US urged to help slow Arctic thaw
Indigenous people from the Arctic have urged the US to cut greenhouse gas emissions to slow down the current thaw of the polar ice.
At a conference in Iceland, they warned their traditional way of life was endangered by global warming.

They accused Washington of thwarting efforts to reduce the problem by refusing to sign the Kyoto agreement.

Scientists have warned that the region is warming twice as quickly as the rest of the planet.

"The short-term economic policy of one country should not be able to trump the entire survival of one people," said Sheila Watt-Cloutier, the chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference (ICC) at the end of the four-day event.

"Climate change is not just about weather or sea-ice conditions... it's a fight to preserve a way of life," she added.

A team of international researchers published the results of a study before the meeting kicked off, predicting that the summer ice cap could melt completely before the end of this century.

The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report (ACIA) found that the faster warming rate of the Arctic is due to a build-up of greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide released from burning oil, coal and gas in power plants and cars.

It also warned that several species including polar bears could disappear as a consequence of the melting ice.

Climate change could also claim human lives, too, it said. There have been several incidents in which Inuit hunters have drowned after falling through unexpectedly thinner ice.

The foreign ministers of the eight Arctic nations - the US, Russia, Canada, Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland - are due to meet in Iceland's capital Reykjavik on 24 November to discuss how to fight the problem.

The US, responsible for about a quarter of the world's gas emissions, has refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. The agreement, negotiated in 1997, requires industrial nations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases below 1990 levels.

President Bush argues the plan is too costly and unfairly excludes developing nations.


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/4008761.stm


Earth is scr*wed

isnt it true that if you put say 3 ice cubes in an empty glass and then fill that empty glass all the way up to its brim and leave it out in the sun all day, that the water level will drop (assume that evaporation is not taking place) as water in a solid form takes up more space than water in liquid form, because if that is the case, the only thing that is going to happen to earth when the polar ice caps melt is the sea level will actually drop

Ahh seeking, maybe you should have a look at just how much ice is in the polar ice caps!
For the kyoto protocol to make any sort of a difference the US have to ratify it otherwise it will achieve nothing, but then again even with the US joining its not going to really change anything, only prolong the inevitable, its just too late!

I understand that there will be a problem if the ice melts though I have a question about the water levels.

Exactly how much flooding will occur? Just the coasts of every continent? Or are we talking about Water World?

Even if the ice does melt, it will be a gradual flooding, no? It's not as if every coastal city will be hit by a tidal wave.

Im not exactly sure about that myself manfed, but I do know that it wont be huge tidal waves, its a litle more gradual than that, unless both ice caps melt in one day from a cataclsymic event or something along those lines .Many coastal and lowlying areas will become submerged, but then again this is all just theory, know one can be certaing whats going to actually happen!

Ummmmm Bush was re-elected, as the worst environmental president in US history. Some are more worried about getting into heaven by fighting the evil doers. Other than preserving our world...but I'm not worried
Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven
Earth once was a "paradise" (still is) and will be again and again and again

well i actually wasnt sure if my situation would hold true, i was really more asking then stating, im pretty sure though what i said would be the case, reguardless of how much ice there is in the caps, if what i said is indeed true, then the more ice in the caps would mean the lower the water level would actually drop, but i also do remember hearing on some tv program that if the ice from antartica were to melt sea levels would drop in the sothern hemisphere and rise in the northern, and if the ice from the north pole were to melt the reverse would take place

Thats very interesting Seeking, althought I cant understand how that would actually take place yet im not a scientist or an expert i this area. All I know and have heard from numerous sources is that if the ice caps melt, sea levels will rise by meters depending on how much of the ice caps melt, it may only be a few but in the worst case scenario I read that it could be over 80 meters, but thats just impossible.....I hope.

Obviously Me again you are Religious, correct me if im wrong though,thsi is not an attack on religion either, but I believe that only we can fix the earth and repair the damage that has been dne, its not just going to go away and get better with a divine being coming along and fixing everything, its our problem and our responsibility, we must fix it and in the end it is up to us to make a difference and save ourselves.

Well I am not religious, but spiritual. I was being sarcastic (sort of) of Bushs' environmental record. You as a person can only do what you can do ( ie. recycle, conserve energy, etc.) So until you join Green Peace or whatever environmental protection organization you would like to, protecting the earth must be an individual effort. This I do believe a divine being can help, but first you must know that it can

Some scientists say we're heading for another ice age and some say the danger is global warming. If it makes you feel any better type in global cooling and they will give you something else to worry about.

This is true, the reason the ice floats is because it's buoyant with air pockets, as the ice melts, the air is released to the glass would be less full. However, I'm not quite sure about the effects it would hold on our Earth.


Well, here in America, the New Orleans coast in the Gulf of Mexico is slowly being eaten up with water coming in from drilling and such...if water levels continue to rise, Mardi Gras might have to be celebrated somewhere else by 2100.

That is not necessairly the case. A solid is more compressed than a liquid, and a liquid more than a gas. Sure, you can have air in an ice cube which would occupy space... you could even make a hollow ice cube if you wanted to... but the polar ice caps are a bit different. The amount of air that would be released would be miniscule compared to the rising water level because of the melting IIRC... and it seems Im right because most major scientists studying this are worried about the sealevel rising...

That's true, ice in a glass of water is no comparison to the bergs in the ocean in which land and temperature levels and evaporation is involved.


I pulled this quote from this Site
It has a lot of other interesting information, but it relates to the Antarctic...however I'm sure the information would be useful regarding the Arctic as well.

However, this Site has a large amount of interesting and credible information regarding the Arctic, a large number of pictures that show ice thickness, north pole trends, rising and lowering temperatures all over the arctic and more. In the article, it says that sea ice has declined by over a third in the last 130 years. Also,


Here are the results that are expected (If Bush doesn't care about Greenland now, he'd better hope someone cares about America when Louisianna and Florida start to go underwater):

i myself am actually not religious at all, and for the reply saying ice is more compact than liquid, this is true for other elements how ever water actually expands when frozen, i found this link which actaully states in a more scientific way what i was saying earlier about the sea levels dropping

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae667.cfm

Typical. The liberal ideology is to take the hard work of others and dispose of it for their own non-constructive ideology. They seek to decimate the human standard of living. The libs new favorite tactic is to use global warming as some phenomena that will cause a great flood on par with that of bibical proportions and to claim the world will experience a heat wave that will wipe out vast populations on this earth. Nothing new, liberal tree huggers going at it again by using scare tactics. Here's is a great article I stumbled upon that can relate. http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=New...ws_iv_ctrl=1021

Um, ok then, so are you saying you don't think the Earth is changing at all? Regardless of WHY or HOW, the Earth IS changing. Any country trying to race to the finish line of being the best and most superior country by picking and choosing which countries to help and when. Bush is helping build governments on the other side of the world including killing Americans, however he doesn't want to help out another country with proven environmental problems because it doesn't benefit him. Plain and simple. Cut and dry. That's how this world is and that's how America is by choosing a leader like Bush, he'll go after the countries that help him look good (even though the rest of the world hates him and wants him replaced) and that he can take from (there's oil over there) however countries that don't help him in anyway, yet that our country direcly affects, he doesn't want to help because there is no added benefit for him to do so.

You talk about decimating the human standard of living, so your standard, in your words, would be that war is good, killing is good, even if it's our own people, and that other countries with problems that AMERICA affects don't deserve to be heard because their problems are environmental and it doesn't matter...
I don't want to put words in your mouth, however, before going after the world (because if you haven't noticed, UNEP is behind Greenland) for what they say because it's environmental, don't by hypocritical because you have to look at all viewpoints, environmental, war, whatever. Many would say that the decimation of human standards is being lowerd with the war in Iraq, but that doesn't mean it's not a problem.

i didnt know that the ice caps are melting because of bush, thats a new one for me

WTF!!! Good god man, what are you talking about? Wars and environmental activism are completely different things.


What I am talking about are hippies blaming man as the sole perpetuator of global warming when in fact it has been an on going occurence over the last 18,000 years because we have been slowly pulling out of the ice age which preceded this occurence. It has been researched and proven by scientist that the earth has gone through vast temperature anomalies over the past several thousand years greater than the ones we are experiencing now. It is known that about 15,000 years ago that the temperature in Greenland *rose* about 4 degrees celsius on average over a span of 50 years!

I am talking about European socialist (an ideology that takes a step back toward the tree) who want to assert measures to reduce the thowing of the ice caps for the sake of a few hundred primitive fishing Ekimos at the cost of hundreds of millions of developd people. I am not talking about the war in Iraq.

correction on the dipped, changed to rose

Edit
Removed obscenities

They aren't melting because of Bush, however America plays a large part in the pollution and UNEP simply believes that he should try to enact some procedures to minimize our pollution, instead he's spending money on the war on terror. I was just trying to state that his priorities are a little hypocritical.

And Frosty, honestly, I'm sorry if you didn't like my statement, I was agreeing with your last post up until your very rude and degrading last line. If you want to be nasty, tell me in a PM and don't submit the whole forum to read your vulgarity. I appreciated you explaining yourself better and I agreed with your point, however my point is still what I explained in my paragraph above as well. That regardless of if it's the Earth's natural changes, I highly doubt our pollution output is so great when Bush could spend money that doesn't go towards innocent deaths but in improving America's environmental standards.

Frosty - please refrain from making personal attacks and using obscenities in your posts, it is quite possible to put your point across without trying to insult someone in the process.

I don't appreciate people fabricating stories that because I don't believe with the Kyoto comprimise and environmental activist that it makes me out to be a war mongor of sorts. At least that's what I got from it.

My stance is why should we scarifice for the sake of another when the consiquences reaped by our sacrifice is on par with that which will be felt by the people of those nations if we do not make this sacrifice? Sacrifice is the ideology of a slave. Fact is, if the melting of the ice caps is such a problem for these people, why can they not help themselves? Like many people say on this forum, the US has no business in other peoples affairs. So why not start applying that philosophy by not signing the Kyoto treaty?

Well I'm sorry I came off as trying to fabricate a story in your name, I was merely trying to understand your point of view so I put what I thought you meant.

But to further my understanding, I guess I'm still confused on what you're saying, because you just said " the US has no business in other peoples affairs." Now correct me if I'm wrong, please, but you don't want the Kyoto agreement signed because America will in turn have to make a sacrifice. Doesn't that SAME standard have to be applied to the war occuring in the middle east? Starting a government over there should not be America's stand, it should be left to the people that live there. I am asking if you are just against this environmental act and not that situation over there, when the theory is the same. Because if you are just against the environmental act, then that's different from you actually meaning what you're saying. Are you also in turn against the war on the over there considering it agrees with your statement that you made? I'm simply asking because in your earlier statement, you said "liberal tree huggers" in your argument making it sound, to me at least, that you dislike what the "liberal tree huggers" or "environmental activists" are doing, so do you feel the same about the people in Iraq with Americans butting our way into their government (because when someone uses words like those, it implies you're against that side and on another). Or do you also feel that the Americans should, in NO way, with ANY country, butt our noses into the business of other countries?
I just want to get your opinion on other issues aside from environmental ones. To see if you mean what you say.

I think America, being considered a strong country, should help countries when necessary. But not overstep boundaries or decline help to a country if there's no benefit. When it comes to aiding a country, I think it should be up to the UN because it's the world that must work as a team to make sure humanity doesn't fall apart. Humans built themselves up, but we can also be our own destruction.