nast.streltsowa'Journal: ноября 2012

понедельник, 26 ноября 2012 г.

Rendering №11

      The article published on the news website “YubaNet.com” on November 21, 2012 is headlined “9.6 Million Acres Protected as Critical Habitat for Northern Spotted Owls”. The article reports at length that conservation groups today hailed protection of 9.6 million acres of critical habitat for the threatened northern spotted owl across federal lands in Washington, Oregon and Northern California, but were deeply disappointed by the exclusion of all private and most state lands, resulting in a 4.2 million cut from the proposed designation. Speaking of this situation it is necessary to note that the owl has continued to decline since being protected under the Endangered Species Act in 1990, in part because of continued loss of habitat on private and state lands. In this connection it is worthwhile mentioning the fact that today's designation replaces a 2008 designation by the Bush administration that had ignored years of scientific evidence showing that spotted owls in the Pacific Northwest needed more, not less, old-growth forest habitat protection, and had slashed a 1992 designation of nearly 7 million acres by more than 1.5 million acres. It is also necessary to note that Noah Greenwald, endangered species director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said that “In restoring extensive protections on federal lands, today's decision, protecting millions of acres of habitat for the spotted owl, marks the end of a dark chapter in the Endangered Species Act's implementation when politics were allowed to blot out science. It is, however, deeply disappointing that the Obama administration has elected to exclude all private and most state lands, which are absolutely essential to the recovery of the spotted owl and dozens of other wildlife species”.
     Giving appraisal of the situation it’s necessary to point out that while the final rule restores protections to essential federal lands, it fails to fully account for and implement the recovery goal of critical habitat because it proposes to exclude far too much habitat on non-federal lands. Many of these lands provide essential habitat for the owl; many private lands in the "Redwood Coast" region, for example, are absolutely essential because the owl can nest in younger trees with redwoods and the owl's productivity is consistently higher in the redwood zone as compared with the remainder of the range. In resolute terms the author of the article gives a warning that conservation groups also remain concerned about statements in the proposed critical habitat rule calling for "active management" of spotted owl critical habitat, including logging. The scientific basis for logging existing spotted owl habitat to benefit the species remains questionable, at best, with numerous studies demonstrating the owl is sensitive to logging of its mature and old-growth forest habitat. It’s an open secret that 20 percent of the Pacific Northwest's original old-growth forests remain. In addition to providing critical habitat for spotted owls, salmon, steelhead and other species, mature and old-growth forests are important sources of clean water and help reduce global warming.
     The article concludes by saying that "Independent scientific peer reviews have been crystal clear on owl recovery being tied to protection of old forest habitat especially as competition with the more aggressive barred owl increases and climate change further stresses spotted owl populations," according to Dominick DellaSala, chief scientist and former member of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2006-2008 recovery team who initially raised concerns about lack of habitat protections under the Bush proposal. In addition, conservation groups, represented by Kristen Boyles, attorney with Earth Justice, successfully challenged the 2008 designation, resulting in today's designation.
     As for me, I think that nowadays we should care not only about money and ourselves but also about our nature and the environment. We need to protect our world and it’s up to us to defend nature, and ensure its continuing existence and future recovery. Humans can’t survive alone on this planet. We depend on every living thing for the lives we so selfishly lead, and it is our duty to protect it since we've decided it's our right to do whatever we want. The only thing I can say is SAVE THE SPOTTED OWL. SAVE THE ANIMALS. SAVE THE TREES. SAVE YOUR EARTH, YOUR HOME. We are nothing on our own.

суббота, 17 ноября 2012 г.

Rendering №10

     The article published on the website of the newspaper "The Fox News" on July 10, 2012 is headlined "Answer to speedy tree growth lies in air pollution, Auburn University Study shows". The article reports at length that pollution is good for the environment. Speaking of this situation it is necessary to emphasize that while the scientific community worries about greenhouse gas emissions contributing to global warming, a new Auburn University study suggests that air pollution may actually be helping to speed the growth of young, carbon-absorbing forests in the Southeastern U.S region.
      The article quotes Hanqin Tian, a professor at Auburn's School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences and lead author of the study published in the journal "Ecosystems", saying: "Our study actually showed that Southeast carbon uptake is much faster than other regions.This area has trees that are very young and the growth is very fast. So, they uptake more carbon from the atmosphere".
      In resolute terms the author of the article expresses the view that, a computer model of the environment set up by the researchers that takes into account natural and man made variables such as land use, climate and pollution in the past century, shows that moderate amounts of air pollution in the form of carbon and nitrogen had a "short term" fertilizing effect on young forests. So, pollution turns out to be good for the environment because "in the short term, it could increase the carbon uptake", and lead to faster forest growth, though "that’s not guaranteed for long".
      In this connection it is worth while mentioning the fact that the Auburn study suggests the Southeast is approaching a “tipping point.” The region’s urban areas are growing. And, despite the temporary fertilization effects of atmospheric carbon and nitrogen, Tian said increasing levels of other pollutants, such as ground level ozone, threaten to do more harm than good to the environment in the long-term.
      The article then quotes as "take-home passage" the conclusion that what Americans really need to do is an "urban/land use planning and also air pollution control to help the Southern U.S. forests to become maybe a sustainable carbon sink."
      As for me, it's very surprising that this newspaper along with its correspondent has such beliefs about the environment that are the opposite of truth. They tell us that pollution is good for forests. In other words, it can be that the real pollution is a clear air. It's very strange, and I guess that the editors were off their center when allowed this article to appear in the newspaper.

while the scientific community worries about greenhouse gas emissions contributing to global warming, a new Auburn University study suggests that carbon-absorbing forests are growing faster in Southeastern U.S., thanks to carbon from air pollution.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/328681#ixzz2CUqL0FiY

Answer to speedy tree growth lies in air pollution, Auburn University study shows

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/07/10/answer-to-speedy-tree-growth-lies-in-air-pollution-auburn-university-study/#ixzz2CUmi2CXk

вторник, 13 ноября 2012 г.

Individual Reading. "The Hunt for Red October"

Individual Reading. "The Hunt for Red October" Parts 1-5

понедельник, 5 ноября 2012 г.

Rendering №9

The article published on the website of the newspaper "The New York Times" on October 30 is headlined "Did Global Warming Contribute to Hurricane Sandy's Devastation?". The article carries a lot of comment on whether the bizarre storm called Sandy was a product, in whole or in part, of human-induced climate change or not. It's an open secret that climate scientists are just not in a good position to answer this question yet.

Speaking of this situation it is interesting to note that several scientists said that surface temperatures in the western Atlantic Ocean were remarkably high just ahead of the storm — in places, about five degrees Fahrenheit higher than normal for this time of year. In fact, part of the ocean was warmer than it would normally be in September, when accumulated summer heat tends to peak. However, it is necessary to point out that other scientists are looking at this year’s historic loss of sea ice in the Arctic as a potential contributor to the track of Sandy, and possibly to the severity of the storm. In this case it is necessary to point out that Dr. Francis, a Rutgers University climate scientist, noted that an atmospheric blocking pattern over Greenland — possibly linked, in her view, to the loss of sea ice in the nearby Arctic Ocean — had helped force the storm to make a left turn into the United States mainland.

Nevertheless, there are also signs that by the end Sandy was also pulling energy from a second source: the sharp differences in atmospheric temperature and pressure that normally drive winter storms. Analyzing this situation it is necessary to emphasize that Kerry A. Emanuel, a leading climate scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, pointed out that little analysis had been done of whether this type of storm might become more frequent or intense as the earth warms in the coming century. There is every reason to believe that though the number of Atlantic hurricanes will stay the same or even decrease with global warming, but the intensity of the storms that do occur is likely to increase.

There is every reason to believe that the ocean rise is a direct consequence of global warming. Warm water expands, just as warm air does, and the warming of the ocean is one factor behind the rise. Another is that land ice the world over is starting to melt as the climate grows warmer, dumping extra water into the ocean. It's an open secret that the ocean rose about eight inches in the last century. The rate appears to have accelerated recently, to about a foot per century, and some scientists think it will accelerate further, so that the rise between now and the end of the century could exceed three feet.So, there are indications that the problem will be exacerbated in places where land is also sinking, such as the mid-Atlantic region of the United States and southern Louisiana.

All in all, the author of the article doesn't express his own opinion - he just plainly describes the fact and opinions of different scientists. But, I suppose, that he agrees with Kerry A. Emanuel, because he concludes the article with his words that the likely effect is that coastal flooding on a scale that once happened only once or twice per century — the scale of Sandy, in other words — will become much more commonplace within the coming decades. So, there is a reason for the USA to build their houses as far back from the beach and as high up as they do, according to Dr. Emanuel words, because sea-level rise is putting their built structures closer to the water line, in effect.

As for me, I think that Sandy (as well as the Russian heat wave and Pakistani floods of 2010) is somehow connected with global warming, The environment changed greatly in the last century which led to the increase of different hurricanes, earthquakes and tsunami. And as far as I know, all these climate changes are results of global warming. And the global warming, in its turn, is the result of scientific and technological progress. So, everything has a connection and now we pay the price for the increased human activity. It's hard for me to predict the course of events in future, but I know that if we do not want another "Ice Age" we should stop destroyng the planet (which is also our home by the way).

воскресенье, 4 ноября 2012 г.

Review №3

The Pelican Brief (1993)

Cast:

Julia Roberts, Denzel Washington, Sam Shepard, John Heard, William Atherton, John Lithgow, Stanley Tucci

Director:

Alan J. Pakula

Synopsis:

After two Supreme Court Justices are murdered, law student Darby Shaw, puts together a brief outlining her theory of who's behind the killings. Having done so, she finds herself in the mortal danger. Her only hope of escaping death and proving her theory lies in Washington newspaper reporter Gray Grantham, whom she turns for help.

Review:

“The Pelican Brief” is based on the John Grisham novel of the same name, written for the screen, produced and directed by Alan J. Pakula in 1993.

'The Pelican Brief" is a film about a young law student Darby Shaw’s theory (Julia Roberts) about the assassinations of two Supreme Court justices, and it just happens to be true. The paper reaches the president through a chain starting with her law professor (also her lover) and uncovers a conspiracy involving the chief executive Victor Mattiece. Thus, the government does anything and everything to kill her; including murdering everyone she comes in contact with. I think Julia Roberts’ performance is superb and realistic. She managed to put her heroine as a clever young woman with all her fears and doubts, who is able to succeed in difficult and dangerous situations, not doing things that leave a trail, like the usage of credit cards…

Helping Darby is Gray Grantham (Denzel Washington), a Washington newspaper reporter who agrees to meet with her and becomes involved, because of the incredible attention and readership it would bring to him. I think Denzel Washington performance is also great. He gave a true example of a reporter, who fights for sensations, however sets the humanity and justice on the front plan. For example, having read Julia’s brief Denzel Washington decides that he must protect her from death (instead of writing a story about it, since he is a newspaper reporter). So, Denzel very believable performed a passionate journalist, known for his masterful investigations.

However, there were some confusing and hard to follow elements in this film too, like a great number of characters. While watching the movie, it was often difficult for me to tell who was who, because most of the actors were dressed absolutely alike and had a similar style. Moreover, though I don’t know why, their faces were undistinguishable for me too. I think it may be a minor flaw in either costume or casting that made me always guess who was a bad guy and who was a good one.

Nevertheless, I like this movie, “The Pelican Brief” is very entertaining, suspenseful and goes through many ups and downs and twists and reveals to us the effects of a government conspiracy. The chief executive (also an oil tycoon) wants to drill for oil on the marshland which is a major habitat of an endangered species of pelican. In order to do so, he, the president and all their friends go on length to protect their image, even if that means murder. So, here we see an example that politics is a very dirty business, and many of those people who are involved into it want more and more (especially money) and will do everything to reach their aim (even destroy the environment and kill innocent people). I’m very glad that in the end of the film the main heroes managed to show the real faces of these politicians, thus saving other people’s lives and protecting the environment (the endangered species of pelicans).

All in all, in spite of several shortcomings, this film is superb and shifts from drama to action movie practically effortlessly. Though I suppose that "The Pelican Brief" is probably not to everyone's taste, but I personally like it; it shows the modern disregard for environmental matters, the real face of politics and the ways people use to reach their goals. It is very truthful, I believe. In addition, it would be also very interesting for me to read John Grisham’s novel on which this film is based, in order to find out all the details which any movie simply cannot convey…

понедельник, 26 ноября 2012 г.