry. None was big enough to require control of the entire economy over the period of a century, nor could any claim to be so urgent as to make dissent an "irresponsible" act that is not to be tolerated.

Global warming provides a basis for all of these claims: urgent action is needed, we are told, or the catastrophic effects will be irreversible. But to reverse global warming will require massive reductions in our use of power, requiring a total restructuring of the economy--and the deployment of the "carbon cops" to police every parsimonious detail of our everyday lives.

And this global warming police state has one big advantage over Marxism: it makes a virtue of the chronic shortages and privation that were such a mortal embarrassment to Communism. This time, the left won't have to explain away the lines at the stores, the decade-long waiting lists for tin-can automobiles, even the scarcity of decent toilet paper. These are not failures of the system: they are the goal of the system. They are all necessary to reduce our "carbon footprint."

A perceptive reader suggested to me recently that when left claims that "the science is settled" in the global warming controversy, what they really mean is that the political science of the issue is settled. The global warming hysteria reinforces all of their settled anti-capitalist prejudices--and it provides an open-ended justification for the central, dominant, overpowering role they think government ought to play in the individual's life.

No, we haven't arrived at a green dictatorship--we're nowhere near it. But with all of the environmentalists' talk about the long-term consequences of our actions decades or centuries from now, we should subject their agenda to the same scrutiny. What ideological direction are they taking us, what kind of political and economic system are they seeking to impose--and what will happen to our liberty and prosperity, the day after tomorrow?