Rapid Global Warming in the Artic

Ikohn4ever

CAGiversary!
Feedback
5 (100%)
Study: Arctic warming at twice the global rate
Species, including polar bears, may go extinct as Arctic ice melts

Monday, November 8, 2004 Posted: 11:18 AM EST (1618 GMT)

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.

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 already shrunk by 15-20 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 burnt 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 already 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."

Link
 
I hate all of you republicans so much and hope you all die horrible deaths...
I'm not kidding fuck everyone of you selfish fuckheads...
 
Russia's now signed the Kyoto pact. That makes us look even worse.

That's sad when Russia is setting an example for the world.
 
if any of you would like to read a good book on how we fucked the environment read Silent Spring... very good... a little bit wordy if you cant hold your own in chemistry
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Russia's now signed the Kyoto pact. That makes us look even worse.

That's sad when Russia is setting an example for the world.[/quote]

Umm... no.

If they were then here in the States you would no longer be voting on Governor or Senator, the President would.

2100, I should be dead by then, so why the hell should I care?

A few years ago it was 70-75 in December, Christmas Eve 2003 it was 67 and raining, all these people bitched about Global Warming. Then January 2004 came. It didn't get over 32 for more than 37 days and only reached 32 once in about 45 day spand. It was the coldest winter on record, but no one bitched about gloabal freezing.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']My photo didn't link properly but I do have this to say... polar bears make fine rugs.[/quote]
Hope someone kills you, guts you and uses you for a rug...
 
By the time global warming happens I will be dead, so I don't care.

It's too late now to fix it so move on.

Second, you can post ONE time, not mult times.
 
[quote name='pfunkpearl']republicans don't read..other than the bible...[/quote]

I consider myself republican and I'm not Christian.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Russia's now signed the Kyoto pact. That makes us look even worse.

That's sad when Russia is setting an example for the world.[/quote]

The only reason they signed it was to make money from it. Since their economy is shit, they can sell their "greenhouse gas" credits. Thats a great example to set.

The UN is bullshit. Countries arnt looking out for the world, only themselves.
 
[quote name='bignick']
...The UN is bullshit. Countries arnt looking out for the world, only themselves.[/quote]

Guess which country came up with the idea of the UN? Guess why they did it?

Goddamn you are an ignorant dumbass.
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='bignick']
...The UN is bullshit. Countries arnt looking out for the world, only themselves.[/quote]

Guess which country came up with the idea of the UN? Guess why they did it?

Goddamn you are an ignorant dumbass.[/quote]

Actually we only came up with the name 26 countries were involved in creating it during WW2 to fight the axis powers.
 
[quote name='bignick'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='bignick']
...The UN is bullshit. Countries arnt looking out for the world, only themselves.[/quote]

Guess which country came up with the idea of the UN? Guess why they did it?

Goddamn you are an ignorant dumbass.[/quote]

Actually we only came up with the name 26 countries were involved in creating it during WW2 to fight the axis powers.[/quote]

Read:

Link

Critical Thinking Questions:

1. Who came up with the name "United Nations"? (you got this one, bonus credit!)

2. Which country tipped the balance for the Allies to win WW2?

3. Where was the structure and rules of the U.N., the "blueprint", decided upon?

4. In which country did the U.N. first meet?

5. Where is the U.N. headquarters located today?
 
Again, my first point is correct. the US, US, USSR, China and others started the UN to fight the axis powers. All of these countries were looking out for themselves including the US.

If we werent attacked, we would not have joined WW2. (Maybe we would have if we werent, who knows.) Then who knows if we would have been involved in the UN.

Russia and the Kyoto pact is a prime example that countries in the UN only look out for themselves. The only reason they signed it was because it was PROFITABLE for them, not for the environment. In 10-20 years when their economy is on the up and up again, I doubt they will still follow the guidlines of it.

Now Im not saying the US isnt guilty of looking out for itself, because we are.
 
My point is that the US brought it together. And under Bush we've undermined the power of the UN and effectively killed any good will that we've built up around the world over the past 50 years.

You know, one day the world is going to have to work together to solve some of the more widespread problems, otherwise we'll continually be caught in the "Prisoner's Dilemma" (NOTICE I am not advocating joining hands and giving out flowers, but just working in an organized structure towards the same sensible goals. I'll leave "Hands Across America" to all the red state happy-head security moms)

Unfortunately world cooperation is not going to happen in my lifetime.
 
[quote name='camoor']My point is that the US brought it together. And under Bush we've undermined the power of the UN and effectively killed any good will that we've built up around the world over the past 50 years.

You know, one day the world is going to have to work together to solve some of the more widespread problems, otherwise we'll continually be caught in the "Prisoner's Dilemma" (NOTICE I am not advocating joining hands and giving out flowers, but just working in an organized structure towards the same sensible goals. I'll leave "Hands Across America" to all the red state happy-head security moms)

Unfortunately world cooperation is not going to happen in my lifetime.[/quote]

But as long as members of the UN have special interests in problem areas, we will have problems. The US is just as guilty as the next country. The Kyoto pact really pisses me off. Russia can sell "greenhouse gas" credits! Come on!!!

The day will come with we are more technologicaly advanced. Wide spread fuel cells, genetically enhanced crops that can grow in the desert. We will have ways to purify water easily.

I also think that either the shit is gonna hit the fan or we are all gonna throw down our arms and become friends. I dont see too much room for the middle ground.
 
[quote name='camoor']My point is that the US brought it together. And under Bush we've undermined the power of the UN and effectively killed any good will that we've built up around the world over the past 50 years.

You know, one day the world is going to have to work together to solve some of the more widespread problems, otherwise we'll continually be caught in the "Prisoner's Dilemma" (NOTICE I am not advocating joining hands and giving out flowers, but just working in an organized structure towards the same sensible goals. I'll leave "Hands Across America" to all the red state happy-head security moms)

Unfortunately world cooperation is not going to happen in my lifetime.[/quote]


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Bush destroyed the UN!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Bush did a lot of dumbass things, the UN was fucked up for some time.
 
[quote name='David85'][quote name='camoor']My point is that the US brought it together. And under Bush we've undermined the power of the UN and effectively killed any good will that we've built up around the world over the past 50 years.

You know, one day the world is going to have to work together to solve some of the more widespread problems, otherwise we'll continually be caught in the "Prisoner's Dilemma" (NOTICE I am not advocating joining hands and giving out flowers, but just working in an organized structure towards the same sensible goals. I'll leave "Hands Across America" to all the red state happy-head security moms)

Unfortunately world cooperation is not going to happen in my lifetime.[/quote]


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Bush destroyed the UN!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Bush did a lot of dumbass things, the UN was shaq-fued up for some time.[/quote]
^
||
||
||
If you want to know what will start WW3, it's attitudes like that
 
OMG TEH DAVID85 IS TEH STARTING WW3!!!1!1!!! OMG OMG OMG

camoor, are you the kind of poster that types things slow because you believe we can't read very fast?
 
Hide me PAD I'm going to destroy the world!!!!

The UN is a way to pocket money for themselves, does no good to anyone, and doesn't protect anyone at all.

These are known facts.
 
I can't believe I'm in 100% agreement with David85, hey, it DOES happen.

Oil for food.... I think David already covered that huh?

UN record.... Kosovo, did nothing. Rwanda, did nothing. Sudan, can't make up their farking minds. Ivory Coast, nothing to date. Chechnya, nothing.

I guess no one notices a trend with this huh?

Lets see what else the UN didn't act on. Vietnam. Falklands War. Israeli invasion of Lebanon. USSR invasion of Afghanistan. Kashmir conflicts. Cuban invasion of Angola. Yeah, real good peace keeping organization here.

Secret reason the UN exists; Rockefellers were stupid enough to give them land on Manhattan. Foreign dictators like to have personnel in NYC to buy them goods that no Western company could profit from selling in third world shitholes. Gives foreign spies a good cover to operate in the U.S.

Yeah, that about sums it up.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I can't believe I'm in 100% agreement with David85, hey, it DOES happen.[/quote]


I think that is the forth sign!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I can't believe I'm in 100% agreement with David85, hey, it DOES happen.

Oil for food.... I think David already covered that huh?

UN record.... Kosovo, did nothing. Rwanda, did nothing. Sudan, can't make up their farking minds. Ivory Coast, nothing to date. Chechnya, nothing.

I guess no one notices a trend with this huh?

Lets see what else the UN didn't act on. Vietnam. Falklands War. Israeli invasion of Lebanon. USSR invasion of Afghanistan. Kashmir conflicts. Cuban invasion of Angola. Yeah, real good peace keeping organization here.

Secret reason the UN exists; Rockefellers were stupid enough to give them land on Manhattan. Foreign dictators like to have personnel in NYC to buy them goods that no Western company could profit from selling in third world shitholes. Gives foreign spies a good cover to operate in the U.S.

Yeah, that about sums it up.[/quote]

to give the UN a semblance of credit, the man in your avatar effectively killed the UN years ago when the US stopped paying dues. When the country that started the organization decides its a waste of time, a snowball effect usually occurs
 
It was a waste of money long before then.

The UN doesn't have a purpose or a reason to be around, never really did so they made one up, stealing.

NATO should be the new UN, hard to get into, but had a reason in the beginning.

You could tell how pointless the UN is when Iraq was going to be in command of the sercurity part of it, and that Liberia is in command of the "humanity" part.

It's like saying that the USSR had a good human rights record.
 
[quote name='David85']It was a waste of money long before then.

The UN doesn't have a purpose or a reason to be around, never really did so they made one up, stealing.

NATO should be the new UN, hard to get into, but had a reason in the beginning.

You could tell how pointless the UN is when Iraq was going to be in command of the sercurity part of it, and that Liberia is in command of the "humanity" part.

It's like saying that the USSR had a good human rights record.[/quote]

Sudan was part of the human rights committee for a while as well. It is amazing how useless the organization has become
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I can't believe I'm in 100% agreement with David85, hey, it DOES happen.

Oil for food.... I think David already covered that huh?

UN record.... Kosovo, did nothing. Rwanda, did nothing. Sudan, can't make up their farking minds. Ivory Coast, nothing to date. Chechnya, nothing.

I guess no one notices a trend with this huh?

Lets see what else the UN didn't act on. Vietnam. Falklands War. Israeli invasion of Lebanon. USSR invasion of Afghanistan. Kashmir conflicts. Cuban invasion of Angola. Yeah, real good peace keeping organization here.

Secret reason the UN exists; Rockefellers were stupid enough to give them land on Manhattan. Foreign dictators like to have personnel in NYC to buy them goods that no Western company could profit from selling in third world shitholes. Gives foreign spies a good cover to operate in the U.S.

Yeah, that about sums it up.[/quote]

to give the UN a semblance of credit, the man in your avatar effectively killed the UN years ago when the US stopped paying dues. When the country that started the organization decides its a waste of time, a snowball effect usually occurs[/quote]

Bill clinton didn't pay the dues either. In fact, I think it takes an act of congress to appropriate the funds. Write your representative.
 
[quote name='David85']By the time global warming happens I will be dead, so I don't care.

It's too late now to fix it so move on.

Second, you can post ONE time, not mult times.[/quote]

It is not too late to minimize global warming. Unfortunately, the Bush administration refuses to do anything to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. When coastal cities begin to be flooded by rising ocean levels, it will then be too late. You may not care right now, but if global warming progresses faster (as some have predicted) we could see severe problems within the next 50 years. Even if it takes till the end of the century, if you have any children they will have to cope with it.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Russia's now signed the Kyoto pact. That makes us look even worse.

That's sad when Russia is setting an example for the world.[/quote]

Do you have any idea WHY Russia signed it? I'll clue you in: the pollution limits in the Kyoto Protocol are tied to 1990 pollution levels. Russia was polluting a lot more back then than it is now. Russia can not only sign the KP without any harm to its economy, but they actually benefit economically because they can sell "pollution credits" to other countries. It's all win-win for them. They can increase their pollution pretty much as they please and they make more $$$ to boot. Even Putin's advisers say they expect the KP to fail in a few years as it is unsustainable due to it harming the world economy so much.
 
Even still, they look like the good guys to most of the world. The U.S. now looks like the bad guys.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Write your representative.[/quote]

My representative is Virgil Goode. He is a lazy, dishonest bastard who is only there to make money.

The only reason he has been reelected over the last 20 years is that he is a republican. He does nothing but hurt Virginia for personal gain.
 
I don't understand one thing...

Why would the oceans rise it ICE in WATER melts? Ice takes up more space than water, so if the ice that is in the water melts then wouldn't the sea level drop?

Put an ice cube in a glass, and fill it to the very top, it doesn't overflow, the water level goes down, and it's not because it evaperized.

Unless of course a big storm comes and changes the weather in a week.... right that is only a FICTIONAL movie.
 
[quote name='David85']Why would the oceans rise it ICE in WATER melts? Ice takes up more space than water, so if the ice that is in the water melts then wouldn't the sea level drop?[/quote]

This would only be true if the ice was entirely underwater. Since ice floats, this doesn't work out. When ice floats, it takes up as much space underwater as it would if it were water, and the 'extra' space is above water (the only '9/10 of an iceberg is underwater' thing.) If floating ice mets, there's no net change in water level. You can test that youself by putting a few icecubes in a glass of water and letting it melt.

The problem come in with ice that's sitting on top of land (which is the case in the Artic.) When the ice melts, it flows down to sea level, raising the water level.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla'][quote name='bmulligan']Write your representative.[/quote]

My representative is Virgil Goode. He is a lazy, dishonest bastard who is only there to make money.

The only reason he has been reelected over the last 20 years is that he is a republican. He does nothing but hurt Virginia for personal gain.[/quote]

Actually, he was a Democrat and switched a few years ago to being an independent and then to being a Republican IIRC. So much for that theory.

And I should also note that I now feel ashamed to call you a fellow Virginian.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Even still, they look like the good guys to most of the world. The U.S. now looks like the bad guys.[/quote]

Fair enough. Some people don't understand that many issues are complex. Sound familiar? :wink:
 
[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='E-Z-B']Even still, they look like the good guys to most of the world. The U.S. now looks like the bad guys.[/quote]

Fair enough. Some people don't understand that many issues are complex. Sound familiar? :wink:[/quote]

True. Like why Kerry didn't vote for the $87 billion funding because he didn't like certain parts of the bill and wanted to re-work it.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='E-Z-B']Even still, they look like the good guys to most of the world. The U.S. now looks like the bad guys.[/quote]

Fair enough. Some people don't understand that many issues are complex. Sound familiar? :wink:[/quote]

True. Like why Kerry didn't vote for the $87 billion funding because he didn't like certain parts of the bill and wanted to re-work it.[/quote]

Knew you'd get it. :wink: Although Kerry could be honestly criticized for not placing enough importance on the funding, he did want to do the funding but in a different way (by rolling back some of the tax cuts enacted under Bush).
 
[quote name='Drocket'][quote name='David85']Why would the oceans rise it ICE in WATER melts? Ice takes up more space than water, so if the ice that is in the water melts then wouldn't the sea level drop?[/quote]

This would only be true if the ice was entirely underwater. Since ice floats, this doesn't work out. When ice floats, it takes up as much space underwater as it would if it were water, and the 'extra' space is above water (the only '9/10 of an iceberg is underwater' thing.) If floating ice mets, there's no net change in water level. You can test that youself by putting a few icecubes in a glass of water and letting it melt.

The problem come in with ice that's sitting on top of land (which is the case in the Artic.) When the ice melts, it flows down to sea level, raising the water level.[/quote]

I like saying this...

You're wrong. Like my ice cube in the glass, the ice is floating in there too, and yet when it melts it does not overflow, it goes down a little because the ice that's in the water takes up much more space, and when it melts it doesn't fill in that space as much.
 
The ice in the artic is not in the form of icebergs.

At the north pole there is actuallt no real land, but there are GIANT ice caps. They vary in height but are often hundreds of feet high.

The ice below the surface isn't going to be melting, it will be the ice on top that melts.

Also there may be bacteria, virii, or living organisms in that ice, some of which could be very dangerous if exposed.

Is it really worth it? Is using petroleum really worth endangering the lives future generations of humans and other animals?
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']The ice in the artic is not in the form of icebergs.

At the north pole there is actuallt no real land, but there are GIANT ice caps. They vary in height but are often hundreds of feet high.

The ice below the surface isn't going to be melting, it will be the ice on top that melts.

Also there may be bacteria, virii, or living organisms in that ice, some of which could be very dangerous if exposed.

Is it really worth it? Is using petroleum really worth endangering the lives future generations of humans and other animals?[/quote]

OMG I need my suv!!! I'm so fat I can't fit in a smaller car and too lazy to walk a block to get to a store.... :)
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']The ice in the artic is not in the form of icebergs.

At the north pole there is actuallt no real land, but there are GIANT ice caps. They vary in height but are often hundreds of feet high.

The ice below the surface isn't going to be melting, it will be the ice on top that melts.

Also there may be bacteria, virii, or living organisms in that ice, some of which could be very dangerous if exposed.

Is it really worth it? Is using petroleum really worth endangering the lives future generations of humans and other animals?[/quote]


All the ice will melt, the top melts it makes the rest weak, it will all melt at some time, my point is that unless it's on land it will not raise the ocean levels, and even if it is onland it still will not raise it the 100-300 feet the freaks saying it will.

It will really screw up the weather through, but that's ok because then it will be like a La Nina, which for me means more snow, and I like that. :)
 
It may raise 20-50 feet, which would put Oceania and many parts of the United States, Europe, and Asia underwater.

And most species will not be able to adapt to the abrupt weather changes over the next century, which will lead to mass extinctions. Some researchers predict that extinctions may start as early as 50 years from now.

Do you realise that if most of the algae in the ocean died there would not be enough oxygen production to support humans?
 
[quote name='David85'][quote name='Drocket'][quote name='David85']Why would the oceans rise it ICE in WATER melts? Ice takes up more space than water, so if the ice that is in the water melts then wouldn't the sea level drop?[/quote]

This would only be true if the ice was entirely underwater. Since ice floats, this doesn't work out. When ice floats, it takes up as much space underwater as it would if it were water, and the 'extra' space is above water (the only '9/10 of an iceberg is underwater' thing.) If floating ice mets, there's no net change in water level. You can test that youself by putting a few icecubes in a glass of water and letting it melt.

The problem come in with ice that's sitting on top of land (which is the case in the Artic.) When the ice melts, it flows down to sea level, raising the water level.[/quote]

I like saying this...

You're wrong. Like my ice cube in the glass, the ice is floating in there too, and yet when it melts it does not overflow, it goes down a little because the ice that's in the water takes up much more space, and when it melts it doesn't fill in that space as much.[/quote]

Sorry, but your reasoning is incorrect. This is a phase change from solid to liquid. The act of melting does not change the water temperature. Therefore, the water level will not change when an iceberg melts. As stated above, ice on land is completely different. When that ice melts, it runs into streams, rivers, etc. that run into the ocean. This raises the sealevel. If all of the ice in Antarctica were to melt, we'd be in serious trouble since much of that is on land.
 
[quote name='David85']I like saying this...

You're wrong. Like my ice cube in the glass, the ice is floating in there too, and yet when it melts it does not overflow, it goes down a little because the ice that's in the water takes up much more space, and when it melts it doesn't fill in that space as much.[/quote]

And you're an idiot who's never taken a physics class. Quite sorry, but you're completely, utterly, 100% incorrect.
 
bread's done
Back
Top