I got some global warming questions?
Why do airplanes have more effect with greenhouse emissions than cars?
In the past decade, how much have greenhouse emissions gone up?
How much Carbon dioxide does 3 gallons of gas put into the atmosphere?
The Earth is increasing how many degrees Fahrenheit per year?
What is the main contributor to global warming?
Ice caps are retreating. What will happen as a result of retreating ice caps?
need answers asap to every question
Answer:
<< How many years will it take for severe global warming to take place? >>
Hard to say, depends on what you mean by severe. Some people will benefit from global warming, others will suffer. Global warming has already killed many people (the World Health Organisation puts the figure at one death every 3 minutes). It's a bit like asking how hot is too hot?.
<< Why do airplanes have more effect with greenhouse emissions than cars? >>
All forms of transportation contribute 14% of the greenhouse gas emissions (19% of the CO2 emissions). Road traffic is by far the largest contributor but on a mile for mile basis air traffic produces more greenhouse gas emissions than most other forms of transport.
<< In the past decade, how much have greenhouse emissions gone up? >>
Approximately 8 billion tons.
<< How much Carbon dioxide does 3 gallons of gas put into the atmosphere? >>
Approximately 8 kilograms.
<< The Earth is increasing how many degrees Fahrenheit per year? >>
0.0281 degrees per year (average over the last 25 years).
<< What is the main contributor to global warming? >>
The largest single contributor is water vapour in the atmosphere. The largest single anthropogenic contributor is power generation (accounts for 21% of all greenhouse gas emissions).
<< Ice caps are retreating. What will happen as a result of retreating ice caps? >>
The Arctic Ice Cap is floating so it is already displacing it's own mass of water. If it melts there will be no change in sea levels. If the East Antarctic Ice Cap melted sea levels would rise by 64.9 metres, if the West AIC melted levels would rise 8.06m, if the Greenland Ice Cap melted sea levels would rise 6.55m.
Melting on this scale won't happen for a very, very long time. Even in the worst case scenario this is many thousands of years into the future.
The current meltwater runoff is adding to the volume of water in the seas and oceans causing them to rise by about 1mm a year (the warming of the seas is causing them to expand and rise by a further 2mm a year).
Rising sea levels have already impacted hard on many island and coastal communities including the forced evacuation of their populations. Areas affected include Kenya, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Tuvalu, Bangladesh, Papua New Guinea, Micronesia, Maldives, Antigua and Bermuda. Sea levels have been rising for some time and predictions indicate further rises of between 200 and 600mm by the end of the century. In the US this would affect many coastal regions especially the coastlines of Florida and the Gulf of Mexico, cities affected would include Boston, New York, Charleston, Miami and New Orleans.
Retreating ice caps will cause worldwide floods
Airplanes cause more greenhouse gases than cars.well compare there size and you have your answer.
the main contributor, of course Republicans, thats why they deny it so much...lol jk its humans
The answer to these and other questions on global warming is that global warming is junk science. The phenomenas called global warming are just climate cycles.
Can I throw my lil fly in the ointment here?
Thanks.
It has recently been proven that ocean traffic (cruises and cargo ships) produces MORE CO2 than aviation.
Ta very much...
i'll give you all of your answers simply.
global warming is crap. it is nothing more than bogus statistics and lies used as a politically -driven agenda for the left. humans only account for less than one percent of the earth's greenhouse gas and C02 emissions. we're talking every human in the WORLD, not just the US. however, you will never hear the truth behind this lie because of the media and false propaganda driving it.
you wanna know what the biggest source of heat levels rising in the earth is?
water vapor in the atmosphere.
I believe it will take 20 years for global warming to be severe. i wish i could answer your other questions but i don't know the answer. I can tell you that because of the ice bergs melting there will be another ice age. In 2012 there will be a solar storm which will be a big one that will affect us tremendously. It will make the ozone layer move therefore leaving the place with sunlight without protection from the sun. So this will makes us go back to when we had no technology. It is time we do something against global warming because global warming is my future world if it actually happens. I have so much life yet and pollution is not going to make it a happy life.
Gloal warming (AKA global climate changes)
Is affected by huge underwater volcanos, slight shifts in in the earths axis...
Contrary to Big AG there is much larger factors to Climate change than Friggin light bulbs
15 years and it'll be severe,30 years and it'll be irriversible.Airplanes are bigger consuming special gasoline that has more CO2.They have gone up by 98% since the industrial revolution. 3 gallons put about 1 gallons of CO2. The earth increases about 3 degrees per year in heat .The main contributor of global warming is burning fossil fuels.Coastal places like new York city will be under 3 metres of water by 2050.
#1 2012 will have a small ice age it had nothing to do with a mian calander. #2 planes have way more c02 then cars. #3? #4 the answer is 20 pounds of c02 for every car.#5 is 2,5 #6 big bizzness like the gas and oil comanys we are force to use gas. even that we had ways not to use gas for the last 50years,in 2040 we well lose the north pole the ice caps will melt to help the envirment go to www.savetheamozonforest.com buy a tree for $39,95 us that,s 53.00 us after tax or $65.00 canadian dollors for one tree.it will help restore 20 % of the world clean air.
Go to http://www.nwf.org/ you will find all the answers there.
It is kind of funny you ask those questions. I don't believe that man is the cause of global warming. I believe that it is part of a natural cycle that the Earth goes through. The ice caps have been retreating since the end of the last ice age. Is that the fault of man? Global warming is just a button that politician like to push because so many people are willing to believe that man is at fault for every thing. Who pays for the studies and what are the results? The person or group that pays often gets the answer it was looking for. State of Fear is a good book based on a lot of research by the author into global warming. It leaves you asking a lot more questions and you look at the whole hoopla of global warming a new way.
Read this and read all the items on the websites below before you buy the hype.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm...
http://www.junkscience.com
Industry caught in carbon ‘smokescreen’
By Fiona Harvey and Stephen Fidler in London
Published: April 25 2007 22:07 | Last updated: April 25 2007 22:07
Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on “carbon credit” projects that yield few if any environmental benefits.
A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.
Others are meanwhile making big profits from carbon trading for very small expenditure and in some cases for clean-ups that they would have made anyway.
The growing political salience of environmental politics has sparked a “green gold rush”, which has seen a dramatic expansion in the number of businesses offering both companies and individuals the chance to go “carbon neutral”, offsetting their own energy use by buying carbon credits that cancel out their contribution to global warming.
The burgeoning regulated market for carbon credits is expected to more than double in size to about $68.2bn by 2010, with the unregulated voluntary sector rising to $4bn in the same period.
The FT investigation found:
■ Widespread instances of people and organisations buying worthless credits that do not yield any reductions in carbon emissions.
■ Industrial companies profiting from doing very little – or from gaining carbon credits on the basis of efficiency gains from which they have already benefited substantially.
■ Brokers providing services of questionable or no value.
■ A shortage of verification, making it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits.
■ Companies and individuals being charged over the odds for the private purchase of European Union carbon permits that have plummeted in value because they do not result in emissions cuts.
Francis Sullivan, environment adviser at HSBC, the UK’s biggest bank that went carbon-neutral in 2005, said he found “serious credibility concerns” in the offsetting market after evaluating it for several months.
“The police, the fraud squad and trading standards need to be looking into this. Otherwise people will lose faith in it,” he said.
These concerns led the bank to ignore the market and fund its own carbon reduction projects directly.
Some companies are benefiting by asking “green” consumers to pay them for cleaning up their own pollution. For instance, DuPont, the chemicals company, invites consumers to pay $4 to eliminate a tonne of carbon dioxide from its plant in Kentucky that produces a potent greenhouse gas called HFC-23. But the equipment required to reduce such gases is relatively cheap. DuPont refused to comment and declined to specify its earnings from the project, saying it was at too early a stage to discuss.
The FT has also found examples of companies setting up as carbon offsetters without appearing to have a clear idea of how the markets operate. In response to FT inquiries about its sourcing of carbon credits, one company, carbonvoucher.com, said it had not taken payments for offsets.
Blue Source, a US offsetting company, invites consumers to offset carbon emissions by investing in enhanced oil recovery, which pumps carbon dioxide into depleted oil wells to bring up the remaining oil. However, Blue Source said that because of the high price of oil, this process was often profitable in itself, meaning operators were making extra revenues from selling “carbon credits” for burying the carbon.
There is nothing illegal in these practices. However, some companies that are offsetting their emissions have avoided such projects because customers may find them controversial.
BP said it would not buy credits resulting from improvements in industrial efficiency or from most renewable energy projects in developed countries.
Additional reporting by Rebecca Bream
Media Shows Irrational Hysteria on Global Warming
"The Public Has Been Vastly Misinformed," NCPA's Deming Tells Senate Committee
12/6/2006 5:57:00 PM
To: National Desk
Contact: Sean Tuffnell of the National Center for Policy Analysis, 972-308-6481 or sean.tuffnell@ncpa.org
WASHINGTON, Dec. 6 /U.S. Newswire/ -- David Deming, an associate professor at the University of Oklahoma and an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), testified this morning at a special hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. The hearing examined climate change and the media. Bellow are excerpts from his prepared remarks.
"In 1995, I published a short paper in the academic journal Science. In that study, I reviewed how borehole temperature data recorded a warming of about one degree Celsius in North America over the last 100 to 150 years. The week the article appeared, I was contacted by a reporter for National Public Radio. He offered to interview me, but only if I would state that the warming was due to human activity. When I refused to do so, he hung up on me.
"I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period." "The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of unusually warm weather that began around 1000 AD and persisted until a cold period known as the "Little Ice Age" took hold in the 14th century. ... The existence of the MWP had been recognized in the scientific literature for decades. But now it was a major embarrassment to those maintaining that the 20th century warming was truly anomalous. It had to be "gotten rid of."
"In 1999, Michael Mann and his colleagues published a reconstruction of past temperature in which the MWP simply vanished. This unique estimate became known as the "hockey stick," because of the shape of the temperature graph. "Normally in science, when you have a novel result that appears to overturn previous work, you have to demonstrate why the earlier work was wrong. But the work of Mann and his colleagues was initially accepted uncritically, even though it contradicted the results of more than 100 previous studies. Other researchers have since reaffirmed that the Medieval Warm Period was both warm and global in its extent.
"There is an overwhelming bias today in the media regarding the issue of global warming. In the past two years, this bias has bloomed into an irrational hysteria. Every natural disaster that occurs is now linked with global warming, no matter how tenuous or impossible the connection. As a result, the public has become vastly misinformed."
---
The NCPA is an internationally known nonprofit, nonpartisan research institute with offices in Dallas and Washington, D. C. that advocates private solutions to public policy problems. NCPA depends on the contributions of individuals, corporations and foundations that share our mission. The NCPA accepts no government grants.
http://www.usnewswire.com/
That is a lot of questions, but I think I can answer a few of them. To start with, the most severe on everybody will start in about 50 years, but a lot of severe stuff is happening right now! For example, small porpoises around Scotland are fighting for survival because warming has killed off their food. It is probably rising about 1.5 degrees per year, but that's just a guess! Ice caps retreating will raise ocean levels. Greenland's glaciers alone could raise the level by, like, 23 feet.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers: