how do fossil fuels impact global warming?
401188
All fossil fuels exhaust gasses and these gasses deplete our ozone layer...this protetive layer between us and space.The ozone layer filters the suns radiation on us. The holes created by gasses allow the suns radiation to burn and expose heat to the ice up north (polar-caps) and to our skin...the planet is warming more then before. Our fears are skin cancer and flooding or cooling water causing current changes and weather disasters. I hope this helps
301188
If you mean global warming, it's the scientific observation that the earth's temperature is rising over a period of time This is resulting in polar melting, raising the ocean level and affecting other weather patterns.
214595
CO2 emmisions really impact the carbon cycle in nature.\n\nIn the human body, it is influenced by smoking, poor diet, exercise, etc.
530266
If you mean the greenhouse effect, the present increase in the amounts of Carbon Dioxide and other green house gasses caused by human activities is causing the Earths atmosphere to heat up. This is gradually melting the polar ice caps and other glaciers and causing the sea levels to rise. As most of the World's cities are close to sea level this will cause catastrophic flooding. The temperature increase will also cause climate change on a major scale. There will be more desserts and many more strong hurricanes and cyclones.
377959
Global average temperature is subject to a couple of external and internal influences. Position relative to the sun and sun spot activity are major external influences which occur in cycles of various repeat rates (sun spots seem to oscillate in a ten year cycle, frex, and might be related to the El Ninjo phenomenon).\nInternal influences include composition of the atmosphere, reflectivity of the surfaces and unusual particle pollution (e.g. after huge fires, like a couple of years ago in Spain and Portugal, or after volcanic eruptions).\n\nGases have varying heat capacity: diatomic gases (oxygen, nitrogen) are "the norm" and rather limited in their ability to take up heat.\n\nGas molecules store heat by rotating or vibrating (they also speed up when heated, but transfer that energy quickly via collisions). A diatomic gas can store significant amounts of energy only by  a vibration along the bond between the atoms and by rotation around the center of this bond on an axis perpendicular to it.\n\nTriatomic molecules (water, CO2, Ozone) can vibrate along two bonds, which allows them to store more energy. The longer CO2 molecule (still straight) can store more energy by the same rotations diatomic gases have, plus it can vibrate out of the straight form. Water is an angled molecule and can have additional vibrations along that angle.\n\nPolyatomic molecules like e.g. methane have lots of ways of rotating and vibrating, which allows them to store a lot more heat than normal atmosphere.\n\nThe greenhouse gases as a rule have a higher heat capacity than diatomic gases. Main culprits are CO2 and CH4, with one molecule of CH4 having more heat capacity than several molecules of CO2.\n\nBoth these gases are emitted by both technical and natural processes. Our atmosphere was in an equilibrium state without any technical processes.\n\nTechnical processes also produce other effects, such as cloud cover. Airoplane exhausts form ice clouds in the upper atmosphere which can reduce the amount of solar energy (through reflection) by as much as 10%, counteracting the greenhous effect their CO2 and H2O emissions produce.\n\nClimate is a very unstable equilibrium and can easily be tipped either way by small causes. That makes it extremely hard for experts to predict changes, and not much easier interpreting past changes. One problem with discussing human influence on the climate is that there is no comparision value for climate without human influence, we don't have another earth to experiment with.\n\n\nAll these facts somehow contributed to the rise of average global temperature. Locally, that may mean that the climate grows colder...\n\nThe rise has been observed, a trend is expected. Exact causes are hard to nail down, and the balance may be tipped radically into the other direction if the gulf stream gets cut off (though not as radically as Hollywood suggests).
885374
Coal, oil and gas are called "fossil fuels" because they have been formed from the organic remains of prehistoric plants and animals. \n\nCoal provides around 28% of our energy, and oil provides 40%. \n\nBurning coal produces sulphur dioxide, an acidic gas that contributes to the formation of acid rain. This can be largely avoided using "flue gas desulphurisation" to clean up the gases before they are released into the atmosphere. This method uses limestone, and produces gypsum for the building industry as a by-product. However, it uses a lot of limestone. \n\nCrude oil (called "petroleum") is easier to get out of the ground than coal, as it can flow along pipes. This also makes it cheaper to transport. \n   \nNatural gas provides around 20% of the world's consumption of energy, and as well as being burnt in power stations, is used by many people to heat their homes. \nIt is easy to transport along pipes, and gas power stations produce comparatively little pollution.\n\nOther fossil fuels are being investigated, such as bituminous sands and oil shale. The difficulty is that they need expensive processing before we can use them; however Canada has large reserves of 'tar sands' , which makes it economic for them to produce a great deal of energy this way. \nFind out more at www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/canada.html \n\nThe steam that has passed through the power station's turbines has to be cooled, to condense it back into water before it can be pumped round again. This is what happens in the huge "cooling towers" seen at power stations. \n\nSome power stations are built on the coast, so they can use sea water to cool the steam instead. However, this warms the sea and can affect the environment, although the fish seem to like it. \n \nAdvantages\nVery large amounts of electricity can be generated in one place using coal, fairly cheaply. \n\n\nTransporting oil and gas to the power stations is easy. \n\n\nGas-fired power stations are very efficient. \n\nA fossil-fuelled power station can be built almost anywhere, so long as you can get large quantities of fuel to it. Didcot power station, in Oxfordshire, has a dedicated rail link to supply the coal. \n\nDisadvantages\nBasically, the main drawback of fossil fuels is pollution. \nBurning any fossil fuel produces carbon dioxide, which contributes to the "greenhouse effect", warming the Earth. \n\nBurning coal produces more carbon dioxide than burning oil or gas. It also produces sulphur dioxide, a gas that contributes to acid rain. We can reduce this before releasing the waste gases into the atmosphere.\n\nMining coal can be difficult and dangerous. Strip mining destroys large areas of the landscape.\n\nCoal-fired power stations need huge amounts of fuel, which means train-loads of coal almost constantly. In order to cope with changing demands for power, the station needs reserves. \nThis means covering a large area of countryside next to the power station with piles of coal.
383762
to start with i will give you some of the bad news and finish with possible solutions.some of which are already in process.\n\nGLOBAL WARMING IS ONE OF THE MEGA THREATS OF THE PLANET EARTH AND IS AN EFFECT OF GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL MISMANAGEMENT\n\nCARBON MONOXIDE\nchief causes for global warming are the destruction of the ozone and excessive carbon production ,because we have so many cars and so much land is being deforrested.\n\nthe trees absorb carbon emisions ,which is poison to us and they produce oxygen which we need to breathe.\n\nthe sea does as well but this is limited to winter periods how ever if the waters also heat up ,the seas will absorb less than ususal and we create more and more\n\nthe trees produce the air that we need to breathe.\ndeforestation must be stopped before desertification goes out of control and consumes the planet.\n\nother reasons are the burning of rubbish especially tires and plastic,and the exescive use of aerosprays which release gasses\n\nbecause of the green house effect and the desertification this planet is heating up\nEach degree rise in temperature signifies 10% crop loss\n\nDESERTIFICATION\nthe sahara is growing by 7 kilometres every day.\ntwo major desserts in northern china are growing together making one giant dessert and,causing dust storms so making thousands of people refugeese\n\nthe trees evaporate a mist which ,which protects us from the strong rays of the sun .\n\nthe planet is drying out at an alarming rate.\n\nin the days of the dinasaurs this planet was under an aquiferus manta ,a mist that covered the entire earth ,and there were no desserts .\nCount how many there are today,and all of them are as a result of mans actions.\nthe sahara used to be forrests\narabia ,irak ,iran used to be fertile lands in biblical times\nGhengas Kahn burned all the forrests here and filled the well with water and so turning vast lands into dessert.\n\nBad agricultural practises is turning vast teritories into desserts ,because of over grazing and the exessive pumping of carbon aquifiers ,the surface aquifiers already having been depleted.\nAnd the use of fertilisers and heavy machinery that compacts the ground which raises the salt in the soil.\nModern agriculture today is doing the same as ghengas kahn but in much bigger territories.\n\n\nit is a vicious circle of chain effects \nmore and more CO2,,and less and less factors that obsorb\nand hotter and hotter.\n\nAND AS A RESULT WE HAVE LESS AND LESS DRINKABLE WATER\nWATERSHORTAGE\neach year 70 million more people are consuming water but this is ,but a small part of what agriculture uses.\n\nso our consumption of water is ever increasing and our drinkable water supply is shrinking because of polution ,and the production of potable water is less all the time because of deforestation.\n\nin Tasmania one can already exchange one litre of water for 2 litres of petrol.\nit is predicted that the wars of the future will be for water.\nthe water we got in most populated places must be treated or purified before it is acceptable for human consumption.\n\nin Portugal and soutern Spain ,as in many places, wine is cheaper than water.Which would explain the many drunk people there\n\nwe are living in a bubble economy and when the bubble bursts\nfood prices will sky rocket,and so will the price of water.\n\nthe wars of the future will be for water\n\n\n\nRISING SEAS\nThe northpole is melting ,and we will know it without ice in our life times.\nthis does not affect the sea level because it is ice that is already in the water.\n\nGreen land and the south pole ,which apperantly has a hole in the ozone the size of the usa,are another matter.\nthis is ice above the sea ,on the land, and melted water will return to the sea .and so duely affect sea levels.the sea has been rising for a long time.\nin portugal remains of Roman villas have been discovered 3/4 of a mile in the sea,and in one town the locals say that the sea is eating their town ,in recent years the D
336978
It is certainly true that there have been periods in history that have been hotter than it is now before the rise of the combustion engine and heavy deforestation that ultimately lead to the greenhouse effect. Let me say that the 1.2 degrees Celsius increase that we have observed since the rise of the machine and the human effect on the environment is really insufficient to prove what effect of global warming really is. Additionally, the most abundant greenhouse gas is water vapor (making up about 95% of the abundance of all the greenhouse gases). These two facts basically say that there is no support EXPERIMENTALLY for the theory. Yet the theory is correct: with  a build up of greenhouse gases in all the strata of the atmosphere causes infrared light to reflect several more times off of the earth's surface than it normally would, causing a net increase in thermal energy over long periods of time. I am very much a pro-environment scientist, so I can say without bias that the theory is definitely correct, yet we do not currently know what factors (global warming or something else entirely) we can attribute heat changes to, and therefore, we do not know how much global warming will affect us. Only time will really tell...
970194
It is a non-renewable fossil fuel.  Oil and natural gas are also fossil fuels.
505276
Greenhouse effects increases the temperature of earth and it will make the poles melt. This would result in cold water entering the oceans and everything will eventually freeze. And then the production of Greenhouse gases will stop so greenhouse effect will exist no longer leaving an Ice Age. But if it continues then finally one day (after 1000 years or more...) earth will become a barren rock.
1186528
At least one of the answers.  If we can break ourselves of our dependency on fossil fuels, it will benefit both our economy and the environment.  \n\nPlus, it's going to have to happen eventually; fossil fuels are finite.
359692
The radiations emitted from the sun and also the earth are usually blocked by layers of atmospheric gases and prevent them from escaping into space.This causes 'GLOBAL WARMING'-due to the reflected radiations.This is also known as 'GREEN HOUSE EFFECT'.
452166
The increase of the greenhouse gases --> Carbon Dioxide, CFCs, Methane! Nitrogen oxiode.\n\nGases such as carbon dioxide trap heat and since deforestion is occuring rapdily there is less trees to take in carbon dioxide so the amount of carbon dioxide increases. With the amount of carbon dioxide increased more heat is absorbed and it is stuck on the Earth. \n\nAlso another form of global warming is the depletion of the ozone layer. CFC's contains a chemical that destroys the Ozone layer and the Ozone layer is a protective shield of the Earth. It gets rid of the harmfull sun's ultraviolet rays and without the ozone layer the UV rays can freely enter the Earth.
260304
global warming is cause by greenhouse gases being trapped near earths atmosphere, which causes heat to be trapped nearer to earths surface which increases the temperature on earth slightly which melts the polar ice caps which makes water levels rise which means islands will be flooded and shores will advance into the land making living space smaller in an already overpopulated world.
422897
It depends on the company. BP, Shell, Total and Chevron agree that global warming is a problem and are taking steps to mitigate the problems. Exxon is still in denial, but with a recent change of upper management this might change as well. The biggest debate still present within the oil industry (from my persective within the industry) is still whether the largest component of global warming is a result of greenhouse gases or other natural processes that have no anthropogenic input.\n\nYou might be interested to know that both BP and Shell are the two largest manufacuturers of solar cells in the world. Shell is also the largest manufacturer of biodiesel in the world, and is one of the largest producers of wind energy, owning many of the wind farms in the U.S. Outside of the U.S. the largest producers of alternative fuels such as ethanol are in many cases oil companies. Oil companies are also actively involved in researching carbon sequestration. \n\nLest I sound like too much of a cheerleader for the industry, I must add that I am often appalled by continuing practices such as burning natural gas (flaring) from oil wells in areas where no infrastructure exists to transport natural gas. Reinjection of natural gas is the most common solution to the problem. I have even seen cases of this where the company involved in the flaring of gases uses the regulatory requirements of building pipelines to justify the burning. Apparently some US government regulations make it easier to flare gas than to sell it. Prices of natural gas are still increasing so these practices are likely to end due to pure market pressures, except in third world countries where cost of infrastructure will continue to leave natural gas stranded.  Even the oil companies who have accepted global warming are still guilty of some greenwashing- attempting to look more environmentally friendly than they  really are.   \n\nI believe it is wrong to blame oil companies for most of the problem. As consumers of oil products, WE are ALL part of the problem.\n\nI really don't know much about the coal industry's attitude toward global warming. I do know that a great many states that produce coal are investing heavily in research to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from coal fired power plants, as most of them see the revenue and jobs from coal mining as significant parts of their economy- so at least indirectly the coal industry accepts the problem. Since coal stands to benefit as one of the cheapest sources of hydrogen, there is probably a faction within the coal industry that does accept global warming as a problem and is not threatened  by the idea of acknowledging it.  I can't say I've heard much from the big coal companies. Looking at the websites of Peabody and Consol I see only issues like emissions of NOX and SOX and reclamation being mentioned. The National Mining Association which represents the coal industry seems to acknowledge global warming by suggesting alternatives to regulatory carbon caps such as new technology.
631862
Anytime we as humans use either light or heat for survival we generate heat.  Though many like to believe that the biggest threat of fossil fuels is from Greenhouse Gas generation the truth is the left over heat we generate is the biggest threat.\n\nIt really does not matter if the heat is from burning wood, alcohol or fossil fuels it all generates heat which we dump into our environment.  The biggest issue is that the Greenhouse Gasses restricts the release of this heat into space.  And when combined with the natural process also adding heat to the atmosphere the earths atmosphere gains too much energy and this results in increased atmospheric temperature.\n\nDave Cooke
239270
Carcinogens causing global warming?!?!?!  NO.  Don't go rambling about things you don't understand.  Carcinogens are cancer-causing agents--things that mutate DNA.  Global warming is the result of greenhouse gases, which are gases that absorb more energy from sunlight than N2 and O2 do.\n\nI think at this point, we can certainly imagine that the problem is almost undoubtedly exacerbated by the burning of fossil fuels.  It sure can't be helping.  There is some debate as to whether or not the effects are the largest part of the problem, or whether we're coming out of an Ice Age anyways, and hence the gradual warming was unavoidable.\n\nWorse than gas buring in my opinion is the deliberate destruction of rainforests, which not only produces a great deal of CO2, but which also destoys an ecosystem that works to remove CO2 from the air.