Climate change threatens polar bears

[billvon 2,464]

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

[TheAnvil 0]

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

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Gawain 0]

Quote

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

All of those alternatives have emissions as well, if not directly, then on a large scale indirectly.

Bio-diesel, as good as it is, has particulate emissions that are higher than today's LEV, ULEV and SULEV cars. Fuel cell/batteries need to be charged. Plugging in will cause massive requirements for more energy on a national power grid scale (something our current grid cannot handle). Methane is powerful, but I understand it is not any cleaner than gasoline (I'm not 100% certain on that).

No matter how you cut it, transportation infrastructure will require vast amounts of energy to run, either through centralized, large scale power plants, or through distributed vehicles (cars, trucks, etc.).

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[DrunkMonkey 0]

Quote

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

Not gonna happen with the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania NW, and the current resident of the Mansion at the US Naval Observatory... They'd never wean themselves from the Oil tit enough to allow such technologies to flourish...

[TheAnvil 0]

Higher particulate emissions I knew about, but I don't think it's the particulate emissions that are causing the warming, is it?

I believe methane is more readily accessible than gasoline and burns cleaner as well.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[tunaplanet 0]

Damn that Bush!!!!! It's all his fault!!!!!

Forty-two

[TheAnvil 0]

How did he manage to do that AND destroy the rain forest at the same time?

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Rebecca 0]

This is the shit I was talking about in my angry thread. The shit that's about to roll down from up north. It's all connected - can't melt the Arctic ice cap without the rest of the world feeling it. Polar bears will just be the front line on this one...

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[GeordieSkydiver 0]

The planets weather runs in cycles, to think that us humans, who are mere tourists here, have a profound effect on the 'overall' cycle of ice ages is naive.

Admittedly we do make some serious f**k ups, but the planet is gonna do whats its gonna do, with or without us.

Who exactly are we blaming the last ice age on? For every scientist that shouts 'global warming' there is another who says 'natures way'

Lets just try to enjoy our planet as it is, and leave it as we found it.

Lee

Lee _______________________________

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

[Rebecca 0]

Quote

Lets just try to enjoy our planet as it is, and leave it as we found it.

Lee

Dude! Exactly!

However, this is at least partially our fault. It doesn't take a huge increase in average global temperature to cause serious problems. Just a tiny bit, relatively speaking, which we do our best to contribute to every day. And I have my doubts that the planet would be in the same situation without us here.

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[billvon 2,464]

>All of those alternatives have emissions as well, if not directly, then on
>a large scale indirectly.

>Bio-diesel, as good as it is, has particulate emissions that are higher than
>today's LEV, ULEV and SULEV cars.

By 2007 diesel emissions will match today's LEV cars even when petroleum diesel is used. When biodiesel is used, they will be even cleaner - and their net CO2 emissions will be zero.

>Methane is powerful, but I understand it is not any cleaner than gasoline
>(I'm not 100% certain on that).

It is so clean that many states consider them zero emissions vehicles; the only exhaust is CO2 and water (and it's about half the CO2 that gasoline generates.)

>No matter how you cut it, transportation infrastructure will require vast
> amounts of energy to run. . . .

Not at all! Hybrids, for example, give you the same power but use much less energy by recovering wasted energy during braking, idling and high-pumping-loss conditions. A Toyota Prius is a midsize car with acceleration comparable to a Ford Taurus, but uses half the fuel. Imagine what we could do if even 50% of the cars in the US used hybrid technology - we could end Middle Eastern oil imports.

[billvon 2,464]

> The planets weather runs in cycles, to think that us humans, who are
> mere tourists here, have a profound effect on the 'overall' cycle of ice
>ages is naive.

We singlehandedly have increased CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere some 50% over the past 200 years. This isn't guesswork; these are measured values, and they agree with the amount of carbon we've put in the atmosphere through burning wood, coal and oil. To think that has no effect at all on our climate is a bit naive, IMO.

[Rebecca 0]

Quote

A Toyota Prius is a midsize car with acceleration comparable to a Ford Taurus, but uses half the fuel. Imagine what we could do if even 50% of the cars in the US used hybrid technology - we could end Middle Eastern oil imports.

Well, with all these new hybrid models coming out, combined with the insurance breaks you get, plus the high cost of gas, that's a distinct possibility, isn't it? (Maybe not 50%, but a good start)

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[billvon 2,464]

>Well, with all these new hybrid models coming out, combined with
>the insurance breaks you get, plus the high cost of gas, that's a distinct
> possibility, isn't it? (Maybe not 50%, but a good start)

It depends. The answer might be yes, as long as we:

-don't artificially deflate the price of gas with releases from the strategic reserves and oil company subsidies;

-discontinue the SUV fuel efficiency and emissions loopholes;

-continue tax breaks for efficient vehicles;

-don't do anything stupid like capping gas prices.

[Rebecca 0]

Quote

The answer might be yes, as long as we:...don't do anything stupid ...

Oh. Well, it's still something to shoot for.

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[Rebecca 0]

Quote

This is the shit I was talking about in my angry thread. The shit that's about to roll down from up north. It's all connected - can't melt the Artic ice cap without the rest of the world feeling it. Polar bears will just be the front line on this one...

Like I was saying.

The planet is in decline

And don't say I'm jumping to an unlikely conclusion. We couldn't stop this if the whole world simultaneously stopped polluting right now.

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[GeordieSkydiver 0]

We singlehandedly have increased CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere some 50% over the past 200 years. This isn't guesswork; these are measured values, and they agree with the amount of carbon we've put in the atmosphere through burning wood, coal and oil. To think that has no effect at all on our climate is a bit naive, IMO.

[Rebecca 0]

Quote

For every scientist who thinks we are having an effect, 5 more disagree. Many believe that what is happening to this planet would of happened regardless of us.

Links?

How can a 50% increase in greenhouse gasses, directly attributable to us, not mean that the earth would be cooler without us right now? Would the rainforest have cleared itself of all those acres (another contributing factor in the greenhouse crisis)?

I've never heard any environmental scientists say we're doing just fine or that this is happening regardless of our pollution...

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[billvon 2,464]

>And what about the forest fires(naturally caused) that we have stopped
>from becoming forest destroyers?

?? Our stopping of forest fires has resulted in larger, more severe forest fires. We now understand that trying to stop forest fires leads to disaster; now we often just let them burn. Nature managed forests for long before we got here, through erosion, growth, death, decay and fire. If we screw with that cycle we will cause (and have caused) massive problems.

>I'm not sure we've created more . . .

Just in the past 50 years it's increased 20%. This matches our burning of fossil fuels. We put about 10 billion tons carbon (in the form of carbon dioxide) in the atmosphere every year now. It doesn't just "go away."

>For every scientist who thinks we are having an effect, 5 more disagree.
> Many believe that what is happening to this planet would of happened
>regardless of us.

Right. And some scientists think that women were created from Adam's rib, and that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, that evolution is a fraud, and that there is no such thing as DNA. If you take them seriously - well, you deserve the 'science' you end up with.

>I'm not saying we shouldn't be doing something positive, I'm just saying
> the planet will balance everything out, and if that means that we freeze
> and all die, well then it sucks to be us.

Now that's exactly right! We do not have the power to completely destroy all life on earth, but we do have the power to make it impossible to be a human on this planet. We should not be doing our level best to hasten that day; that's poor planning.

[GeordieSkydiver 0]

?? Our stopping of forest fires has resulted in larger, more severe forest fires. We now understand that trying to stop forest fires leads to disaster; now we often just let them burn.

Not true, I have a very good friend who spends the whole summer preventing lightening strikes from becoming massive fires. Flying round chasing storms.

>I'm not sure we've created more . . .

Just in the past 50 years it's increased 20%. This matches our burning of fossil fuels. We put about 10 billion tons carbon (in the form of carbon dioxide) in the atmosphere every year now. It doesn't just "go away."

I dont know this, but whatever evidence you can produce, I bet there's some to counter it.

some scientists think that women were created from Adam's rib, and that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, that evolution is a fraud, and that there is no such thing as DNA. If you take them seriously - well, you deserve the 'science' you end up with.

Ok, so who's to say that the 'global warming' guys aren't the nutbars? Who do we believe?

All I know is, in a million years the planet wont even remember we were here.

Lee

PS Its a bit rich, that us 'skydivers', burning thousands of lbs a day of avgas/JP8/name your poison aviation fuel, can argue about details when it comes to global warning.

Lee _______________________________

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

[Rebecca 0]

Quote

I dont know this, but whatever evidence you can produce, I bet there's some to counter it.

So where is it? There are two links in this thread to point to our role in causing the demise of a whole bunch of critters. Can you show me some research that opposes those findings?

Just saying that you're sure the evidence is out there is pretty thin. You gotsta back yo self up in here!

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[AdD 1]

Thinking purely as a skydiver, climate change is not in our best interest. Do we really want the weather to get worse than it already is? Maybe I'll biased cuz I'm from the Maritimes and we hardly get two days of sun in a row, but skydivers of the world must unite on this issue!

Life is ez
On the dz
Every jumper's dream
3 rigs and an airstream

[billvon 2,464]

>Not true, I have a very good friend who spends the whole summer
> preventing lightening strikes from becoming massive fires. Flying round
> chasing storms.

I agree that we still sometimes do that, but most organizations (including the NPS) now plan "controlled burns" and often let fires run their course. Forests eventually burn; all you can do is push the date back some. And if you do that, the eventual fire is much worse than it would have been otherwise.

>I dont know this, but whatever evidence you can produce, I bet
>there's some to counter it.

Nope. No serious scientist claims that we are not emitting lots of CO2, or that CO2 concentrations are increasing. Most scientists agree that we are causing warming of the planet. The ones that don't (generally ones in the employ of oil companies) have been gradually changing their tune from "there's no such thing as global warming" to "OK, there is such a thing as global warming, but we didn't cause it" to "OK, we are causing it, but maybe it will be a good thing, and maybe it would have happened eventually anyway."

It's easy to prove it to yourself - go visit any glacier and look at pictures of it from 50 years ago. Get a hold of satellite pictures of the northern ice cap. Heck, take a CO2 measurement yourself, and compare it to data from 20 years ago.

>Ok, so who's to say that the 'global warming' guys aren't the nutbars?
>Who do we believe?

The ones who do the better science.

[GeordieSkydiver 0]

Oh man, is nobody listening to me?

Global warming IS happening.

CO2 polution is up.

Are WE causing it? In dispute.

Are the two linked? In dispute.

Can we do anything about it? Invaribly not.

We are sat in the starting gates while global warming is on the home straight.

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

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

Too little, too late.

Lee

PS 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.

PPS I'm sorry if people have a problem seeing my point, i'm not that eloquent/articulate/bothered.

Lee _______________________________

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

[crozby 0]

Quote

I believe methane is more readily accessible than gasoline and burns cleaner as well.

As long as it gets burned it is, otherwise it's a greenhouse gas.

Those pesky cows need to do their bit too...

Quote

Some studies have suggested the average cow produces the same amount of greenhouse gas each day as a car that is driven 3.2 kilometres.

(http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2004/04/11/417500-cp.html)

Something like 20% of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions comes from agriculture. That's a lot of farting!