Save da earth... by S-Aircraft 2010/03/01 18:07
By da next 10 months. our earth wil becom 3 degrees hotter than its now. cos our himalayan glaceirs r melting at rapid rate. so al of u lend ur hands against global warming. plant more trees. dont waste water. dont use n burn da plastic. save da earth.
By da next 10 months. our earth wil becom 3 degrees hotter than its now. cos our himalayan glaceirs r melting at rapid rate. so al of u lend ur hands against global warming. plant more trees. dont waste water. dont use n burn da plastic. save da earth.
Manal 2010/03/02 04:42
Blow away the dirty air and Let the fresh air in, by planting trees and stop abusive factory and chemicals owner
just suggestion only
Blow away the dirty air and Let the fresh air in, by planting trees and stop abusive factory and chemicals owner
just suggestion only
-DeMoN_OvErLoRd- 2010/03/02 04:43
Quote: S-Aircraft: By da next 10 months. our earth wil becom 3 degrees hotter than its now. cos our himalayan glaceirs r melting at rapid rate. so al of u lend ur hands against global warming. plant more trees. dont waste water. dont use n burn da plastic. save da earth.
RUBBISH! Post the fact of such a ridiculous statement..geez ppl like you who dot post the back up data to prove what you said, and besides if it heated that much we all would be underwater ! fool.
AprilSnow 2010/03/02 05:06
Nice topic that cares!!
I can hear your voice.I can feel your concern for the Earth bcoz i care for the Earth,too.Let us all be united and work together to save the Earth for our future generations.We cant stop global warming,but we can do some precautionary measures to minimize it.Let us do it now!!
Nice topic that cares!!
I can hear your voice.I can feel your concern for the Earth bcoz i care for the Earth,too.Let us all be united and work together to save the Earth for our future generations.We cant stop global warming,but we can do some precautionary measures to minimize it.Let us do it now!!
-DeMoN_OvErLoRd- 2010/03/02 05:17
Why Hasn't Earth Warmed as Much as Expected? New Report on Climate Change Explores the Reasons
ScienceDaily (Jan. 19, 2010) Planet Earth has warmed much less than expected during the industrial era based on current best estimates of Earth's "climate sensitivity" -- the amount of global temperature increase expected in response to a given rise in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2). In a study to be published in the Journal of Climate, a publication of the American Meteorological Society, Stephen Schwartz, of Brookhaven National Laboratory, and colleagues examine the reasons for this discrepancy.
of climate sensitivity, the amount of CO2 and other heat-trapping gases added to Earth's atmosphere since humanity began burning fossil fuels on a significant scale during the industrial period would be expected to result in a mean global temperature rise of 3.8F -- well more than the 1.4F increase that has been observed for this time span. Schwartz's analysis attributes the reasons for this discrepancy to a possible mix of two major factors: 1) Earth's climate may be less sensitive to rising greenhouse gases than currently assumed and/or 2) reflection of sunlight by haze particles in the atmosphere may be offsetting some of the expected warming.
"Because of present uncertainties in climate sensitivity and the enhanced reflectivity of haze particles," said Schwartz, "it is impossible to accurately assign weights to the relative contributions of these two factors. This has major implications for understanding of Earth's climate and how the world will meet its future energy needs."
A third possible reason for the lower-than-expected increase of Earth's temperature over the industrial period is the slow response of temperature to the warming influence of heat-trapping gases. "This is much like the lag time you experience when heating a pot of water on a stove," said Schwartz. Based on calculations using measurements of the increase in ocean heat content over the past fifty years, however, this present study found the role of so-called thermal lag to be minor.
A key question facing policymakers is how much additional CO2 and other heat-trapping gases can be introduced into the atmosphere, beyond what is already present, without committing the planet to a dangerous level of human interference with the climate system. Many scientists and policymakers consider the threshold for such dangerous interference to be an increase in global temperature of 3.6F above the preindustrial level, although no single threshold would encompass all effects.
The paper describes three scenarios: If Earth's climate sensitivity is at the low end of current estimates as given by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, then the total maximum future emissions of heat-trapping gases so as not to exceed the 3.6 threshold would correspond to about 35 years of present annual emissions of CO2 from fossil-fuel combustion. A climate sensitivity at the present best estimate would mean that no more heat-trapping gases can be added to the atmosphere without committing the planet to exceeding the threshold. And if the sensitivity is at the high end of current estimates, present atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping gases are such that the planet is already committed to warming that substantially exceeds the 3.6 threshold.
The authors emphasize the need to quantify the influences of haze particles to narrow the uncertainty in Earth's climate sensitivity. This is much more difficult than quantifying the influences of the heat-trapping gases. Coauthor Robert Charlson of the University of Washington likens the focus on the heat trapping gases to "looking for the lost key under the lamppost."
Schwartz observes that formulating energy policy with the present uncertainty in climate sensitivity is like navigating a large ship in perilous waters without charts. "We know we have to change the course of this ship, and we know the direction of the change, but we don't know how much we need to change the course or how soon we have to do it."
Schwartz and Charlson coauthored the paper with Ralph Kahn, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland; John Ogren, NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory in Colorado; and Henning Rodhe, Stockholm University.
FACT BEFORE FICTION! stop worrying
Why Hasn't Earth Warmed as Much as Expected? New Report on Climate Change Explores the Reasons
ScienceDaily (Jan. 19, 2010) Planet Earth has warmed much less than expected during the industrial era based on current best estimates of Earth's "climate sensitivity" -- the amount of global temperature increase expected in response to a given rise in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2). In a study to be published in the Journal of Climate, a publication of the American Meteorological Society, Stephen Schwartz, of Brookhaven National Laboratory, and colleagues examine the reasons for this discrepancy.
of climate sensitivity, the amount of CO2 and other heat-trapping gases added to Earth's atmosphere since humanity began burning fossil fuels on a significant scale during the industrial period would be expected to result in a mean global temperature rise of 3.8F -- well more than the 1.4F increase that has been observed for this time span. Schwartz's analysis attributes the reasons for this discrepancy to a possible mix of two major factors: 1) Earth's climate may be less sensitive to rising greenhouse gases than currently assumed and/or 2) reflection of sunlight by haze particles in the atmosphere may be offsetting some of the expected warming.
"Because of present uncertainties in climate sensitivity and the enhanced reflectivity of haze particles," said Schwartz, "it is impossible to accurately assign weights to the relative contributions of these two factors. This has major implications for understanding of Earth's climate and how the world will meet its future energy needs."
A third possible reason for the lower-than-expected increase of Earth's temperature over the industrial period is the slow response of temperature to the warming influence of heat-trapping gases. "This is much like the lag time you experience when heating a pot of water on a stove," said Schwartz. Based on calculations using measurements of the increase in ocean heat content over the past fifty years, however, this present study found the role of so-called thermal lag to be minor.
A key question facing policymakers is how much additional CO2 and other heat-trapping gases can be introduced into the atmosphere, beyond what is already present, without committing the planet to a dangerous level of human interference with the climate system. Many scientists and policymakers consider the threshold for such dangerous interference to be an increase in global temperature of 3.6F above the preindustrial level, although no single threshold would encompass all effects.
The paper describes three scenarios: If Earth's climate sensitivity is at the low end of current estimates as given by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, then the total maximum future emissions of heat-trapping gases so as not to exceed the 3.6 threshold would correspond to about 35 years of present annual emissions of CO2 from fossil-fuel combustion. A climate sensitivity at the present best estimate would mean that no more heat-trapping gases can be added to the atmosphere without committing the planet to exceeding the threshold. And if the sensitivity is at the high end of current estimates, present atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping gases are such that the planet is already committed to warming that substantially exceeds the 3.6 threshold.
The authors emphasize the need to quantify the influences of haze particles to narrow the uncertainty in Earth's climate sensitivity. This is much more difficult than quantifying the influences of the heat-trapping gases. Coauthor Robert Charlson of the University of Washington likens the focus on the heat trapping gases to "looking for the lost key under the lamppost."
Schwartz observes that formulating energy policy with the present uncertainty in climate sensitivity is like navigating a large ship in perilous waters without charts. "We know we have to change the course of this ship, and we know the direction of the change, but we don't know how much we need to change the course or how soon we have to do it."
Schwartz and Charlson coauthored the paper with Ralph Kahn, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland; John Ogren, NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory in Colorado; and Henning Rodhe, Stockholm University.
FACT BEFORE FICTION! stop worrying
S-Aircraft 2010/03/02 05:53
Quote: -DeMoN_OvErLoRd-: RUBBISH! Post the fact of such a ridiculous statement..geez ppl like you who dot post the back up data to prove what you said, and besides if it heated that much we all would be underwater ! fool.
u hav ur own idea except rest of da world.is planting more trees nd nt wasting water nd nt using plastic rubbish?read topic carefuly nd use ur brain.fool
-DeMoN_OvErLoRd- 2010/03/02 06:32
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100119112050.htm
Quote: S-Aircraft: u hav ur own idea except rest of da world.is planting more trees nd nt wasting water nd nt using plastic rubbish?read topic carefuly nd use ur brain.fool
Dude look at your first post...you said the earth would heat up by another 3 degrees in 2010 which is totally Wrong so you posted a lie...USE your own brain and research without spreading nonsense..yes we all have to do our bit to save the planet but saying its heating up 3 degrees in a whole year is totally brainless and untrue..re- my article and here is website to prove you wrong.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100119112050.htm
S-Aircraft 2010/03/02 07:09
Quote: -DeMoN_OvErLoRd-: Dude look at your first post...you said the earth would heat up by another 3 degrees in 2010 which is totally Wrong so you posted a lie...USE your own brain and research without spreading nonsense..yes we all have to do our bit to save the planet but saying its heating up 3 degrees in a whole year is totally brainless and untrue..re- my article and here is website to prove you wrong.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100119112050.htm
Every research is nt correct til it isnt become reality.so we cnt say wich research is right nd wich is wrong.so i want to say let us save da earth as much as we cn.try to thnk positivly rather than posting nonsense.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100119112050.htm
-DeMoN_OvErLoRd- 2010/03/02 11:39
Quote: S-Aircraft: Every research is nt correct til it isnt become reality.so we cnt say wich research is right nd wich is wrong.so i want to say let us save da earth as much as we cn.try to thnk positivly rather than posting nonsense.
Your nonsense is you opened the topic and in your opening statement said the earth would warm up by 3 degrees this year>>>>you didn't check first! DING DING wrong again!
S-Aircraft 2010/03/02 14:20
Quote: -DeMoN_OvErLoRd-: Your nonsense is you opened the topic and in your opening statement said the earth would warm up by 3 degrees this year>>>>you didn't check first! DING DING wrong again!
u just shut ur mouth.if u cnt post anythng positive.
-DeMoN_OvErLoRd- 2010/03/03 00:51
Quote: S-Aircraft: u just shut ur mouth.if u cnt post anythng positive.
And shut our A-hole for posting a lie! -homo-
S-Aircraft 2010/03/03 01:13
Quote: -DeMoN_OvErLoRd-: And shut our A-hole for posting a lie! -homo-
i already had told u abt reserch nd truth abt it.if u dont hav anythng abt topic to post.then get out 4rm here.dont use dirty mind lang.
-DeMoN_OvErLoRd- 2010/03/04 07:19
i will always have the last say .....
and you did NO research and you were WROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG 
Quote: S-Aircraft: i already had told u abt reserch nd truth abt it.if u dont hav anythng abt topic to post.then get out 4rm here.dont use dirty mind lang.
You'll nevr win with me i will always have the last say ..... and you did NO research and you were WROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG
S-Aircraft 2010/03/04 14:13
i olwys appreciate those ppl who hav any positive information but nt in wrong manner.im nt forcing u to agree wth me.u hav ur own choice to thnk abt right n wrong.
Quote: -DeMoN_OvErLoRd-: You'll nevr win with me i will always have the last say ..... and you did NO research and you were WROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG
so u r playing winning or losing game here. i will always have the last say ..... and you did NO research and you were WROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG i olwys appreciate those ppl who hav any positive information but nt in wrong manner.im nt forcing u to agree wth me.u hav ur own choice to thnk abt right n wrong.
Replies: 55
#77 Factual Zone
A forum for article style topics. Share your knowledge of nature, history, science & anything factual.