Climate change threatens polar bears

[billvon 2,989]

>Are WE causing it? In dispute.
>Are the two linked? In dispute.
>Can we do anything about it? Invaribly not.

These are the three points that bug me. The first two are always used as an excuse to support the third. Of COURSE we can do something about it! Claiming we can't is like an alcoholic claiming that he can't stop alcohol from entering his mouth. You can stop if you want to, but you have to want to first. Within 10 years we could be independent of Middle Eastern oil; within 20 we could cut our CO2 generation by 50% - all with technologies we have right now, at a lower cost than the Iraq war.

>Could we of prevented it? Yeah sure, we could of not discovered fossil
>fuels, the combustion engine, nuclear fission etc etc.

Nuclear fission is one way to PREVENT global warming. Nuclear power generates no CO2 emissions. Had we followed the path of nuclear power development envisioned in the 50's, we would now be generating 75% of our power from a variety of nuclear reactors - and would be generating 30% less CO2.

>What we are doing now is akin to pissing in the river and expecting it
>to change the taste of the whole damn ocean.

No, what we're doing is holding open the floodgates on the dam and claiming that we can't do anything about the resulting flood. If we're serious about stopping the flood, we close the gates - even if it's expensive to do so. Or, we can say that we don't care what the flood does; but we have to accept that BEFORE we keep them open out of convenience.

But accepting responsibility is something that we have gotten very good at dodging lately. It amazes me that even though we are causing global warming, we continue to claim that we can do nothing about it. Most of the other countries in the world have accepted the need to do something about it; unfortunately we still do not even though we are the biggest polluter on the planet. The reason is pretty obvious - money. Oil companies make more money the more CO2 we release into the atmosphere, and many industries (not just oil) have become very dependent on that particular teat. We have to decide as a people that all the things that can result from climate change (storms, mass extinctions, elimination of jobs, drought, starvation etc) are more important than money. Until we do that, we will keep on coming up with justifications that range from "there's no such thing as global warming" to "OK, there is, but we can't do anything about it."

>I dont really want to, but I will if its demanded find a article about
> global warming that claims its not our fault, it would of happened anyway.

And I can find an article that claims the world is flat. The article doesn't make the world flat, though.

>PPS I'm sorry if people have a problem seeing my point . . .

I have seen several of your points; I disagree with them.

[GeordieSkydiver 0]

I'm getting pissed at this.

I cant change a thing. You cant change a thing. 20 million of us cant change a thing.

Until every government in every country sits up and DOES something, it dont mean a thing. People have to want change, at the moment they dont. At least not the people in power.

If your going to dispute everything i say with comments like

Quote

'And I can find an article that claims the world is flat. The article doesn't make the world flat, though.'

I cant argue with that. I've seen articles that say our polar bears are threatened, doesn't make it true though does it? See my point?

I'm done disputing/arguing/caring.

I welcome global warming, its so frikkin cold here.

Lee

Lee _______________________________

In a world full of people, only some want to fly, is that not crazy?
http://www.ukskydiver.co.uk

[billvon 2,989]

>I cant change a thing. You cant change a thing. 20 million of us
>cant change a thing.

There are around 200 million drivers in the US, and we contribute around 50% of the total anthropogenic CO2 emissions in the US. If we got only 20 million of the people in the US to buy a hybrid car a year (anything from an Insight to a Toyota Highlander) we could reduce our oil imports by about 6% a year. In other words, instead of increasing our consumption by a few percent a year, we could start reducing it. After four years, we wouldn't need to import any oil from OPEC. After eight, we wouldn't have to import _any_ oil - and we would have cut our emissions of CO2 by about 33%. That means we would have reduced the total CO2 emissions, worldwide, by 16% within eight years - and that's without even trying to reduce emissions from coal power plants!

We have a lot of power if we choose to use it.

>Until every government in every country sits up and DOES something, it
> dont mean a thing. People have to want change, at the moment they
> dont. At least not the people in power.

Agreed; but since we are at least in theory a representative government, we can get the government to do what we want using the power of our vote. We can change if we want to. If we don't want to, fine, but that's not because we can't - it's because we don't want to.

[Deuce 1]

Quote

Nuclear fission is one way to PREVENT global warming. Nuclear power generates no CO2 emissions. Had we followed the path of nuclear power development envisioned in the 50's, we would now be generating 75% of our power from a variety of nuclear reactors - and would be generating 30% less CO2.

Talk like that just makes me horny.

Look. We need to use up the cheep oil so we move on to the next thing. Just like we did with wood, and then coal.

I am all about $75 a barrel oil. Give me a Dakota that generates 300 horspower on hydrogen fuel cells! It will only happen when its economically viable.

Just like home solar! It is now economically feasible, I'd do it right now, but my pool solar cells are in the way. I should compare which would save me more, photovoltaic or the water heat.

Money pressure heals all.

Sorry about the polar bears, but I displaced mice with my house too. People impact their environment.

[billvon 2,989]

>Sorry about the polar bears, but I displaced mice with my house too.

Me too, but there is no danger of mice going extinct where I live. It's a little different to kill 20 mice than to wipe out a species.

>People impact their environment.

Of course, but it is better for both us and the environment if we impact it as little as possible. We now have the power to make the planet a miserable place for us to live; we should avoid doing that.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Vanishing krill threatens Antarctic life
By Andrew Darby
November 8, 2004

Rapid climate warming is emptying the breadbasket of Antarctica, putting whales, seals and seabirds at risk of food shortages.

The science journal Nature has reported an 80 per cent decline in krill - the shrimp-like staple of the polar diet - in the Southern Ocean's most productive waters, off the Antarctic Peninsula.

A senior Australian krill scientist, Steve Nicol, said: "It's definitely a warning bell that there are serious changes going on out there."

A team led by Angus Atkinson of the British Antarctic Survey pooled data collected by nine countries between 1926 and last year to take the first large-scale view of change in krill numbers around the frozen continent.

Almost 45 per cent of world stocks of the prolific Antarctic krill, Euphausia superba, is found in the south-west Atlantic.

The Antarctic Peninsula and nearby waters have seen spectacular change because of rapid climate warming.

Over the past 50 years, air temperatures in the peninsula have risen more than 2.5 degrees - five times faster than the global average. The rapid break-off of giant ice shelves such as Larsen B in 2002 has also been accompanied by what the survey described as a striking decrease in floating sea ice.

Krill feed on the algae found under the surface of the sea ice, which acts as a kind of nursery," Dr Atkinson said. "We don't fully understand how the loss of sea ice here is connected to the warming, but we believe that it could be behind the decline in krill."

The letter to Nature said krill stocks had declined by about 80 per cent since the 1970s. It may also explain declines in several species of penguins in the region, the survey team said. Other Antarctic life such as the tiny jellyfish-like salps may have benefited from a tolerance of warmer waters.

Dr Nicol, a program leader at the Australian Antarctic Division, said he was sceptical about the magnitude of the decrease found by the research. "You would not see this without major declines in the higher predators, and it's a very mixed picture for them," he said. "Some predator numbers are actually increasing; for example fur seals, which live almost exclusively on krill."

Dr Nick Gales, a principal research scientist at the division, said many large whales were entirely dependent on krill for food and the evidence showed that some of these species were making strong comebacks from 20th century whaling. "Whales like humpbacks are showing increases in the range of 10 per cent each year," Dr Gales said.

Minke whale numbers, however, were decreasing, he said.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[billvon 2,989]

This is something that bugged me from a previous thread.

People, don't worry too much about losing 30 seals, or 100 dolphins, to fishermen. Even losing a whole mammalian species, while very bad, is not the end of the world. Worry about the shrimp, the plankton, the earthworms, the rotifers, the fungi. If we lose those we are going to lose whole chunks of our ecosystem. And this isn't some slimy corner of a swamp that only eco-nuts care about - these are what produce the food we eat, the air we breathe, the dirt we use to grow our food, the filters for our water.

The system has worked pretty well for a long time, even when we overload it. We should not be doing our level best to break it - that's suicide in the long run.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"Until every government in every country sits up and DOES something, it dont mean a thing. "

Like signing and enacting the Kyoto protocol?

CO2 emissions are about to go throug the roof with development at unprecedented rates in the Asia, the subcontinent, South America, and soon, Africa. If the already industrialised countries don't set the lead in emissions control, and environmental reponsibility, I reckon we will be well and truly fucked in a remarkably short time.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[mr2mk1g 10]

Britain just commissioned a major study into non-food crops. The headlines were that we are (apparently) the world leader in the technology and that the government wants to look at ways that we can start growing our oils, plastics and the like in our fields. The hope is that we can start to replace petroleum-based products with new items refined or manufactured from plants or plant extracts. The worry is that we will be left behind if we don’t start the research now. Maybe some in the US should start worrying about being left behind… it could cause a major upset to the current balance of world power.

[billvon 2,989]

>Maybe some in the US should start worrying about being left behind…

A great many never will. A century ago, even 50 years ago, it was clear that we had to work our asses off to stay in the lead. The Russians beat us into space; the Axis powers gave us a run for our money. Nowadays we've become complacent. We're the biggest bully on the block, and we don't have to care what other countries think about us. We can stop stem cell research and imagine that that will stop all research in that area. We can invade countries and imagine that they just have to take it. We can just keep buying bigger and bigger cars and imagine that someone will always sell us oil.

Fast forward 50 years. Americans sneak across the border to Canada to get treatments to cure Alzheimer's, diabetes, and heart disease. American doctors are known as backwards; people all over the world travel to Sweden and Germany to get modern medical care that works. Americans deal with gas rationing and crippling travel restrictions while the rest of the world uses hybrid Stirling-cycle engines, run on any fuel at all. America can't trade with anyone because of all the economic sanctions leveled against us for the fifth Gulf War. China commands the seas and low earth orbit. There is talk of sending WMD inspectors into the US to prevent us from following though on our threats to retaliate against China's enforcement of the trade sanctions.

And somewhere in an old folk's home, some men sit around and say "Remember when the US could kick anyone's butt? Those were the good ol' days. It must be those commies that did this to us."

[storm1977 0]

YAWN

Global warming this global warming that!!!!!!!

I love how everyone on here is an expert on Global warming. Funny, 15 years ago everyone was an expert on Acid rain... Don't hear much about that Catch Phrase anymore.

Actually, they don't really call it Global Warming anymore. You guys are all behind... the new catch phrase for those looking for a cause is "Climate Change"
See.... Global warming was too specific. Now there is word GW leads to Global cooling.....owwww. Better not call it GW anymore better call it "Climate Change"

GOT A NEWS FLASH:
Climate change has been going on for 5 billion years.
Oh, what caused the CO2 levels to be double what they are now, 15,000yrs ago? Too many power plants?

GOD.... This gets boring.
Come on Bil. Will you read what us Scientist actually say about the GC going on, instead of the few radicals out there.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[GeordieSkydiver 0]

Quote

YAWN

Global warming this global warming that!!!!!!!

I love how everyone on here is an expert on Global warming. Funny, 15 years ago everyone was an expert on Acid rain... Don't hear much about that Catch Phrase anymore.

Actually, they don't really call it Global Warming anymore. You guys are all behind... the new catch phrase for those looking for a cause is "Climate Change"
See.... Global warming was too specific. Now there is word GW leads to Global cooling.....owwww. Better not call it GW anymore better call it "Climate Change"

GOT A NEWS FLASH:
Climate change has been going on for 5 billion years.
Oh, what caused the CO2 levels to be double what they are now, 15,000yrs ago? Too many power plants?

GOD.... This gets boring.
Come on Bil. Will you read what us Scientist actually say about the GC going on, instead of the few radicals out there.

Well done!!

You managed to summerise in a few paragraphs what I've been trying to say for like...3 weeks or something.

Thank you.
Lee

PS Prepare to be flamed.....

Lee _______________________________

In a world full of people, only some want to fly, is that not crazy?
http://www.ukskydiver.co.uk

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Nuclear fission is one way to PREVENT global warming. Nuclear power generates no CO2 emissions. Had we followed the path of nuclear power development envisioned in the 50's, we would now be generating 75% of our power from a variety of nuclear reactors - and would be generating 30% less CO2.

Actually, there's some positive news regarding this (if you ignore the corporate welfare aspect) in today's WSJ.

Quote

The nuclear-power industry is laying the groundwork to build new plants in the U.S. for the first time in more than two decades.

Buoyed by the re-election of President Bush, whose administration has pushed to expand nuclear power as part of its national energy plan, the industry sees a window of two to three years in which the political environment could make it easier to win approval for new projects.

Late last week, two separate consortiums consisting of power companies and reactor makers received word that the Department of Energy would share in the cost of obtaining regulatory approval for new nuclear reactors. The two groups expect the cost of winning that approval to be about $500 million apiece, due to the detailed engineering and testing required by regulators for new reactors.

"There's lots of enthusiasm for what we're trying to accomplish here," said William D. Magwood IV, director of the Energy Department's office of nuclear energy, science and technology. "If both of these goes to fruition, we could see new nuclear plants by 2014."

In part, the revived prospects for nuclear power stem from the volatile energy market and concerns about global warming, which are forcing utilities and their power-generation vendors to consider alternatives. Faced with skyrocketing natural-gas prices and uncertainty about the costs of containing carbon emissions from coal-fired plants, electric companies believe nuclear plants are becoming more economically competitive and safer.

[argon 0]

Quote

One more reason to promote biodiesel, nuclear, fuel-cell, methane, and other alternative fuel sources.

But what's left to put in the twin otter? Believe what you want- I think its junk science,then again when it matters I'll be long gone. I'm selfish and proud. We don't pay enough for energy in this country.Period.Make gas 5 dollars a gallon like it is in the UK. Promote nuclear.Hybrids-go ahead buy one-then wait till the warranty is gone and you have to replace batteries,relays etc... Polar bears, I say feed them the scraps and build them real comfy nesting boxes next to the drilling rigs that should be there to get the oil .Get over it. Everybody want to pay 89 dollars each way to beat the cold in the winter to go jump in warmer climates.Do you really think an airline is making money-how about those 200 or so thousand pounds of Jet A making those engines turn.All the tree huggers,all the hollywood elite,give me a break. The problem might not even be caused by humans in the first place. I couldn't care less.

***********
Freedom isn't free. Don't forget: Mother Earth is waiting for you--there is a debt you have to pay...... POPS #9329 Commercial Pilot,Instrument MEL

[juanesky 0]

Quote

Quote

Study: Arctic warming at twice the global rate
Species, including polar bears, may go extinct as Arctic ice melts

Monday, November 8, 2004
The report says polar bears are unlikely to survive.

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 the earth's atmosphere.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/11/08/globalwarming.reut/index.html

As long as it does not threaten the beavers.....I'll be fine with that

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[billvon 2,989]

>But what's left to put in the twin otter?

Biodiesel, natural gas, alcohol all work and have been used as aviation fuels. Heck, even using petroleum isn't the end of the world - if you use it wisely.

>Believe what you want- I think its junk science,then again when it
>matters I'll be long gone.

I know there are a lot of people who think that way, but I plan to have kids. I think we should leave them the world the way we found it; it's sort of a philosophical thing.