That would only be a good idea if the action you want to take does not cause humanity any harm. The action that is being advocated is to cut coal and oil use by 90% within 50 years. That will cause massive harm to humans. If you think it won't then try turning off your electricity 9 out of every 10 days and not riding in any motorized transport for 9 out of every 10 days. And of course throwing 9 out of every 10 people out of a job.
2007-07-30 10:12:59
·
answer #1
·
answered by campbelp2002 7
·
4⤊
3⤋
There CANNOT be a category 14 hurricane, tornado or earthquake. These events have scales that are set with arbitrary levels. A category 5 on the saffer-simpson means winds greater than or equal to 156 mph. If a hurricane reached 300 mph it would still be a cat 5. A cat 5 tornado on the fujita scale has winds between 261-318 mph. Above that would be a cat 6 (inconceivable tornado.)
Earthquakes have a scale up to ten. The largest recorded earthquakes have been in the 9.2-9.3 range. A 10 would be 10 times stronger than a 9, and 5 times stronger than a 9.3. A 14 would be 50,000 times stronger than a 9.3. This will never happen. Even if it could, it is not relevant to a discussion of global warming because global warming has nothing to do with earthquakes.
As for erring on the side of caution, if the plans which would be implemented cause great harm to those on the planet who are already living in the greatest poverty, then I would be opposed.
2007-08-03 16:19:08
·
answer #2
·
answered by dsl67 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
And just what would be involved in "err on the side of caution" Lets be honest, Alliterative energy is a joke. The best solar panels can not run more than a light or two, forget a water heater, TV, computer, stove. Fuels in a car, Not likely, anything other than ocean water presents its own problems. Ethanol, corn, less to feed people and animals, Hydrogen, cant use fresh water, takes away from people. so the only thing you could use would be salt water, and that is not possible now. You cant use wind, everyone complains, kills birds, blocks the view, makes noise.
I like nuclear, but they wont use it, because it makes sense.
so what are you willing to give up, Elec. in your home? you cell phone, you ride to work? you eating habits? your laptop? What, you cant have both. If you think that it is real, and that we (people) have cause it, then what are you willing to give up? most ideals are a joke, they would have no impact at all, but ask yourself this, When MT, Saint Helen's went off back in the 80,s it released more co2 at one time than every car in history has, where did it go? and why was there a measurable DECREES in the earths temperature?
2007-08-02 09:28:05
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
There have been floods,earth quakes, droughts, storms,hurricanes, etc,etc,etc ever since the earth came into being. All planets evolve. Earth is just a planet. The mean average temperatures of the Earth have only risen some six degrees since they started recording them. Two degrees before WW1 in the early 1900s and two more before the Korean Conflict in 1950.
The Earth is like other planets in that it is evolving. We can't stop it's evolution.
2007-07-30 19:02:46
·
answer #4
·
answered by Gary L 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
The problem is that the people who can't afford not to use electricity are the ones who are loosing out the most... people in Africa are told they have to survive on solar electricity which gives them enough power to either use a light, or a fridge... People who can actually afford to use solar electricity don't... Electricity, car's, planes etc. are necessary.. if we don't constantly try to push forwards then we will all be stuck in our own town, never learning anything... we should be sensible and not waste things for the sake of it but it's easy to say 'ban people from taking planes, ban people from using cars' but people won't be able to get to work, or school...
Lauren
2007-08-02 04:35:12
·
answer #5
·
answered by Lauren 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Global warming refers to the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation.
Global average air temperature near the Earth's surface rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the twentieth century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes, "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations,"[1] which leads to warming of the surface and lower atmosphere by increasing the greenhouse effect. Natural phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes have probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950, but a small cooling effect since 1950.[2][3] These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists is the only scientific society that rejects these conclusions.[4][5] A few individual scientists disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC.[6]
Climate models referenced by the IPCC project that global surface temperatures are likely to increase by 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) between 1990 and 2100.[1] The range of values reflects the use of differing scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions and results of models with differences in climate sensitivity. Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, warming and sea level rise are expected to continue for more than a millennium even if greenhouse gas levels are stabilized.[1] This reflects the large heat capacity of the oceans.
An increase in global temperatures is expected to cause other changes, including sea level rise, increased intensity of extreme weather events, and changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation possibly resulting in more frequent floods and drought. Other effects include changes in agricultural yields, glacier retreat, species extinctions and increases in the ranges of disease vectors.
Remaining scientific uncertainties include the exact degree of climate change expected in the future, and how changes will vary from region to region around the globe. There is ongoing political and public debate on a world scale regarding what, if any, action should be taken to reduce or reverse future warming or to adapt to its expected consequences. Most national governments have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol, aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
2007-07-30 17:39:33
·
answer #6
·
answered by Ï S¤D Ï 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
There are just too many variables for any of us to say that global warming will be the cause of man of just s simple act of mother nature!
Drastic climate changes have ocurred all over our planet, that is a fact! Ive heard two dozen different reasons for it and its 'possible' one of them is true.
I know one thing that concerns me is the deforestation of the jungles worldwide.
2007-07-30 19:21:06
·
answer #7
·
answered by ? 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
I agree, we should err on the side of caution
but I disagree when you seem to equate the number of people who acknowledge global warming with those who do not. Almost all scientists agree that it is occuring and that human activity is propelling it and the main cause.
And about the warning, i'd say the melting of the polar ice caps at more than three times the projected melting speed is a sign.
2007-07-30 17:16:00
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
5⤋
don't worry be happy and go jump in you hummer and turn on the air conditioner and have a good time ho by the way don't forget your sunscreen by the time your kids come they bewearing spacesuit remember the days dear when we didn't have to wear those suits those were the days.
2007-07-30 20:19:32
·
answer #9
·
answered by netak 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
It aint gunna get that bad if it's happening at all. I'm more worried about the fixes that might be put into place.
2007-07-30 17:20:42
·
answer #10
·
answered by kevin s 6
·
2⤊
0⤋