Pictures of Global Warming

[zubin]

1. Denali: 1919-2004




2. Holgate: 1909-2004




3. Muir: 1949-2004

[indian_blues]

it is really sad to read abt global warming ....one of the main culprit is US for this and they should sign the kyoto protocol to reduce the greenhouse gases if they dont they are surely betraying not only humans but to entire living beings. I believe in future we(only humans) are going to live in WATER WORLD due to global warming. peace.

[donsaeid]

alot of changes have we seen lately! mizane oxygene hava kheili pain omade! yakha ab shodan! milliardha ton co2 midim be atmosfar!

but look! gohe gav va baghiyeye heyvanat az hameye mashinhaye donya bishtar gazhayi ke bade baraye layeye ozon tolid mikonan!

another thing is im seeing! if it is happening it is too late to save anything or anybody!

but i dont know alot about this! so i really have to read!

[mike435]

i think the blame game has started way to early

we have to wait for some more research to come out

rember a single volcano that erupts that realses alot more gas than a whole city

and volcanos are just one inctont


there are 1500 year cycle

so many difrent thing

[mike435]

no offence man but why are your poll question so one sided they all perty much mean the same or totaly sencless

one choice should be
these pictures prove that global warming excists due possible human and natural circumstances.

[golgol85]

haha, mike the choice you are talking about is the "support" choice. What is happening is not due to "possible human and natural" occurances. Humans have had a drastic effect on the atmosphere.

What causes global warming?
Carbon dioxide and other air pollution that is collecting in the atmosphere like a thickening blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm up. Coal-burning power plants are the largest U.S. source of carbon dioxide pollution -- they produce 2.5 billion tons every year. Automobiles, the second largest source, create nearly 1.5 billion tons of CO2 annually.

Here's the good news: technologies exist today to make cars that run cleaner and burn less gas, modernize power plants and generate electricity from nonpolluting sources, and cut our electricity use through energy efficiency. The challenge is to be sure these solutions are put to use.

Is the earth really getting hotter?
Yes. Although local temperatures fluctuate naturally, over the past 50 years the average global temperature has increased at the fastest rate in recorded history. And experts think the trend is accelerating: the 10 hottest years on record have all occurred since 1990. Scientists say that unless we curb global warming emissions, average U.S. temperatures could be 3 to 9 degrees higher by the end of the century.

Are warmer temperatures causing bad things to happen?
Global warming is already causing damage in many parts of the United States. In 2002, Colorado, Arizona and Oregon endured their worst wildfire seasons ever. The same year, drought created severe dust storms in Montana, Colorado and Kansas, and floods caused hundreds of millions of dollars in damage in Texas, Montana and North Dakota. Since the early 1950s, snow accumulation has declined 60 percent and winter seasons have shortened in some areas of the Cascade Range in Oregon and Washington.

Of course, the impacts of global warming are not limited to the United States. In 2003, extreme heat waves caused more than 20,000 deaths in Europe and more than 1,500 deaths in India. And in what scientists regard as an alarming sign of events to come, the area of the Arctic's perennial polar ice cap is declining at the rate of 9 percent per decade.

Is there really cause for serious concern?
Yes. Global warming is a complex phenomenon, and its full-scale impacts are hard to predict far in advance. But each year scientists learn more about how global warming is affecting the planet, and many agree that certain consequences are likely to occur if current trends continue. Among these:


Melting glaciers, early snowmelt and severe droughts will cause more dramatic water shortages in the American West.


Rising sea levels will lead to coastal flooding on the Eastern seaboard, in Florida, and in other areas, such as the Gulf of Mexico.


Warmer sea surface temperatures will fuel more intense hurricanes in the southeastern Atlantic and Gulf coasts.


Forests, farms and cities will face troublesome new pests and more mosquito-borne diseases.


Disruption of habitats such as coral reefs and alpine meadows could drive many plant and animal species to extinction.



Could global warming trigger a sudden catastrophe?
Recently, researchers -- and even the U.S. Defense Department -- have investigated the possibility of abrupt climate change, in which gradual global warming triggers a sudden shift in the earth's climate, causing parts of the world to dramatically heat up or cool down in the span of a few years.

In February 2004, consultants to the Pentagon released a report laying out the possible impacts of abrupt climate change on national security. In a worst-case scenario, the study concluded, global warming could make large areas of the world uninhabitable and cause massive food and water shortages, sparking widespread migrations and war.

While this prospect remains highly speculative, many of global warming's effects are already being observed -- and felt. And the idea that such extreme change is possible underscores the urgent need to start cutting global warming pollution.

What country is the largest source of global warming pollution?
The United States. Though Americans make up just 4 percent of the world's population, we produce 25 percent of the carbon dioxide pollution from fossil-fuel burning -- by far the largest share of any country. In fact, the United States emits more carbon dioxide than China, India and Japan, combined. Clearly America ought to take a leadership role in solving the problem. And as the world's top developer of new technologies, we are well positioned to do so -- we already have the know-how.

How can we cut global warming pollution?
It's simple: By reducing pollution from vehicles and power plants. Right away, we should put existing technologies for building cleaner cars and more modern electricity generators into widespread use. We can increase our reliance on renewable energy sources such as wind, sun and geothermal. And we can manufacture more efficient appliances and conserve energy.

Why aren't these technologies more commonplace now?
Because, while the technologies exist, the corporate and political will to put them into widespread use does not. Many companies in the automobile and energy industries put pressure on the White House and Congress to halt or delay new laws or regulations -- or even to stop enforcing existing rules -- that would drive such changes. From requiring catalytic converters to improving gas mileage, car companies have fought even the smallest measure to protect public health and the environment. If progress is to be made, the American people will have to demand it.

Do we need new laws requiring industry to cut emissions of global warming pollution?
Yes. The Bush administration is promoting an initiative in which energy companies cut emissions only if they choose to do so. As the past 10 years have clearly shown, though, voluntary programs do not stop the growth of emissions. Proposals to cap emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping pollutants from America's largest sources -- power plants, industrial facilities, and transportation fuels -- are gaining support in Congress.

Stricter efficiency requirements for electric appliances will also help reduce pollution. One example is the 30 percent tighter standard now in place for home central air conditioners and heat pumps, a Clinton-era achievement that will prevent the emission of 51 million metric tons of carbon -- the equivalent of taking 34 million cars off the road for one year. The new rule survived a Bush administration effort to weaken it when, in January 2004, a federal court sided with an NRDC-led coalition and reversed the administration's rollback.

Is it possible to cut power plant pollution and still have enough electricity?
Yes. First, we must use more efficient appliances and equipment in our homes and offices to reduce our electricity needs. We can also phase out the decades-old, coal-burning power plants that generate most of our electricity and replace them with cleaner plants. And we can increase our use of renewable energy sources such as wind and sun. Some states are moving in this direction: California has required its largest utilities to get 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2017, and New York has pledged to compel power companies to provide 25 percent of the state's electricity from renewable sources by 2013.


Just thought you might like to know the answers to the above questions Mike

[zubin]

but look! gohe gav va baghiyeye heyvanat az hameye mashinhaye donya bishtar gazhayi ke bade baraye layeye ozon tolid mikonan!

lol. Ajab hayvanati!

[mike435]

i love it i just love it

i am not saying global warming does not excist

i am not saying it is not becuase of hummans

i am saying it is not smart to jump to a conclution that man has done it right away

who knowes maybe this is part of a much much bigger cycle that we cant even see becuase of our reasearch maybe its not maybe its all humans

i have seen the grapghs i have seen alot of the stuff showing the world is getting warmer and worse

but at the same time i took some introductory geogrophy and astronomy classes i know i know they are just a grain of sand but still the world is huge huge

i dont think that its all humans
i dont think right now probably it will change i dont know
maybe i am naive

[donsaeid]

lol. Ajab hayvanati!

yeah! just humans and animals "goh" is great danger if we blindly look at numbers and gass! everytime somebody farts! that is not good for Ozon! im not joking it is fact

who knowes maybe this is part of a much much bigger cycle that we cant even see becuase of our reasearch maybe its not maybe its all humans

yeah maybe it is all nature cleaning it self! and if you compare ice melting now with what happend in noah time! maybe then it was ice meltings!?!

So maybe it all is just a cycle!

or Maybe We have Fed world with too much shit that it is exploding!

[zubin]

i love it i just love it

i am not saying global warming does not excist

i am not saying it is not becuase of hummans

i am saying it is not smart to jump to a conclution that man has done it right away

who knowes maybe this is part of a much much bigger cycle that we cant even see becuase of our reasearch maybe its not maybe its all humans

i have seen the grapghs i have seen alot of the stuff showing the world is getting warmer and worse

but at the same time i took some introductory geogrophy and astronomy classes i know i know they are just a grain of sand but still the world is huge huge

i dont think that its all humans
i dont think right now probably it will change i dont know
maybe i am naive

yeah maybe it is all nature cleaning it self! and if you compare ice melting now with what happend in noah time! maybe then it was ice meltings!?!

So maybe it all is just a cycle!

or Maybe We have Fed world with too much shit that it is exploding!

So Mike, Saeid, if you are not convinced that human beings ruin the earth with industrialization and consumerism, you know the only way to prove that it is true... is to drastically slow down culture of industry and consumerism and see if a "reversal" happens and if the earth is saved.

(Tanha rahi ke meetuneem motmaen besheem ke sanaat va capitalism global warming ro eejad meekone eene ke sanaat va capitalism ro meghdare zyadi motovaghef koneem va bebeeneem earth halesh behtar meeshe ya na)

[donsaeid]

So Mike, Saeid, if you are not convinced that human beings ruin the earth with industrialization and consumerism, you know the only way to prove that it is true... is to drastically slow down culture of industry and consumerism and see if a "reversal" happens and if the earth is saved.

im not saying that human totally did it or nature has its way! what im saying is that i dont know enough about this issue! we ahve to do researches! alot!

but at same time we have to be better to take care of our world! we dont need to slow down our industry! but make it cleaner!

Industrial Revolution was a massy and dirty prosses which has harmed nature alot! and now China has its own industrial revolution with coal plants and oil plants to make electricity and other stuff! and cars! india and china! think if all of them had a car! it is 2 billion humans! and we lose jungle everyday! it is like earths lungs! so

we need to do research but become cleaner too! we dont know enough about this issue!

i support kyoto agreement!

[zubin]

im not saying that human totally did it or nature has its way! what im saying is that i dont know enough about this issue! we ahve to do researches! alot!

but at same time we have to be better to take care of our world! we dont need to slow down our industry! but make it cleaner!

Industrial Revolution was a massy and dirty prosses which has harmed nature alot! and now China has its own industrial revolution with coal plants and oil plants to make electricity and other stuff! and cars! india and china! think if all of them had a car! it is 2 billion humans! and we lose jungle everyday! it is like earths lungs! so

we need to do research but become cleaner too! we dont know enough about this issue!

i support kyoto agreement!

een harfamo edit kardam. Meegam baraye eenke be tore elmi azmayesh koneem ke aya industry/capitalism ba esse global warming meeshe ya na, va tabeei neest, bayad eena ro be tore zyadi motovaghef kard va asarasho deed. Dar zemn, agar industry/capitalism ba esse global warming meeshe, faghat ba "clean" kardane industry dorost nemeeshe. Bayad farhange khodkhah va zyadi masraf konandeye ensan ke keshvaraii mesle amreka be donya zur kardan avaz beshe be farhange manteghi tar. Na eenke peeshraft nakone, vali farhange masraf kardane alaki az bayn bere, be alave peeshraftaye technology ke alludegi ro kam khahand kard (mesle mashine electriki). Farhang va technology bayad joteshun peeshraft konan va kheyli vaghte ke janbeye een hast. Yek ede kami az adama hay ensan ro aghab oftade, be jango een cheeza meebaran be jaye peeshraft.

Eenam mesali az shorooe een farhange behtar. Masalan, business-ha agar beeshtar "local" bashan ham baraye eghtesad behtare, ham baraye barabari behtare, ham zendegi kayfeyate behtari dare, ham masheen alaki masraf nakhahad shod. Mesal zyad hast ke neshun meede cheghadr masraf alaki meeshe ke az lahaze ejtemaii, baynolmelali, salamati, va moheeti zarar daran. Moshkel yek eddeye khassi az jameeye emruze (mesle Bush) ke daran az een farhange alaki sood meekonan. Vali goore pedare een adama! Kheyli vaghte ke een adama bayad az jamee part beshan, bedune heech rabti be global warming. Vali hala ke eena tamame zameeno be khatar endakhtan va aslan ahameeyat be olume zameen shenasi va ayadeye ensan nadaran deege mozu kheyli jedditare...


Going Green: Limited time offer: guilt-free shopping
The Vancouver Sun
Sat 18 Nov 2006
Page: L7
Chantal Eustace

In a Vancouver Sun article on environmental consumerism, UBC Political Studies Prof. Cara Camcastle says green shopping should be supported by the government.

Camcastle says individuals often feel it is unfair for them to make personal lifestyle changes, such as paying higher costs for organic vegetables, while rich corporations cause so much environmental damage.


Going Green: First question: How big is your footprint?
The Vancouver Sun
Sat 18 Nov 2006
Page: L4
Darah Hansen

UBC ecologist William Rees comments in a Vancouver Sun article on ecological footprinting.

"Picture a tiny perfect planet -- partially covered with forests, partially covered in ocean -- pumping out as much oxygen and food that you would need to continue to live as you do. It's a measure of your ecological footprint," says Rees, who coined the term more than a decade ago.


Going Green: Celebrating sensibly
The Vancouver Sun
Sat 18 Nov 2006
Page: L5

UBC professors Kai Chan, Bill Rees and John Robinson are among five sustainability experts asked by Vancouver Sun how to incorporate green philosophies into Christmas.

"Instead of having a culture of giving gifts to everyone, we have a Secret Santa where each person only gives to one other person," says Chan. "This greatly reduces how much we buy, and [has] increased the utility of the things we do buy. We've made Christmas much more a celebration of being together."


Going Green: Right now, for the first time in tens of thousands of years, you can swim to the North Pole: Kerry Gold explains why, having ignored global warming, she is suddenly paying attention

The Vancouver Sun
Sat 18 Nov 2006
Page: L4
Kerry Gold

UBC professors John Robinson and William Rees comment in a Vancouver Sun article on environmental guilt and denial.

Rees says: "The deep denial that politicians experience over specific issues like climate change is complicated by the fact that, if society acts decisively to avoid it, there will be winners and losers and the potential losers happen to be politically powerful oil companies and car makers."


Going Green: Valuable education
The Vancouver Sun
Sat 18 Nov 2006
Page: L2

The Vancouver Sun reports: Balancing sustainability with business practices has moved from the boardroom to the classroom at UBC, where the Sauder School of Business is launching its first MBA program in sustainability and business.

Starting in January, the program, a collaboration between the business school and the university's faculty of forestry, will offer studies in a range of sustainability topics, including environmental economics, sustainable development and corporate social responsibility.


Going Green: The S-word is paying off: Business: Starting as a buzzword, 'sustainability' gains wide acceptance
The Vancouver Sun
Sat 18 Nov 2006
Page: L9
Gillian Shaw

In a Vancouver Sun article, Peter Nemetz of UBC's Sauder School of Business says in a lot of cases on sustainable business practices can add to companies' bottom line.

Nemetz says corporations loathe being seen as the companies that destroy habitats with pollution, and realize that aligning themselves on the side of sustainability can win customers at the same time as it keeps them on the right side of regulatory authorities.


Going Green: Saving our planet, more or less
The Vancouver Sun
Sat 18 Nov 2006
Page: L2
Darah Hansen

UBC professors John Robinson, William Rees and Kai Chan comment in a Vancouver Sun article on definitions of sustainability.

Robinson, head of UBC's Institute of Resources, Environment and Sustainability, says: "It is an attempt to get beyond a doom-and-gloom story and to articulate a positive and integrated vision of a desirable future." He argues it is important we accept that sustainability is not simply an environmental or ecological agenda. It also incorporates social and economic dimensions.


Going Green: Face the facts about 'natural' ingredients: Preservative-free products aren't always better for you, experts warn
The Vancouver Sun
Sat 18 Nov 2006
Page: L15
Jenny Lee

In a Vancouver Sun article on green toiletries and cosmetics, UBC Medicinal Chemistry Prof. Adam Frankel says marketing campaigns, whether for conventional or alternative product, can be misleading. As an example, he notes that "natural" ingredients may have been extracted with the help of harsh chemicals.


Going Green: 'Buy Green' Movement: Hot, here and trendy: Consumerism: It's influencing our choices in food, housing, clothing and travel, and B.C. is on the leading edge
The Vancouver Sun
Sat 18 Nov 2006
Page: C5
John Wiebe

UBC is cited in a Vancouver Sun op ed by John Wiebe, president and CEO of the Globe Foundation of Canada, an international environmental business consultancy.

"Examples of green building and ecologically sound urban design include ... major residential developments underway on the campuses of UBC and SFU," writes Wiebe.

[donsaeid]

so what you saying is this? " let us go back to our basics!"? we were there! it didnt work so well!

but do you think that will answer? we need big corps for cheaper stuff! with local people in norway will never have had banana!

[zubin]

so what you saying is this? " let us go back to our basics!"? we were there! it didnt work so well!

but do you think that will answer? we need big corps for cheaper stuff! with local people in norway will never have had banana!

not completely local with no trade, but the control should be local. trading should be between local systems, not in control of deceptive corporation.

Local systems can respond to local needs more, increase employment and sense of community and equality, less pollution, more nature, more community contribution to needs, more rational with better democracy; also more freedom because control is with individual and community instead of corporation and government; also better sense of relationships between trading communities because in hands of community and not corporation; also better health.

It is needs based economy, not market based, so you don't need to worry about prices. This system has been used successfully in parts of South America and solves community problems. It is also the only way of solving Africa problem and other problems of poverty. If we don't care about needs of people and care more about market, then we are killing people and making them suffer. And this will not last. People are angry about this now and do not want to be slaves of market with always some people having advantage. Needs and equality are becoming more and more important and avoiding the problem only brings conflict, killing and suffering. I'll try to bring articles about it.

I am not saying we should go back to our basics. For example, electric car is not going back to basics. Sometimes architecturing planners and city planners find that the more beautiful and advanced a community and residence is, the more environmental friendly it is.

We should first progress in culture before technology so we know how to use technology without ruining humanity and environment. With combination of industry and colonialism, West took away the right for world progress and only imposes its own style of progress. But this can be defeated with cultural advance in areas of economy, social philosophy and environment, and we can start using technology in way that is more enjoyable with less health risk and less risk to environment.

For example, McDonald's is not advanced concept. Getting rid of McDonald's is advanced and makes community more healthy and more advanced and more beautiful. Pollution is not advanced and is health risk and environment risk, not advanced. When you look, everything that is bad for environment is also bad for health and progress of human being, and even progress of using technology in good and enjoyable ways for future happy life.

[mike435]

community based economy as good as they appear they still wont workk for a huge population

the best example of community based economics is the kibbutz system and even that still couldnot match the output and efficency of the free market capitalisom

another reason community based economy wont work is because the world has been globlized mass communication. I mean we are no longer citizen of a country but i think world.

also one more important thing natural human aspiration creats divercityt and that divercity will not let community based economics grow.
the only reason i think it worked in the kibbuts was becuase the perople were united towrds one goal and that was to build a country and more important to survive. Because of shadow of anihalation they worked together and they sacrificed individual wants to better the community.
also this is the only example that i have come acroos were it worked if yyou know anyother please share especialy if counter this.


the best system i think is japanes
free market capitalisom but motive is not profitering for the sake of just makking money but profitiering for community and rules or morals

people say japan is the only succesfll communist country

and i think its true

also for todays times these ideas are no longer aplicaple
for example we are at a point were it is better to use fertilizers hormons and other sythentic things that harm the enviorment rather than echo friendly stuff becuase if you do use it you need more land for farming which will be land that is currently being used by forasts and its more of a harm to deforest than to be ecofirendly in farming

also as much i hate globalization i still have to bow down to the fact globlazition has better socioty and the world

today less people than ever before live in poverty
to day more people than ever before can afford and consume things that it was only imposible

also globalization really does benefit everyone
the only thing is how to distrubute that benefit and keep the created wealth that the avrage person makes not to only be enjoyed by the "owner" rather a fair system of disturbution

the sad thing about this is that it wont bring you happyne
that is why many time my grandparetns used to say even thogh we didnt have anything we were still much happier