DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> More Global Warming & more Oil Drilling
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 113, (reverse)
AuthorThread
11/10/2004 04:23:07 PM · #1
FYI -

Alaska oil drilling back on agenda

U.S. to release draft of drilling plan

Study: Arctic warming at twice the global rate

Climate report leaves U.S. policy unchanged
11/10/2004 04:39:05 PM · #2
same old, same old. If you've got capital to spend, you've got make hay while the sun's shining. Or something.

Most businesses seem to require capital to run, rather than spending it and running out of money, but I don't have a Harvard business degree.
11/10/2004 04:47:04 PM · #3
Here's a closer look at the CNN Article - I've bolded the pertinent points.

Originally posted by CNN:

OSLO, Norway (Reuters) -- Global warming is heating the Arctic almost twice as fast as the rest of the planet in a thaw that threatens millions of livelihoods and could wipe out polar bears by 2100, an eight-nation report said on Monday.

The biggest survey to date of the Arctic climate, by 250 scientists, said the accelerating melt could be a foretaste of wider disruptions from a build-up of human emissions of heat-trapping gases in Earth's atmosphere.

The "Arctic climate is now warming rapidly and much larger changes are projected," according to the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA), funded by the United States, Canada, Russia, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, Norway and Finland.

Arctic temperatures are rising at almost twice the global average and could leap 4-7 Celsius (7-13 Fahrenheit) by 2100, roughly twice the global average projected by U.N. reports. Siberia and Alaska have already warmed by 2-3 C since the 1950s.

Possible benefits like more productive fisheries, easier access to oil and gas deposits or trans-Arctic shipping routes would be outweighed by threats to indigenous peoples and the habitats of animals and plants.

Sea ice around the North Pole, for instance, could almost disappear in summer by the end of the century. The extent of the ice has shrunk by 15 percent to 20 percent in the past 30 years.

"Polar bears are unlikely to survive as a species if there is an almost complete loss of summer sea-ice cover," the report said. On land, creatures like lemmings, caribou, reindeer and snowy owls are being squeezed north into a narrower range.

Fossil fuels blamed

The report mainly blames the melt on gases from fossil fuels burned in cars, factories and power plants. The Arctic warms faster than the global average because dark ground and water, once exposed, traps more heat than reflective snow and ice.

Klaus Toepfer, head of the U.N. Environment Programme, said the Arctic changes were an early warning. "What happens there is of concern for everyone because Arctic warming and its consequences have worldwide implications," he said.

And the melting of glaciers is expected to raise world sea levels by about 10 cm (4 inches) by the end of the century.

Many of the four million people in the Arctic are suffering. Buildings from Russia to Canada have collapsed because of subsidence linked to thawing permafrost that also destabilises oil pipelines, roads and airports.

Indigenous hunters are falling through thinning ice and say that prey from seals to whales is harder to find. Rising levels of ultra-violet radiation may cause cancers.

Changes under way in the Arctic "present serious challenges to human health and food security, and possibly even (to) the survival of some cultures," the report says.

Farming could benefit in some areas, while more productive forests are moving north on to former tundra. "There are not just negative consequences, there will be new opportunities too," said Paal Prestrud, vice-chair of ACIA.

Scientists will meet in Iceland this week to discuss the report. Foreign ministers from Arctic nations are due to meet in Iceland on November 24, but diplomats say they are deeply split with Washington least willing to make drastic action.

President George W. Bush pulled the United States, the world's top polluter, out of the 126-nation Kyoto protocol in 2001, arguing its curbs on greenhouse gas emissions were too costly and unfairly excluded developing nations.

"Kyoto is only a first step," said Norwegian Environment Minister Knut Hareide, a strong backer of Kyoto. "The clear message from this report is that Kyoto is not enough. We must reduce emissions much more in coming decades."


The sky really could be falling.

Some excerpts:

From here
The entire globe was a fraction of a degree colder than normal in July. But Manitoba dropped about three degrees below normal from May to August, tied with Siberia for the worst summer in the hemisphere.

From here
NOAA scientists report that the average temperature for the contiguous United States for June-August (based on preliminary data) was 71.1 degrees F (21.7 degrees C), which was 1.0 degree F (0.6 degrees C) below the 1895-2003 mean, and the 16th coolest summer on record.

Message edited by author 2004-11-10 16:48:27.
11/10/2004 06:38:12 PM · #4
I can easily and with a calm heart avoid any debate that seeks to pit one ideology against another, but I cannot, CANNOT see how anyone can deny the HUGE changes occurring in the environment and the fact that report after report and study after study links these changes to things like greenhouse gases, burning of fossil fuels, and industry's pollution of earth and water. True, the world has historically had climate shifts that occurred. Like the ice age, which ended when changes in space (a meteor hitting earth) altered our climate. This is no meteor. We're doing this, and soon there will be nothing left.

I urge anyone who cares about the environment to read the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment.

Here is one linked summary from the Union of Concerned Scientists: //www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/page.cfm?pageID=1545

Some important findings of this 4 yr, intergovernmental study include:

Temperature: Mean annual surface air temperature over the past 50 years has increased 3.6 to 5.4°F in Alaska and Siberia and decreased by 1.8°F over southern Greenland.
Sea ice: Sea ice extent in late summer decreased 15 to 20% over the past 30 years (see above).

Glaciers: Between 1961 and 1998, North American glaciers lost about 108 cubic miles of ice—about equivalent to spreading one foot of water over California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and Colorado.

Vegetation: White spruce, the most valuable timber species of the North American boreal forest, experienced sharp declines as summer temperatures frequently exceeded the tree's critical threshold temperature.

Marine Animals: Almost no seal pups, dependent on sea ice, survived in Canada's Gulf of St. Lawrence during the ice-free years of 1967, 1981, 2000, 2001, and 2002.

Fisheries: Warming in the Bering Sea after 1977 has increased the herring, Pacific cod, skates, and flatfish species, and Pacific salmon commercial catches have been high since 1980.

Indigenous Culture: Peary caribou populations on Canadian arctic islands plummeted from 26,000 in 1961 to 1000 by 1997, affecting people whose culture is intertwined with caribou.



Message edited by author 2004-11-10 18:40:56.
11/10/2004 06:43:54 PM · #5
Originally posted by RonB:

Here's a closer look at the CNN Article - I've bolded the pertinent points.

Originally posted by CNN:

OSLO, Norway (Reuters) -- Global warming is heating the Arctic almost twice as fast as the rest of the planet in a thaw that threatens millions of livelihoods and could wipe out polar bears by 2100, an eight-nation report said on Monday.

The biggest survey to date of the Arctic climate, by 250 scientists, said the accelerating melt could be a foretaste of wider disruptions from a build-up of human emissions of heat-trapping gases in Earth's atmosphere.

The "Arctic climate is now warming rapidly and much larger changes are projected," according to the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA), funded by the United States, Canada, Russia, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, Norway and Finland.

Arctic temperatures are rising at almost twice the global average and could leap 4-7 Celsius (7-13 Fahrenheit) by 2100, roughly twice the global average projected by U.N. reports. Siberia and Alaska have already warmed by 2-3 C since the 1950s.

Possible benefits like more productive fisheries, easier access to oil and gas deposits or trans-Arctic shipping routes would be outweighed by threats to indigenous peoples and the habitats of animals and plants.

Sea ice around the North Pole, for instance, could almost disappear in summer by the end of the century. The extent of the ice has shrunk by 15 percent to 20 percent in the past 30 years.

"Polar bears are unlikely to survive as a species if there is an almost complete loss of summer sea-ice cover," the report said. On land, creatures like lemmings, caribou, reindeer and snowy owls are being squeezed north into a narrower range.

Fossil fuels blamed

The report mainly blames the melt on gases from fossil fuels burned in cars, factories and power plants. The Arctic warms faster than the global average because dark ground and water, once exposed, traps more heat than reflective snow and ice.

Klaus Toepfer, head of the U.N. Environment Programme, said the Arctic changes were an early warning. "What happens there is of concern for everyone because Arctic warming and its consequences have worldwide implications," he said.

And the melting of glaciers is expected to raise world sea levels by about 10 cm (4 inches) by the end of the century.

Many of the four million people in the Arctic are suffering. Buildings from Russia to Canada have collapsed because of subsidence linked to thawing permafrost that also destabilises oil pipelines, roads and airports.

Indigenous hunters are falling through thinning ice and say that prey from seals to whales is harder to find. Rising levels of ultra-violet radiation may cause cancers.

Changes under way in the Arctic "present serious challenges to human health and food security, and possibly even (to) the survival of some cultures," the report says.

Farming could benefit in some areas, while more productive forests are moving north on to former tundra. "There are not just negative consequences, there will be new opportunities too," said Paal Prestrud, vice-chair of ACIA.

Scientists will meet in Iceland this week to discuss the report. Foreign ministers from Arctic nations are due to meet in Iceland on November 24, but diplomats say they are deeply split with Washington least willing to make drastic action.

President George W. Bush pulled the United States, the world's top polluter, out of the 126-nation Kyoto protocol in 2001, arguing its curbs on greenhouse gas emissions were too costly and unfairly excluded developing nations.

"Kyoto is only a first step," said Norwegian Environment Minister Knut Hareide, a strong backer of Kyoto. "The clear message from this report is that Kyoto is not enough. We must reduce emissions much more in coming decades."


The sky really could be falling.

Some excerpts:

From here
The entire globe was a fraction of a degree colder than normal in July. But Manitoba dropped about three degrees below normal from May to August, tied with Siberia for the worst summer in the hemisphere.

From here
NOAA scientists report that the average temperature for the contiguous United States for June-August (based on preliminary data) was 71.1 degrees F (21.7 degrees C), which was 1.0 degree F (0.6 degrees C) below the 1895-2003 mean, and the 16th coolest summer on record.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

RonB, I think you bolded the wrong pertinent points. Here are the true, correct, bona fide, absolutely incontestably right pertinant points :D :

Originally posted by CNN:

OSLO, Norway (Reuters) -- Global warming is heating the Arctic almost twice as fast as the rest of the planet in a thaw that threatens millions of livelihoods and could wipe out polar bears by 2100, an eight-nation report said on Monday.

The biggest survey to date of the Arctic climate, by 250 scientists, said the accelerating melt could be a foretaste of wider disruptions from a build-up of human emissions of heat-trapping gases in Earth's atmosphere.

The "Arctic climate is now warming rapidly and much larger changes are projected," according to the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA), funded by the United States, Canada, Russia, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, Norway and Finland.

Arctic temperatures are rising at almost twice the global average and could leap 4-7 Celsius (7-13 Fahrenheit) by 2100, roughly twice the global average projected by U.N. reports. Siberia and Alaska have already warmed by 2-3 C since the 1950s.

Possible benefits like more productive fisheries, easier access to oil and gas deposits or trans-Arctic shipping routes would be outweighed by threats to indigenous peoples and the habitats of animals and plants.

Sea ice around the North Pole, for instance, could almost disappear in summer by the end of the century. The extent of the ice has shrunk by 15 percent to 20 percent in the past 30 years.

"Polar bears are unlikely to survive as a species if there is an almost complete loss of summer sea-ice cover," the report said. On land, creatures like lemmings, caribou, reindeer and snowy owls are being squeezed north into a narrower range.

Fossil fuels blamed

The report mainly blames the melt on gases from fossil fuels burned in cars, factories and power plants. The Arctic warms faster than the global average because dark ground and water, once exposed, traps more heat than reflective snow and ice.

Klaus Toepfer, head of the U.N. Environment Programme, said the Arctic changes were an early warning. "What happens there is of concern for everyone because Arctic warming and its consequences have worldwide implications," he said.

And the melting of glaciers is expected to raise world sea levels by about 10 cm (4 inches) by the end of the century.

Many of the four million people in the Arctic are suffering. Buildings from Russia to Canada have collapsed because of subsidence linked to thawing permafrost that also destabilises oil pipelines, roads and airports.

Indigenous hunters are falling through thinning ice and say that prey from seals to whales is harder to find. Rising levels of ultra-violet radiation may cause cancers.

Changes under way in the Arctic "present serious challenges to human health and food security, and possibly even (to) the survival of some cultures," the report says.

Farming could benefit in some areas, while more productive forests are moving north on to former tundra. "There are not just negative consequences, there will be new opportunities too," said Paal Prestrud, vice-chair of ACIA.

Scientists will meet in Iceland this week to discuss the report. Foreign ministers from Arctic nations are due to meet in Iceland on November 24, but diplomats say they are deeply split with Washington least willing to make drastic action.

President George W. Bush pulled the United States, the world's top polluter, out of the 126-nation Kyoto protocol in 2001, arguing its curbs on greenhouse gas emissions were too costly and unfairly excluded developing nations.

"Kyoto is only a first step," said Norwegian Environment Minister Knut Hareide, a strong backer of Kyoto. "The clear message from this report is that Kyoto is not enough. We must reduce emissions much more in coming decades."


Message edited by author 2004-11-10 18:48:34.
11/10/2004 06:50:10 PM · #6
I think Ron just likes to argue for arguments sake. I mean, who in their right mind would think that global warming is a myth that is being put together in some sort of global scientific conspiracy?

"Here at Exxon, we help Jesus walk on water"
11/10/2004 06:56:16 PM · #7
Thanks for the article frisca and I completly agree with what you said. The Union of Concerned Scientists have been all but ignored on this issue for years, it is a shame.
11/10/2004 06:57:03 PM · #8
Originally posted by ericlimon:

I think Ron just likes to argue for arguments sake. I mean, who in their right mind would think that global warming is a myth that is being put together in some sort of global scientific conspiracy?

"Here at Exxon, we help Jesus walk on water"


That's a bit unfair. Now if he disagrees, he would be just proving your point...
11/10/2004 07:46:46 PM · #9
Originally posted by ericlimon:

I think Ron just likes to argue for arguments sake. I mean, who in their right mind would think that global warming is a myth that is being put together in some sort of global scientific conspiracy?

"Here at Exxon, we help Jesus walk on water"


I agree that the globe is warming, but I don't believe the myth that it's my fault. I guess that would make me "not in my right mind". But then, y'all already knew that.

From the January 22, 2004 Editon of the LA Times

Excerpted from a Commentary by James Schlesinger: Cold Facts on Global Warming

"Much of the warming in the 20th century happened from 1900 to 1940. That warming was followed by atmospheric cooling from 1940 to around 1975. During that period, frost damaged crops in the Midwest during summer months, and glaciers in Europe advanced. This happened despite the rise in greenhouse gases. These facts, too, are not in dispute.

And that's just our recent past. Taking a longer view of climate history deepens our perspective. For example, during what's known as the Climatic Optimum of the early Middle Ages, the Earth's temperatures were 1 to 2 degrees warmer than they are today. That period was succeeded by the Little Ice Age, which lasted until the early 19th century. Neither of these climate periods had anything to do with man-made greenhouse gases.

The lessons of our recent history and of this longer history are clear: It is not possible to know now how much of the warming over the last 100 or so years was caused by human activities and how much was because of natural forces. "

Still, many would like to blame President Bush's environmental policies.

FYI, the if you want to read the entire commentary ( pdf format ), here's the link

//stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Schlesinger2004.pdf

Ron

Message edited by author 2004-11-10 19:48:22.
11/10/2004 08:11:21 PM · #10
No one is saying it's your fault Ron. It's EVERYONE'S FAULT

Now there are thousands and thousands of studies and scientists who agree that we have a major problem, and it is being caused by human activities. There are very few people who disagree with this. Now that we know that we are doing this to our home, our planet, we ALL need to fight to svae our world for the future generations. And YES Bush's policies are at fault. Same with Clinton's, Bush SR., Regan, Putin, Blair, EVERYONE
We need to slow down the destruction, the deforestation, the emissions, the dumping, the drilling...
ALL of us are to blame.
11/10/2004 08:49:27 PM · #11
Originally posted by ericlimon:

No one is saying it's your fault Ron. It's EVERYONE'S FAULT

Now there are thousands and thousands of studies and scientists who agree that we have a major problem, and it is being caused by human activities. There are very few people who disagree with this. Now that we know that we are doing this to our home, our planet, we ALL need to fight to svae our world for the future generations. And YES Bush's policies are at fault. Same with Clinton's, Bush SR., Regan, Putin, Blair, EVERYONE
We need to slow down the destruction, the deforestation, the emissions, the dumping, the drilling...
ALL of us are to blame.

If it's EVERYONE's fault, it's MY fault - I drive a gas-powered car, I heat my home with electricity generated by coal- and oil-fired plants, I read newspapers, I get Chinese takeout in plastic containers.
But no scientist has yet PROVEN that greenhouse gasses and global warming are directly proportional ( that is, a rise in one always results in a rise in the other ). So, for all I know, I could stop ALL of the things I do to add to greenhouse gasses, and it would change NOTHING in terms of global warming.
Tying human activity to greenhouse gasses, and greenhouse gasses to global warming - THAT's the MYTH.
11/10/2004 08:53:33 PM · #12
I guess I was wrong Ron. It actually is all your fault.

And THAT is not a myth.

.

Message edited by author 2004-11-10 20:53:53.
11/10/2004 08:59:22 PM · #13
Originally posted by ericlimon:

No one is saying it's your fault Ron. It's EVERYONE'S FAULT

Now there are thousands and thousands of studies and scientists who agree that we have a major problem, and it is being caused by human activities.


They SAY it is being cause by human activities, but what PROOF do they offer?
11/10/2004 09:00:01 PM · #14

Originally posted by RonB:

Tying human activity to greenhouse gasses, and greenhouse gasses to global warming - THAT's the MYTH.


Does god tell you this?
11/10/2004 09:02:49 PM · #15
I'm amazed this lasted the few posts it did before an attack was started...
11/10/2004 09:11:04 PM · #16
Originally posted by RonB:

They SAY it is being cause by human activities, but what PROOF do they offer?


Ya know what Ron?
Just keep doin' what your doing.

11/10/2004 09:12:29 PM · #17
Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Originally posted by RonB:

Tying human activity to greenhouse gasses, and greenhouse gasses to global warming - THAT's the MYTH.


Does god tell you this?


I find that more and more, I don't have to ask God. I just take the opposite position of what the liberals post. That saves my time and God's ear.
11/10/2004 09:13:10 PM · #18
Originally posted by ericlimon:

Originally posted by RonB:

They SAY it is being cause by human activities, but what PROOF do they offer?


Ya know what Ron?
Just keep doin' what your doing.

In other words, you couldn't find any proof either.
11/10/2004 09:28:22 PM · #19
It is the small mind, the ignorant and the misguided who persist in the argument that human behaviour is undermining the the very atomic structure from whence we came and from where we are going. Thet think that the nucleus structure which result in what the universe is is so fragile that any imbalance we introduce will spill the cart.

Well, here is one for you: the sun is no longer gaining but losing the strenght of its core and at one point will burn out and we will no longer be. Many of this argument will then start that we but not time are the cause.

Again, I repeat, we are miniscule and do not flatter yourselves into believing that you are more than you are. The time line is too big for our little calculators and our little itsy brain to comprehend that there are cycles within cycles and yes, that your importance and mine is not at all a factor. If you choose to believe that you are mental giants and that scientist have a grasp of this immense time line along with all its permutations you will live and die under the illusion that man is the maker and destroyer of the universe. This is a sad delussional state in which to exist. We are just too puny to have the cataclysm effects you all project...unless you are from the faction of the left which believe that all cause and effect of the human condition actually trump universal cause and effect. Watch out when you cross the street, we are not at all as tough as we appear to be. ROFL
11/10/2004 09:35:00 PM · #20
Originally posted by graphicfunk:

It is the small mind, the ignorant and the misguided who persist in the argument that human behaviour is undermining the the very atomic structure from whence we came and from where we are going.


I would use your adjectives for the opposite conclusion.

Everyone should read the link frisca posted and familiarize yourselves with The Union of Concerned Scientists.
11/10/2004 09:45:07 PM · #21
Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

It is the small mind, the ignorant and the misguided who persist in the argument that human behaviour is undermining the the very atomic structure from whence we came and from where we are going.


I would use your adjectives for the opposite conclusion.

Everyone should read the link frisca posted and familiarize yourselves with The Union of Concerned Scientists.

In other words, you couldn't find any proof, either.
11/10/2004 09:53:52 PM · #22
Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

It is the small mind, the ignorant and the misguided who persist in the argument that human behaviour is undermining the the very atomic structure from whence we came and from where we are going.


I would use your adjectives for the opposite conclusion.

Everyone should read the link frisca posted and familiarize yourselves with The Union of Concerned Scientists.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I would rephrase that to the misguided idiots who think that we are such a force in the universe. Look at the sand...look at the sea of life and death. Now look at the time line and find me some idiots who can put this story together without them blooming into mental giants out of arrogance to the cosmos. Look at the very helpnessness of the human being and tell me from where it is that he gets the gaul to over ride a picture that is much bigger than him? The mind is dangerous because it dares believes that it can connect the dots without data that swings so far back in time that these idiots have even put together models which are constantly changing by millions of years. Get off it, we are not as important as you think. We are only one breath away from death...evry moment...just one breath away. There are universal laws that have and will beat around the clock and these are never dependent on wherher you breath more or less or don't breath at all. We are not the center of anything, we are just an ephemeral experience and we delight telling our neighbor that we know more than they do and that they should stop their sinning way. Why not enjoy this short experience instead of trying to over ride the very forces of which you have no control.
11/10/2004 09:56:30 PM · #23
Can somebody please explain to me how the Kyoto treaty could even begin to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions (and that is it's purpose, I believe) when 3 of the world's top 10 polluting nations (China, India, and Brazil) are totally exempt from ANY emission limits?

Also, how many people remember that when this worthless treaty was presented to the Senate during the Clinton administration, it was almost unanimously rejected, the vote being something like 96-0 against. NOBODY voted for it, not Kerry, not Biden, not Kennedy, not Daeschle, NOBODY.
11/10/2004 10:02:35 PM · #24
This treaty was just another ploy to extract more money from the USA. The figure we are the biggest...your personal life would not be what it is without the capatilistic drive. They just want to form an organization that will tax us.

Always look at the Liberals as taxing people. All of their movements are taxing vehicles.
11/10/2004 10:20:50 PM · #25
As a note for future reference to anyone who pays attention, in case the obvious to me isnt obvious to everyone in this case;

graphicfunk just referred to the Union of Concerned Scientists as "misguided idiots". Make a note for future reference when considering anything he says.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 01:10:18 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 01:10:18 PM EDT.