Difficult global warming problem?
970947
Strange question.  First, it says z% of Earth's total icecap volume is floating, then it breaks down the total floating icecap as x% above water and y% below water.  Given that, what is the point of telling us that z% of the ice is floating?  \n\nMy real issue though, is that, since we are talking about FLOATING ice, the ocean level won't change at all.   Remember that a floating object displaces its weight (Archimedes Principle).  When the ice melts, the weight of the water stays the same - you just have the melted ice now occuping the same 92% of space in the ocean that the ice used to occupy.\n\nBy the way, the reason melting glaciers will raise ocean levels is because the glaciers are NOT floating ice until they break off - they are on land.  Actually, the ocean level rises as soon as the glacier hits the water.  After that, it doesn't matter how long it takes for the glacier to melt.
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...
1065506
There are a few aspects to be addressed when discussing global warming...\n\nGlobal warming is the term used to describe how the average temperature of the planet is going up. No one denies that the temperature is, in fact, going up. Therefore, no one denies that global warming is a fact.\n\nHowever, according to studies of Antarctic ice, the average temperature of the planet has been rising for 6,000 years, which is well before the Industrial Revolution of 150 years ago. This proves that global warming is not caused by man. In that time, however, the rate of temperature rise has increased, which means that the actions of humanity probably has worsened the situation.  What has been the degree to which we have?\n\nThe critical questions to be answered about global warming are these:\n\nWhat are the effects of global warming going to be, and how can we prepare for them? Currently, no model of global atmospheric projection has shown itself to accurately predict to any degree the general weather patterns of the Earth (such as the number and ferocity of hurricanes). Until we come up with an accurate way of predicting the effects of global warming, preparing for them will be difficult and based upon conjectures, which are a difficult sell to taxpayers.\n\nWhat can be done to limit the effect of humanity on global warming in the future WITHOUT putting a major damper on economic growth and development, especially in developing nations? For example, all nations could agree to stop driving vehicles that use internal combustion engines, but to do so at once would devastate the economies of many nations. However, other options, such as diverting tax funds to subsidize the development of alternative-energy propulsion for vehicles, would accelerate the advent of such earth-friendly technology.\n\nAll in all, because of the massive stakes involved when discussing global warming (and the subsequent misinformation flying around about it), many people are confused as to the facts about it. I was hoping to be as informative and unbiased as possible.\n\nAnd yes, I am Republican.\n\nPlease let me know what you think!
1093830
Here's something to dwell on:\n\nGlobal Warming has become a religion run by fanatics reminiscent of the leaders of the darkest days of the Inquisition that nearly destroyed civil society only a few hundred years ago. We are not to question the great god of Global Warming. Those who do are separated from civil society and labeled as heretics. \n\nThe simple truth is there is no scientific consensus on Global Warming. In fact, as the media frenzy screams global warming, there are a growing number of scientists who are expressing their doubts.  In 1992, just prior to the UN’s Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, 425 scientists and other intellectual leaders signed The Heidelberg Appeal, a quiet call for reason in dealing with the climate change issue, which expressed a conviction that modern society is the best equipped in human history to solve the world’s ills, provided that they do not sacrifice science, intellectual honesty and common sense to political opportunism and irrational fears. Today, the Heidelberg Appeal has been signed by more than 4,000 scientists and leaders from 100 countries, including more than 70 Nobel Prize winners.\n\nAlso in 1992, another statement from some 47 atmospheric scientists was issued saying greenhouse global warming theories derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. The statement went on to say, "We are disturbed that activists, anxious to stop energy and economic growth, are pushing ahead with drastic policies without taking notice of recent changes in the underlying science."\n\nIn 1995, over 85 scientists and climate experts from research labs and universities worldwide, signed the Leipzig Declaration. In part it says, "In a world in which poverty is the greatest social pollutant, any restriction on energy use that inhibits economic growth should be viewed with caution. For these reasons, we consider ‘carbon taxes’ and other drastic control policies – lacking credible support from the underlying science – to be ill-advised, premature, wrought with economic danger, and likely to be counterproductive."\n\nIn 1997, a Gallop Poll of eminent North American climatologists shows that 83% did not support the claims of the green house theory of Global Warming.  In 1998, The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) issued a petition for signature by atmospheric scientists saying there is no scientific evidence indicating that greenhouse gases cause global warming. That petition was signed by more than 17,000 scientists and leaders involved in the issue. \n\nGlobal Warming scaremongers have tried to discredit these statements from the opposition, saying either they are too old to be counted in today’s debate or that they weren’t signed by real scientists. Neither is true. One only has to look at the signers on the documents and statements to know who and what they are. The relevance of the documents can be answered in two ways. First, most of the signers of these documents from the 1990’s hold the same positions today. Second, as is the fallacy in the Global Warming debate, such drastic climate changes, as described by scaremongers, would not come about overnight. Though the proponents would have you believe otherwise, 15 years is but a microsecond in the study of the earth’s activities.\n\nHowever, there is great question about the validity of the documents promoted by the Global Warming crowd. In May 1996, unannounced and possibly unauthorized changes to the United Nation’s report on climate change touched off a firestorm of controversy within the scientific community. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change the science group that advises the United Nations on the global warming issue, presented a draft of its report in December 1995, and it was approved by the delegations. However, when the printed report appeared in May 1996, it was discovered that substantial changes and deletions had been made to the report to make it conform to the P
1178480
Blame it on global warming.
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
1016844
Mission Impossible:  HONESTY AND TRUE REPRESENTATION PLEASE.  As far as issues goes, lets see if the pres. can have the balls to say YES there really is GLOBAL WARMING!!  Not necessarily do anything about it but at least acknowledge it does exist would be nice.
1113639
Global Warming is a myth
674949
Global warming is a situation that ius no longer in mans control. Lets face the facts mother nature cant take it any more. The tornadoes in America are a starting sign that mother nature is starting to wear out and she can't hold on any longer.Possible measures are being taken but i presume that we might just have a little over 100 years then this planet goes from one beautiful blueberry into a an ice cold jawbreaker. Lets face the facts we are after all human and will go for the pleasures of life then sit and think about the future. Now i think is a good time to do that thinking part, but we are a little too obsessed with fast cars and like u have stated SUV'S.
69114
I pray for true science positions resolving global warming, nothing is more important regarding this planet, it better not take ten years.\n\nBlubla
814186
the yes or no ones and the easy ones...\nglobal warming is causing glaciers to melt which sucks..
686220
Are you a disbeliever in global warming ? No such relation has been found. In a system as complex as weather, one does not deal with one equation but models involving thousands of equations with even more parameters.\n\nThe following link may help prove my point.\n\nwww.maa.org/devlin/devlin_3_99.html
1008228
Ok, I don't know why everyone has to be so rude. I wrote a paper on global warming and it was a real bear, so I feel your pain. It's not the easy issue you'd think, especially if you're trying to examine both sides of the issue. The media treats global warming like it's just a fact, while in reality global warming is a theory, one with many facets and holes. I'm not saying that it's not correct, but there are many unanswered questions. \n\nHere's some real help for you:\nhttp://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html\nhttp://www.globalwarming.org/\nhttp://www.climatehotmap.org/\nhttp://weather.about.com/cs/globalwarming/index.htm\n\nPapers worthy of reading:\n\nBliese, John R. E., (2001) Facts and Myths about Global Warming: A Conservative Perspective. The Green Elephant Magazine, Summer Edition, 2001\n\nHoughton, Sir John (1997). Global Warming: The Complete Briefing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.\n\nIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), (2001). Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, Technical Summary.\n\nSinger, Fred (2003). Global Warming: Fact or Myth. Environmental Defense, CapMAG, Washington, D.C.\n\n\nWhen you get around to finishing your paper, check out www.wordtechs.com for help proofing and polishing it to an "A."\n\nBest wishes,\n~Tia~\nYahoo Brainiac\nhttp://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/asktheplanet/brain.html
314675
Scientific data is ambiguous and conflicting as it pertains to "global warming." Current data only exists for a few hundred years. The rest is from computer "models" which use differing assumptions and yield differing results.\n\nSince no conclusive data exists upon which to base conclusions, actions ought not be based on inconclusive data. Those are facts rarely discussed or admitted globally.
1095625
There very well could be.  The earth has had many temperature cycles.  The crowd that is currently talking about global warming was touting the theory that we were headed into the next ice age  thirty years ago.
268739
This is pretty much a dead subject since the Bush Administration ignores that there is a Global Warming problem. They wouldn't continue the program.
315973
Actually we are going for Global Warming, where all teh Ice is going to melt and probably flood alot of places, the atmosphere is gettinng thinner and more ultra violates are entering earth. P.S. did you see any Acorns? Keep looking for it...