j_b

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3077422.stm Kazakhstan's glaciers 'melting fast' By Alex Kirby BBC News Online environment correspondent The political stability of a key central Asian state could be imperilled by climate change, researchers say. They say glaciers are melting so fast in parts of Kazakhstan that the livelihoods of millions of people will be affected. They found the area's glaciers were losing almost two cubic kilometres of ice annually during the later 20th Century. With regional temperatures rising, they believe climate change is responsible. The scientists, led by Dr Stephan Harrison of the University of Oxford, reported their findings at the annual conference in London of the UK's Royal Geographical Society and Institute of British Geographers. They concentrated on the Zailiiskiy Alatau range of the northern Tien Shan mountains, which stretch through Kazakhstan and its neighbour Kyrgyzstan, and into China (the name means "the celestial mountains"). The mountains, which run for 2,000 km (1,250 miles) along the north-west edge of the Tibetan plateau, form an important climatic barrier between the Siberian and central Asian air masses. Long observation period There are 416 glaciers in the region, covering 510 square km (197 square miles). Dr Harrison and his colleagues, from the University of Newcastle, UK, von Humboldt University, Germany, and the Kazakh Academy of Sciences, say they have been losing nearly two cubic km of ice a year between 1955 and 2000. Between 1974 and 1990, the glaciers lost 1.28% of their volume each year. The Tuyuksu glacier, 30 km (18 miles) south of Kazakhstan's largest city, Almaty, has been monitored by the country's scientists since 1902, with less detailed observations dating back to the 1870s. Since 1923 it has receded by nearly a kilometre, losing about 51 million cubic metres of ice. The team says these changes have serious implications for river runoff, and therefore for Almaty's water supply. Many of the rivers which supply the irrigation schemes essential to agriculture are fed by glaciers and permafrost in the upper ranges of the Tien Shan, so the livelihoods of millions of people will be affected. The authors say not only Kazakh agriculture and development will be jeopardised but the political stability of a swathe of central Asia, as many of the rivers and glaciers cross state frontiers. Warming up Kazakhstan uses about 90% of its water for irrigation, with an efficiency of only 40-60%, and it is adding 9,000 hectares (22,000 acres) to the irrigated area every year. The scientists say the glaciers' "consistent pattern of retreat over the latter part of the 20th Century... is associated with a small but pervasive rise in mean annual temperatures". Dr Harrison said: "The effects of global warming on glaciers are not just of interest to scientists, as glacial retreat has profound political, economic and social repercussions." He told BBC News Online: "I think we can be certain the reason why the Tien Shan glaciers are melting is climate change. Uncontaminated evidence "We have the climate records themselves, which go back to early last century. Sceptics often argue that records of this sort are contaminated by the proximity of urban centres. "But these records are from glaciers 3,000 m (9,800 feet) up, nowhere near any towns or cities. "They're confirmed by the evidence from tree rings, which preserve a record of climate conditions as they grow, and by the meteorological records. "Taking all three together, I think we have to say that climate is affecting the glaciers."

o'reilly will be on fresh air in a couple of weeks to present his new book, so you can quit your whining now. (so much for liberal npr) e-rock is correct. fox sued franken for copyright infringement to satisfy o'reilly desire for revenge. if they had thought they could get revenge via a libel suit, they would have done so. in turn, liberals insulted by conservative talk show hosts, did not try to exact revenge in any form whatsoever so their not filing libel suits is consistant throughout in this respect (which cannot be said for fox and o'reilly). i hope you can see the difference .... moreover, winning a libel suit over being called a traitor or worse ... is very difficult if not impossible for individuals in the political arena because it can be said to be rhetorical, whereas winning a libel suit over being called a liar w.r.t. having won 2 peabody awards would probably be relatively easy if o'reilly could show that indeed he won the awards or that he never claimed so. it should be noted that o'reilly apparently repeatedly claimed to have won peabodies (the most prestigious award in journalism) to ward off accusations of running a tabloid like show. finally, one would think that a network with the motto 'fair and balanced' would want to set the record straight when their stars are accused of making things up.

Maybe because they feel no one takes Franken seriously and he isn't worth wasting the time of day talking about. so it was worth it for o'reilly to have fox sue franken for copyright infringement but it would not be worth their while to sue for libel & defamation? i think thatguy is right, they can't do anything about it because they lied.

"Responding to a comment by Franken that he intended the cover to be a joke, Hanswirth used the ridiculous, but understandable, conservative argument that Franken has become "increasingly unfunny" since he began making fun of them."

funny, i watched that c-span program and what i saw was franken rip o'reilly a new one. in particular, he confronts o'reilly about his lies concerning his getting peabody awards (in response o'reilly can only spout his trademark: shut up). for anyone who has any doubts here is the link to the show, it starts getting good at minute 27. no kidding it is worth it. http://www.booktv.org/feature/index.asp?segid=3630&schedID=196 odd how conservatives can dish it out but can't take it. for years liberals have been the object of stupid jokes and insults by conservative talk show hosts and you guys thought it was funny. just watch, al franken won't stop dishing it out. you better get used to it. now you can read franken's book and you'll see that he discusses issues as well. and ... he is funny.

btw franken will be at the uw (kane hall) on sept. 22 at 7p.m.

on the brink of war? a little weird?

"Completely dense" FOX viewers mistakenly buy new Al Franken book U.S. District Judge Denny Chin admits he overestimated the intelligence of conservative book buyers. New York--Preliminary sales figures and exit interviews at area book stores over the past week indicate that millions of FOX News viewers are too stupid to realize Al Franken's new book is mocking them. The confusion is all the more troubling in the aftermath of FOX News Channel's lawsuit filed last week to stop the release of Franken's book. Lawyers for the FOX network predicted just such mass confusion in arguments to U.S. District Judge Denny Chin Friday. "The use of the FOX news trademarked phrase on the cover is likely to cause confusion among consumers as to the origin and sponsorship of the book." FOX Attorney Dori Hanswirth said. "You have to remember that people who watch FOX and listen to AM talk radio aren't what you'd call 'critical thinkers.' They don't call themselves 'Dittoheads' for nothing for complete piece: http://freepressed.com/

can: 'tago-mago' and 'hunters and collectors'. i still have the lps, true gems.

better odds than winning the lottery. yet, many people play ...

from the clean air act: The term "air pollutant" means any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive (including source material, special nuclear material, and byproduct material) substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air. http://www.epa.gov/oar/caa/caa302.txt

heavy crude takes more processing, it is thus more costly to produce gasoline from it. given the choice, which type of crude would you have used to make a profit?

we have used high grade light crude oil over heavy crude oil whenever possible over the 100years. oil reserves are now composed of a much greater proportion of heavy crude.

just terrible news. i'd talk to the cops about it. it should not be too difficult to find the sickos. please post your tr.

go away, troll.

actually i was being nice (don't ask me why) in giving you the benefit of the doubt. the alternative would have been to assume you were being thick on purpose.

just try a little harder and you'll get it.

you failed reading comprehension .... again. has anyone here argued for removing all co2 from the atmosphere? troll.

pollutant is not quite equivalent to toxic but i agree with you that what's a pollutant or not depends on context. within the context of global warming, co2 is a pollutant.

The Plain English Guide To The Clean Air Act: Pollutants (pollution) -- unwanted chemicals or other materials found in the air. Pollutants can harm health, the environment and property. Many air pollutants occur as gases or vapors, but some are very tiny solid particles: dust, smoke or soot. http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/peg_caa/pegcaa10.html

http://freepressed.com/real_american_suckit.htm

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=438719 US says CO2 is not a pollutant By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles 31 August 2003 The Bush administration has decreed that carbon dioxide from industrial emissions - the main cause of global warming - is not a pollutant. The decision by the Environmental Protection Agency - announced with minimal fanfare on the eve of the Labor Day weekend - reverses the stance taken under President Clinton and allows industry to increase emissions with impunity. It is also part of a pattern of casting doubt on scientific evidence, going back to the US's rejection of the Kyoto Protocols in 2001. Earlier this year, the Bush administration excised a 28-page section on climate change from an EPA report. It also ignored a report by the US Academy of Sciences that argued that the evidence of climate change could not be ignored. "Saying that carbon dioxide does not cause global warming is like refusing to say smoking causes lung cancer," said Melissa Carey, a climate change expert with the advocacy group Environmental Defense. Environmental groups are now considering suing the EPA to force the regulation of greenhouse gases. The Bush administration appears to be guided by a leaked memo by the political consultant Frank Luntz, which advised: "Should the public believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate.

i don't have first hand info but there are several other worthy objectives on the north side (north ridge and nw face). moreover, the nw face of the north ridge is short and usually very straightforward (at most 45deg) and should not require too much extra gear that you would not usually carry for a trip across boston glacier. my $.02.

anyone interested in wesley clark? he seems highly qualified and has a reasonable stance on most issues. http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/poll.htm "DraftWesleyClark.com Releases Zogby Poll: In “Blind Bio” Match-Up, Wesley Clark Tops All Current Democrats, Beats Bush 49% to 40%" check out the "on the issues" page for further info.

whether or not you should work on weekends depends on the culture of your department. what do other students do? what about your advisor's other students? you know the answer to these questions and if you can't fit in (which is completely allright) perhaps you should look somewhere else for something more adapted to your expectations.