2007-12-11 15:29:55 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment ➔ Global Warming
Thanks Trevor
2007-12-11 15:55:18 · update #1
I'll be the first to admit I know little about the North and South Poles. I've read 'Alone' and that is about as far as my knowledge goes. I just really don't want to see everyone die so soon. So I hope this is wrong.
2007-12-11 15:59:34 · update #2
EMT, I gave a source for my news. I told you it is AOL news. This is all I know to tell you. You have the internet, and the power to google AOL news. I do not want this to happen, and I have no agenda.
2007-12-12 09:57:56 · update #3
The ice in the Arctic region is melting faster than was previously thought. The last season saw a record net loss of ice and if this is repeated each year from now on then the Arctic ice will melt completely in 23 years time, only partially reforming in the colder winter months. Last year was exceptional and it's more probable that it will be 40 years before the ice completely melts.
The other two main ice caps are those of Greenland and Antarctica.
The Greenlandic ice is melting but at a quarter the rate of the Arctic ice loss (as measured by volume), there's also far more ice here and it will be hundreds of years before this ice melts completely.
By far and away the majority of the ice on the planet is in Antarctica and here the rate of melting is much slower - accounting for about one tenth of the annual global ice loss. It will be many thousands of years before this ice melts completely.
If it were true that all the ice would melt by 2012 then sea levels would currently be rising at the rate of one foot every week, the actual rate of rise is approx 2 one thousanths of an inch per week.
2007-12-11 15:42:08 · answer #1 · answered by Trevor 7 · 2⤊ 4⤋
If the cost is $8 billion annually, I have to wonder how that would be cheaper than fixing the Co2 problem, the aim there is to switch to cleaner cars and clean energy initially this would be expensive but once done it would then be the primary source of both ongoing power and newer types of vehicles most of us replace our vehicles ever 5-10 years any way. What is being proposed (at $8 billion annually) would have to be continued indefinitely as this is pretty much the same thing a large volcano does and the effect doesn't last, particulates comes out of the atmosphere. The ones put into the upper atmosphere by Pinatubo in 1991 lasted less than 2 years. The idea seems to be 'we have created a problem' rather than fix the problem lets create another problem that balances the first problem. Where the logic falls down is if we do this Co2 is still there and unless we take the effort to reduce it, it will continue to grow, so as we would have to spend the money on Co2 reduction anyway, whats the point. If this was at some point used as an emergency measure that would suggest Co2 was high enough that it was a major problem at this point both drastic Co2 reduction and this measure would be needed so again where is the cost saving. We are already unsure of the changes AGW will bring to weather and as the last part of you point suggests we would also be unsure what this might do. The old adage is two wrongs make a right, in reality two wrongs are two wrongs and that's twice as many as one wrong. As an example, here in Australia we had a problem with a beetle eating sugar cane crops back in the 1930's someone came up with the bright idea to bring in the Cane Toad's as it was known to eat this beetle, this was tried and a spectacular failure, the beetle's were not affected and the cane toad has gone on to become a much larger problem, spreading out over much of the North coast of Australia, due to the toxic nature of the toad many native animals that eat it die and it is now actually affecting biodiversity across a large region.
2016-05-23 04:09:43 · answer #2 · answered by laurel 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Some top scientists believe a lot of things.
Sure all the ice COULD be melted. Anything COULD happen. Like I COULD have a ham and cheese sandwich - if I had some ham, and some cheese, and some bread...
I'm not disputing it or agreeing with it. But anyone can say something COULD happen, and if they are an "expert," everyone seems to believe them.
All we can do is wait, I guess. Maybe all the polar ice will refreeze. Or maybe it will all evaporate. Or maybe the eskimos will use it all up for martinis. Only time will tell.
Love Jack
2007-12-11 19:06:26 · answer #3 · answered by Jack 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
you did not post a site for us to go to.
what scientists
you give us NO site to answer.
so all I can say is that it is propaganda.
when a global warming story says "top scientist CLAIM" some thing. it is propaganda
when a story says "these scientist" say then it is a story.
as we can check on the qualification of the scientist
the pro global warming people put out these unfounded stories
that some scientists (who they can not or will not name) claims that global warming is real.
the global warming people have a double standard
there non climatologist scientist can make statements about global warming and we are to take them as the truth.
but when anti global warming scientists show research debunking global warming there ether not qualified because they are not climatologists or when they are they claim that they are paid by the oil companies.
if the oil companies paid every scientist that the GW people claim they must not have paid very will or the oil companies would be broke.
now you know why most of us do not believe in global warming.
it is not so much the evidence they claim.
it is HOW they present the evidence.
to put it in a understandable context
if the global warming people tried to present there evidence in a court of law the judge would toss 98% out as hearsay evidence.
this is why the global warming people will not debate global warming.
2007-12-11 16:35:58 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You might have misunderstood what you read - or maybe AOL did. Right now the north polar region is mostly frozen year round. The scientists are saying that it might be ice free in the SUMMER by 2012.
2007-12-11 15:57:09 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
remember the world will end on 12/12/12 the government is giving us a warning
2007-12-12 04:27:31 · answer #6 · answered by irish_matt 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
december 21 2012 is the end of the myan calender. could there be any simularities. 2012 is suposed to be the end of the world
2007-12-11 16:12:58 · answer #7 · answered by donny f 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
If those are the top scientists then God only knows what kind of idiots the others must be.
2007-12-11 15:54:00 · answer #8 · answered by Manbearpig 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Scientists like that are not in touch with reality, but rather yet with theories, labs and phobias. This undermines mother nature's power.
2007-12-11 15:38:24 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
NO, I do not think so!! It may happen only not that fast.
If yes I think there is nothing we can do abou it...
2007-12-11 15:34:45 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋