The Alaska legislature wants to use $2 million in state money to fund an "academic based" conference to highlight the views of scientists who don't think the polar bear should be put on the endangered-species list. The U.S. Interior Department must make a decision by May 15 on whether polar bears are a threatened or endangered species, and "[w]e want to have the money to hire scientists to answer the Interior scientists," says Alaska House Speaker John Harris (R). Proponents of the conference are concerned that a polar-bear listing would adversely affect Alaska's economy; critics point out that the Interior is required to base its decision on science, and all the science points to imminent polar-bear woe. Says researcher Rick Steiner, "This truly is the conference to nowhere."
source: Anchorage Daily News
EU pushes China further after pledge to slow carbon intensity
On ‘climategate’
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
Comments
View as Threaded
caniscandida Posted 8:22 am
07 May 2008
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 3:36 pm
07 May 2008
Then again, their idea of "scientist" could lead to some interestin' results...
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 5:02 pm
07 May 2008
a) That they are threatened by a risk of reduction in the amount of ice and snow in their environment.
b) That they are incapable of adaption to a new environment.
Evidence and reasoning please!
Here in Australia, the Eastern Grey Kangaroo, and several other species to a lesser degree are in plague proportions in some areas. The reason for this is that humans have vastly expanded their preferred habitat by providing open grazing together with drinking water, in what was previously forest and/or barren country.
They hop across highways even in broad daylight, and I have recently witnessed the aftermath of several serious car accidents near where I live in North-East Melbourne. (like windshields/windscreens stoved-in like a bathtub). At night out-of-town is when the most carnage occurs. With alertness, one can see their eyes reflecting by the side of the road, and can slow down, because what they do is, wait carefully till you are almost upon them, and at the precise moment of perfection, hop out across in front of you. Even being aware of this, I have hit one kangaroo at night, some years ago.
In outback country, the yokels fit big bull-bars, so it is not so much a problem in the financial sense.
I have also had some close-shaves with black wallabies, around dusk or dawn, and I guess they would weigh-in at about 60Kg.
Don't get me wrong, I love kangaroos, and if I see a fresh one dead by the side of the road, I check to see if it's a she with a joey in the pouch.....same with wombats.
However, what really gives me the shits are these goodie goodie greenies, mostly Americani, whom rile against our treatment of kangaroos.
The greenies need to be reigned-in and given some teaching in reality!
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 6:06 pm
07 May 2008
b) That they are incapable of adaption to a new environment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bears
Polar bears can only consistently hunt from sea ice.
Polar bears eat seals. Seals come up through holes in the sea ice.
Polar Bears have displayed no method or adaptation to compensate for a reduction in sea ice.
The only known polar bears that don't hunt from sea ice are ones in zoos (which are hand fed), and ones that raid garbage dumps (which put 'em in conflict with humans, as well as health hazards)
Not listing the polar bears because they could develop an adaptation in the future that we may not know about would be foolhearty.
It's be like saying we shouldn't spend any money on AIDS or cancer research because maybe our bodies will naturally adapt to it in the future.
...Not a good idea to take the chance.
And wow, kangaroos are different than polar bears, who'd guessed? * rolls eyes *
Permalink
javaearth Posted 12:51 am
08 May 2008
then the fishermen do not have to brutally kill the seals.
the fishermen can allow the pollar bears to eat the seals ands leave fish for the people?
I am not advocating to eating animals, I am just trying to find solutions.
Thanks
The vegan with a solution.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 12:34 am
09 May 2008
http://www.defenders.org/take_action/upcoming_events/nati ....
Washington State seems to have thrown its heart into the celebration with special enthusiasm.
But there are some Alaskans too who seem up for celebrating.
The San Diego Zoo, it should be noted, is a bit off the schedule, celebrating its own Bear Awareness Long Weekend, which began yesterday (Thursday the 8th) and will be ending on Sunday.
A new, creepy issue in bear conservation that has emerged recently is that North American bears (grizzly bears and black bears) are being poached, to supply body parts (organs especially) for use in Chinese traditional medicine.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 1:03 pm
09 May 2008
The type of seals that polar bears eat are usually ringed and bearded seals, which are not the type hunted in Canada (usually fur seals) the seals have different habits and behaviors that may make 'em incompatible with polar bears.
Plus it's not known how the subtle differences in the seals' physical characteristics (both internal and external) would effect the polar bears if they were consumed.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 1:42 pm
09 May 2008
You entirely miss my point about Eastern Grey Kangaroos in Australia.
They have benefited from human disturbance of the landscape as a consequence, of increased grazing and water availability, and are at plague proportions in some areas, necessitating culling. Yet, we get theses goodie goodie greenie alarmists protesting and talking endangered species!
When it comes to your comments about lack of adaptability of polar bears to a hypothesised change in environment which might be warmer than the MWP or the earlier Roman Warm Period, when they survived, this amounts to the same sort of goodie goodie nonsense.
Bears are amongst the most curious and intelligent of predators. Furthermore, IF and when their favourite diet can no longer hide under the snow, the seals will be forced to birth on rocks just as with today's UK grey seals. (who's cubs still have signature white coats from the ice age) The bears may then gorge on easier to obtain prey until a new balance is reached, possibly interfered with by a new generation of goodie goodies
Polar bears may have a favourite diet of arctic seals, but did you know that they eat other stuff, including fledgling birds in some areas? I also doubt that they have their preferred diet in warm-climate zoos, where they seem to cope OK
Meanwhile goodie goodies; what about the MILLIONS of HUMAN BEINGS dying horribly in Africa etc
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 2:39 pm
09 May 2008
They are true seals, i.e. of the family Phocidae. Though they are killed for their fur, are NOT fur seals, who are relatives of sea lions in the family Otariidae.
It is not at all impossible that in the northern part of their range, off Canada's northeast Arctic coast and Greenland's west coast, polar bears do indeed feed on them. They belong to the same genus as the seals who are probably the bears' favorite prey, the ringed seals (P. hispida), and presumably would be similar food items for the bears. The other seal species which TasPar mentions, the bearded seal, is also a true seal, but belonging to a different genus: Erignathus barbatus.
It is possible that the harp seals go to the Gulf of Saint Lawrence to have their babies precisely because those waters are relatively free of predators (except for the human kind). In that case, it would seem like a blow at sustainability to import some polar bears from Alaska in order to feed on them.
Moreover, there is probably a good ecological reason why polar bears do not live thereabouts at present.
Also, the seals are not responsible for the problems with North Atlantic fisheries; people are.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 7:16 am
10 May 2008
You might as well stop pretending to care about the natural environment or other species, because it's quite clear you don't.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 8:24 am
10 May 2008
"Proponents of the conference are concerned that a polar-bear listing would adversely affect Alaska's economy."
I was unaware, (and am uninterested) of the matters in your quote above.
The topic was polar bears, and even if all the ice disappeared, they are highly inquisitive and intelligent predators. Don't they also eat kelp and a few other things than seals?
We could always do food drops if necssary..... Bugger the millions of human beings dying from other problems
I am against alarmism and loss of priorities in the goodie goodie greenie movement
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 11:57 am
10 May 2008
To confine 'em to rocky shorelines would slow 'em down and increase competition dramatically, since seals only have a limited range. Seals can't survive for indefinitie periods in open waters with no ice, so they'd be forced to stick closer to shore, which would limit their distribution, and the amount of food available.
As the population faces a massive die-off, then within 1 or 2 generations, the polar bear population will follow suit.
Polar bears are usually extremely territorial animals. Male bears will kill the cubs of females if they get the chance. As sea ice becomes more limited, their confined to a smaller range, there's more bear conflicts, competition increases, and only limited resources are available.
The populations would decline.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 1:49 pm
10 May 2008
"IF the sea ice disappears, and the seals are forced to birth on rocks, the population of seals naturally plummets. For one, the seals themselves are naturally adapted to ice."
NONSENSE:
The natural balance of nature will adjust to the new circumstances
Compare the protected UK grey seal which comprise ~40% of the world population. The pups have lovely white coats, which are a signature of when the UK was in the grip of an ice age. They adapted to change. Canadians, (some) think there are too many.
If polar bear predation became too great in Alaska, then I'm sure the US authorities would set-up sanctuaries, after culling the bears if necessary.
Polar bears are smart and omnivorous. They like seals but they eat other stuff too.
Are they not said to be on the increase in Canada. (P. bears)
How about fixing the suffering of humans in Africa? Did you hear about that?
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 3:31 pm
10 May 2008
Fiji...no doubt.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 8:50 am
11 May 2008
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 11:01 am
11 May 2008
Nature only adapts when change takes place at a natural rate. In other words, very slowly.
The ice age and subsequent warm period didn't just happen over a few years. The transition took thousands of years.
Nature may not adapt when change is sudden or cataclysmic.
If it did, then the dinosaurs would've survived the meteorite by instantly adaptin' to the climate change that followed.
Polar bears are smart and omnivorous. They like seals but they eat other stuff too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bears#Hunting_and_diet ...
Polar bears are the most carnivorous of the entire bear family. Seal meat is especially important to cubs, since, along with mother's milk, it is all they eat. Polar Bear cubs eat only seal meat, it is essential to their diet
If polar bear predation became too great in Alaska, then I'm sure the US authorities would set-up sanctuaries, after culling the bears if necessary.
That's the whole point of listin' polar bears as endangered. Endangered species get those sanctuaries. They wouldn't get culled though.
If polar bears need to be culled because sea ice disappears, then that means their population has declined and will be limited. That's what we wnat to avoid. We want to stop the population from declining.
How about fixing the suffering of humans in Africa?
Poor countries, particularly those in Africa, are expected to be the worst hit by climate change. To help out those people, we need to limit it.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 11:32 am
11 May 2008
[...]
Nature may not adapt when change is sudden
You are contradicting yourself.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 11:39 am
11 May 2008
Are there no other ways to help those people?
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 11:57 am
11 May 2008
If sea ice is permanently disappearing, why would one want the population of polar bears not to decline?
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 12:48 pm
11 May 2008
You are wrong and confused about many things with polar bears. Here are a couple, just as a quickie:
1) You wrote: "Polar bears are usually extremely territorial animals."
Untrue according to your Wikipedia link.
2) You misunderstood this exchange:
ME: If polar bear predation became too great in Alaska, then I'm sure the US authorities would set-up sanctuaries, after culling the bears if necessary.
YOU: That's the whole point of listin' polar bears as endangered. Endangered species get those sanctuaries. They wouldn't get culled though.
Silly boy; The reason for culling the bears if necessary was that they might proliferate be eating too many seal pups which would become more exposed to predation by the bears.
3) In another exchange:
ME: How about fixing the suffering of humans in Africa?
YOU: Poor countries, particularly those in Africa, are expected to be the worst hit by climate change. To help out those people, we need to limit it.
You don't seem to be aware of what is happening NOW to many millions of humans, and the DO-ABLE things that are not being done. When I have more time I may enlighten you
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 1:20 pm
11 May 2008
Sure. But why not help by also making sure the situation doesn't get any worse to begin with.
If sea ice is permanently disappearing, why would one want the population of polar bears not to decline?
Apparently, you've missed the controvesry behind the polar bear listing. Part of the reason the listing is so controversial is because it can effects outside the polar bear's natural habitat.
If they determine that the polar bears should be listed as endangered due to to shrinking sea ice, and that shrinking ice is due to human-induced climate change, then, under the Endangered aSpecies Act, they can take action against that force, in any way they see necessary.
In other words, they can order power plants and emissions limits across the whole of the United States (the jurisdiction covered by the Endagered
Species Act) in order to curb GHGs and try to stave off the shrinking ice as much as possible.
The point is to stave off the polar bear decline by trying to stave off the decline in sea ice as much as possible, not the other way around.
"Polar bears are usually extremely territorial animals."
Untrue according to your Wikipedia link.
Ah, should've been much more specific, I see. Territorial durin' mating and birthing season. As I said, it's not uncommon for adult males to try and attack cubs, 'specially if mom isn't around.
Silly boy; The reason for culling the bears if necessary was that they might proliferate be eating too many seal pups which would become more exposed to predation by the bears.
Silly idiot. If the sea ice disappears, then the number of seal pups would decline, not increase, even with more exposure on th beaches, there'd be less of 'em to go around. The seals rely on the ice almost as much as the polar bears.
You don't seem to be aware of what is happening NOW to many millions of humans, and the DO-ABLE things that are not being done. When I have more time I may enlighten you
My final thesis was over the design and construction of refugee camps in Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo. I'm pretty damn sure 300+ pages of written report on the subject have made me at least a little bit of an expert on the subject.
And if you really were enlightened on the subject, then you'd realize that as horrendously nightmarish as things are now, that abrupt global climate change could make things a hundred times worse.
There's no point in helping out now, if you're just going to ignore threats to the future that may well lead us back where we started. It has to be a dual approach. help out with we can now, while at the same time tryin' to avoid threats to the future.
Any humanitarian knows this to be true. Otherwise, the end result will be cyclic, and ultimately little will be accomplished.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 3:41 pm
11 May 2008
Black Wallaby, if you'd notice my moniker, you'd maybe get the point that my priority is NOT grossly overpopulated humans, but instead the rest of the planet which humans are quickly destroying.
And BTW, considering your highly anthropocentric attitude, your moniker is a great insult to the animal from whom you've taken it.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 4:04 pm
11 May 2008
You said that before:
Tasermons Partner wrote: We want to stop the population [of polar bears] from declining.
If sea ice is permanently disappearing, why would one want the population of polar bears not to decline?
What is the purpose of the polar bear such that there is a point to staving off its decline?
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 4:16 pm
11 May 2008
Securing the well-being of people is by no means to be distinguished from securing the well-being of animals. What is good for one species is good for all species.
And there is no insinuation more evil, than the one that suggests that we who work for the welfare of animals must hate human beings, and look on their sufferings with very cold hearts.
I find BlackWallaby's insinuation to that effect extraordinarily offensive.
We are into the second day of Bear Awareness Week, by the way: best wishes to one and all for a sweet celebration!
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 4:22 pm
11 May 2008
Sea ice can also be generated artificially via nuclear power. The habitat need not ever change, regardless of the average global temperature.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 6:46 pm
11 May 2008
That's if something untoward happens up there of course. You, know, whilst meanwhile it gets colder in the Antarctic
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:55 pm
11 May 2008
So if wind/wave machines could be used to produce a frigid seawater aerosol that would crystalize as snow, that floating slush would provide a base for ice extension. And it would build up the thickness of the ice.
The larger the ice mass that forms in winter, the longer it will last into summer, reflecting solar, helping to curb warming.
A wind/wave power ship that serves as a giant snowmaking machine in winter could generate power in a stationary anchorage the rest of the year. What a crazy project.
Greenpeace? Environmental studies could also be conducted from the ship. Strategic extension of ice specifically to save remaining polar bears might be feasible? And it would be a test of the possibility of more ships actually helping to fight GHG climate change.
A few more percent of arctic or antaractic ice might just make a big difference. What about ships that switch poles depending upon the season? Remote control in dangerous conditions might be possible also, to protect the crew during really bad winter storm weather. Let the crew take a break onshore.
Nuclear powered, hehey? I don't think so buddy.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 1:45 am
12 May 2008
The human race is grossly overpopulated and fits the medical definition of being a cancerous tumor on the planet.
Every form of life has an equal right to live, though the vast majority of modern humans refuse to recognize or honor that right, or to recognize that everything in the natural world is alive.
Humans have polluted every inch of the Earth, caused major harm to every ecosystem, and are now causing the sixth great species extinction, the last of which took place 65 million years ago. This is the first major extinction caused by a species.
Scientifically, if that's what you respect, there is no evidence that humans are any better or more important than any other species. In fact, considering the facts listed above, it seems that humans rank well below other species in importance of ecological benefits.
The ones really suffering on this planet are everything NOT human. Humans are thriving, despite the individuals who are suffering. Other forms of life are suffering greatly as a whole.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 3:33 am
12 May 2008
Plus, a nice idea for the setting of a murder mystery, or a horror story: a remote, isolated, sea-water-aerosol-producing ship, at "stationary anchorage" off Antarctica ...
(Hmmm: all the Adelie penguins who flee the onslaught of a sea-leopard leap onto a piece of floating ice -- which is strangely glowing -- ; and they are afterwards never the same ... )
Wolverine (ha!, cute X-Men segue!),
thanks again for attacking anthropocentrism, especially in its vile and offensive BlackWallaby form.
Practically, I agree with everything you wrote. I.e., I do not think any immediate action that you might propose on the basis of your five observations would be objectionable.
More conscientiously, though, as a student of ethics, I think it is acceptable in some regards for us to give priority to those who are most closely related to us: in decreasing degrees, to relatives, friends (who may indeed tie for first with relatives, and may often precede them), neighbors, fellow religionists (?), fellow employees, fellow travelers on a commuter train, etc.
But that does not by any means justify injustice toward sentient beings who are more distantly related to us.
Your second point is at issue:
<<
Every form of life has an equal right to live, though the vast majority of modern humans refuse to recognize or honor that right, or to recognize that everything in the natural world is alive.
>>
I agree with everything in that sentence, except for "equal right."
Many ethicists and political philosophers have a hard time explaining the concept of "right," which is especially embarrassing seeing that that concept is a foundation of our post-Enlightenment civilization.
It seems difficult to pontificate that the right of one kind of living creature is always equivalent to the right of another, with whom it is competing for life. In principle that may be possible; but in actuality, it is almost always necessary to choose.
Anyway, animal-rights ethicists are having a hard enough time getting the interests of plainly sentient animals recognized -- e.g., all the vertebrates, plus certain invertebrates, such as some arthropods (crustaceans) and the cephalopod mollusks. In time, our ethical evolution may very well give attention to the less plainly sentient animals in time, as well as to fungi (which are more closely related to animals than to plants), plants, and the rest. But for now, so long as we do not burn any bridges, we have our task at hand.
And it should disturb us all, that while sensitivity to the interests of sentient animals is growing in the US (or so I understand), the appetite for meat is growing elsewhere, along with the affluence required to procure it.
Anyway ...
Bear-Week thought of the day: In C.S. Lewis's "Prince Caspian," in which animals are anthropocentristically admired only inasmuch as they can think and speak like human beings, an unprovoked non-speaking bear attacks Peter, Susan, Edmund, Lucy, and the Dwarf Trumpkin, as they are making their way through a thick forest. Trumpkin kills it with a single arrow, then pronounces, "There is good eating on that bear"; the carcass is minorly butchered, the flesh is wrapped in leaves and stuffed in pockets, and later, everyone dines on strips of bear wrapped around apple slices, toasted on an open fire.
My reaction, of course was: But What Would Aslan Do?
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 4:52 am
12 May 2008
Apparently, ya need to learn the definition of an ecosystem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem
Every native living thing is an important part of its ecosystem (humans bein' a possible exception). Other plants and animals have evolved alongside those creatures for thousnads, and in some cases, millions of years. The stability of an ecosystem itself is determined by the coexistence of various plants and animals in ways such as feeding groups/webs, mutualism, parasitism, communalism, etc.
To remove one species would interrupt certain parts of this web and may have a dramatic effect on the system as a whole.
With polar bears, they are the apex predators within their range. Several animal species, particularly arctic foxes and glaucous gulls, routinely scavenge polar bear kills. The relationship between ringed seals and polar bears is so close that the abundance of ringed seals in some areas appears to regulate the density of polar bears, while polar bear predation in turn, regulates density and reproductive success of ringed seals. The evolutionary pressure of polar bear predation on seals probably accounts for some significant differences between Arctic and Antarctic seals. Compared to the Antarctic, where there is no major surface predator, Arctic seals use more breathing holes per individual, appear more restless when hauled out on the ice, and rarely defecate on the ice.
The seals, foxes, gulls, and other species that interact directly with the polar bears also interact with a number of other species themselves. If a dramatic change in the polar bear population occurs, it would filter throughout the ecosystem, changing it's very basic elements very quickly.
In this way, polar bears may even be considered a keystone species.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:10 am
12 May 2008
Totally bizarre by contrast is questioning what might be the "purpose" of a species, with the implicit diabolic suggestion that nothing is worth anything unless you can prove it is worth something.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 6:47 am
12 May 2008
Wikipedia was plagiarized to produce the above-quoted comment-text of Tasermons Partner. Except for seven words in the first sentence, all of the text quoted above from Tasermons Partner's comment was copied verbatim from the Wikipedia article on polar bears.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bears#Ecological_role
Ecological role
The polar bear is the apex predator within its range. Several animal species, particularly arctic foxes and glaucous gulls, routinely scavenge polar bear kills.[46]
The relationship between ringed seals and polar bears is so close that the abundance of ringed seals in some areas appears to regulate the density of polar bears, while polar bear predation in turn, regulates density and reproductive success of ringed seals.[44] The evolutionary pressure of polar bear predation on seals probably accounts for some significant differences between Arctic and Antarctic seals. Compared to the Antarctic, where there is no major surface predator, Arctic seals use more breathing holes per individual, appear more restless when hauled out on the ice, and rarely defecate on the ice.[46]
The opening sentences are similar (differences highlighted):
Tasermons Partner: With polar bears, they are the apex predators within their range.
Wikipedia: The polar bear is the apex predator within its range.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 6:51 am
12 May 2008
One can thank Wikipedia for much of the text:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bears#Ecological_role
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:40 am
12 May 2008
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 8:13 am
12 May 2008
Since ya obviously haven't been payin' attention the links, (otherwise you'd have known how important polar bears were to the ecosystem, and wouldn't have asked the question) I decided to be more upfront and post the information directly.
I see that it worked, and that you've have read the article! ;)
Hopefully now you'll realize just how important polar bears are, and why this listing for the Endangered Species Act means so much.
Ain't it funny how that works out? ;)
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:22 pm
12 May 2008
I thought about this on the trail and realized that a far simpler device would do this arctic snowmaking much better though. Just wind/wave powered buoys that pump seawater up into the wind.
If these were mass produced and controlled to move in front of the edge of the forming ice, maybe enough extra coverage could be attained to really help reflect enough sunlight to signifigantly effect GHG climate change?
Likewise maybe these kind of buoys in the tropics could increase moisture in the air, forming reflective clouds and increasing rainfall in arid regions. High pressure pumps powered by wind/wave/solar could shoot water way up into the air from the top of the wind tower.
They could be extremely powerful given wind/wave energy resources. Greening whole arid desert regions near coastlines. Clouds in tropical regions are very effective at reflecting solar heat.
This maybe another mechanized solution that could do some crucial geo-engineering. Spraying water into the air doesn't seem that radical either, not like injecting compounds into the upper atmosphere or dumping iron in the ocean on a massive scale to grow more algae.
Permalink
Robco1 Posted 6:50 am
13 May 2008
Every living species has a purpose. We depend on all living species for our own survival, because we are a part of the same environment. For instance, polar bears control seal populations, which control fish population, which control photo and zooplankton populations, which control the nutrient flow in the oceans . . . and so on and so forth.
I think your problem may be in the way you think of humanity's basic relationship to our environment. OUR environment, not THE environment. Maybe it doesn't exist to serve us, but we exist as a part of the whole, and have a responsibility to protect the whole?
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 10:01 am
13 May 2008
Does a species adapted to living on sea ice have a purpose if there is no sea ice?
Permalink
Robco1 Posted 1:08 pm
13 May 2008
The bears are a "canary in a coal mine" (no pun intended. Okay, maybe just a little). If they go, we may very well follow.
Might I suggest a little remedial reading? Any junior high school ecology textbook will do the trick . . .
This little exchange is a perfect illustration of the fundamental difference in world view between environmentalists and anti-environmentalists. Or how about a more forgiving term: "conventional thinkers." Conventional thinking sees mankind as the purpose of evolution, and that all living things and substances of any kind exist solely to be used by mankind. Environmentalists recognize this attitude as the childish conceit a three year old. Children that age and younger can not yet recognize that the things around them exist when they are out of that three year old's sight.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 1:28 pm
13 May 2008
Does a species adapted to living on Earth have a purpose if it destroys the Earth?
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 1:33 pm
13 May 2008
It's fine to prioritize one's friends, family, etc. in making personal decisions. It's not OK for society as a whole to prioritize humans over other species, especially when humans are thriving and the rest of the planet is dying because of them.
"I agree with everything in that sentence, except for 'equal right.'"
The practical meaning of "all species have an equal right to live" is that it's not OK to kill anything except to eat it. Respecting this right would radically change human society for the better in the way that it interacts with the rest of the planet. Just think, the air, water, and land are alive, so no amount of artificial pollution would be allowed. Can't kill trees, we don't eat them. Etc. Of course this can't be taken to a microscopic extreme, because we probably kill things just by walking or breathing, and there would certainly be exceptions for killing things like biting mosquitoes. But anyone with any sense gets the idea.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 2:09 pm
13 May 2008
Do you mean the entire world ecosystem would collapse? If so, do you mean that would happen even in a case of just one sea-ice-less pole?
Hein de Baar says he expects the first iceless North Pole summer to arrive in 40 years, or maybe 7 years.
digitaljournal.com/article/254633
De Baar has also seen with his own eyes that the ice at the other side of the planet, the North Pole, has broken all records in September 2007. He expects it not to be the last. "We think that in forty years time there will be no more ice at all on the North Pole after the summer. But, if we apply new calculations, it may well be from 2015 onwards. White sea-ice reflects sunlight. The pitch-black water that replaces the ice, absorbs that light, and this accelerates the melting."
If cooling is desired, why not simply float reflectors in the equatorial Pacific Ocean?
Permalink
Robco1 Posted 2:20 pm
13 May 2008
Again, I urge you: remedial ecology 101.
Permalink
Robco1 Posted 2:33 pm
13 May 2008
What you need to take away from all of this, though, is the circumstances of that mass-extinction. Messing with natural systems produces snowballing counter-effects. That is in no way a certain outcome, any more than it is certain that smoking WILL cause cancer in a given number of years. But only an idiot thinks they can consume a witches brew of cancer-causing chemicals without increasing their risk of bad things happening to them. We can't afford to be that reckless and stupid.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 3:32 pm
13 May 2008
...251.4 million years ago.
seedmagazine.com/news/2008/04/suspending_life.php
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Triassic_extinction_event
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 5:43 pm
13 May 2008
"This is probably a waste of time, but I'll try again. If there is no sea ice at the poles, the entire ecosystem collapses. We depend on that ecosystem for our survival as much as polar bears, or seals, or zooplankton for that matter."
It has also been observed by sane biologists that wherever there is a potential niche for life, even the bizarre, that life will indeed occupy it, no matter how weird it may seem.
IF, repeat, IF the relatively small eco-system dependent on sea ice were to collapse, then there would be a new balance in nature. Generally, the warmer it is, the greater is the scope for complex eco systems. Better still if there is increased feedstock CO2 for photosynthesis
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 5:52 pm
13 May 2008
"...don't you think that loosing the reflectivity of all that bright white ice will have an, um, effect on global systems?..."
Did you know that most of the heat in high latitudes actually comes from the tropics?
Did you know that the albedo of ice up there is not hugely different to that of water, when the sun is low in the sky? (take a look at the sun over water near sunset)
Did you know......oh that will do
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 6:09 pm
13 May 2008
Once again, please look at the link I provided previously for ecosystem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem
If it was the world, then it'd be called a biosphere:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere
Ya know, if you'd just do alittle research on Wiki or just on the internet in general, we wouldn't haveta take our time to inform ya on simple definitions which most informed people already know when they enter these forums...
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 6:28 pm
13 May 2008
It can be a useful starting point but great care must be taken to check the wider realm of information especially when emotional issues are involved.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:38 pm
13 May 2008
courage, my child; do not be dismayed by the brick walls and the underbiters from down below. Your heart is in the right place, and I admire your zeal.
It goes without saying that life on Earth will survive, even if the worst scenarios for the current global warming crisis and biodiversity crisis play out. But we human beings now alive most certainly have powerful ethical interests in maintaining the community of living creatures as we know it; and the warming of Arctic and Antarctic ecosystems is surely disturbing that community. Sensible people obviously understand your words about "collapse" to refer to the imminent destruction of the community into which we have all been born, and NOT to the perishing of all organisms.
The Seed article, by the way, is cute and fun, but not altogether convincing. I like very much the writer's assertion that all of us tetrapods (and probably also non-tetrapod marine vertebrates as well, including bony fishes and elasmobranchs) bear some scar from the terrible Permian-Triassic mass extinction event. But I doubt that homeothermy (present in Mammals, Birds, and some extinct Reptiles) is one of them. The lineages of synapsid "mammal-like reptiles," shading invisibly into true mammals, toward the middle to late Triassic, as well as a few of the diapsid archosaur lineages, especially dinosaurs and pterosaurs, seem to have convergently evolved homeothermy. But that development came ten or twenty million years after the P-Tr extinction event. Meanwhile, lots of reptiles who were poecilothermic flourished, and continue to flourish: the turtles, those tough survivors, neither synapsid nor diapsid, ever mysterious; the diapsid non-archosaur lizards and snakes; and the diapsid archosaur crocodilians.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 6:46 pm
13 May 2008
Please stop raping me.
Tasermons Partner wrote: haveta [...] inform ya on
Please use standard English when addressing me.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 7:26 pm
13 May 2008
Do you have anything to say about Wolverine's comments which I paste below?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, Black Wallaby, at least we agree on where our differences lie. Here's the reason human suffering should not be prioritized:
The human race is grossly overpopulated and fits the medical definition of being a cancerous tumor on the planet.
Every form of life has an equal right to live, though the vast majority of modern humans refuse to recognize or honor that right, or to recognize that everything in the natural world is alive.
Humans have polluted every inch of the Earth, caused major harm to every ecosystem, and are now causing the sixth great species extinction, the last of which took place 65 million years ago. This is the first major extinction caused by a species.
Scientifically, if that's what you respect, there is no evidence that humans are any better or more important than any other species. In fact, considering the facts listed above, it seems that humans rank well below other species in importance of ecological benefits.
The ones really suffering on this planet are everything NOT human. Humans are thriving, despite the individuals who are suffering. Other forms of life are suffering greatly as a whole.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I couldn't figure if it was intended to be satire or provocation or what, so decided to let it pass.
However, I now see that you have a certain measure of wisdom, and wonder what you make of it.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 7:28 pm
13 May 2008
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 7:36 pm
13 May 2008
Well, I suppose everyone is different, but there are some extreme cases with divergent (WEIRD)thinking.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:45 pm
13 May 2008
But I do regret the affectation of dialectal speech in his writing, which slows down his readers -- rarely a nice thing to do -- , and which presumably does not save him any time as he writes either.
On the other hand, the facetious comparison of TasPar's style to verbal "rape" is outrageous.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:28 pm
13 May 2008
However, any unpleasantnesses that we may popularly ascribe to either of them, are as nothing, in comparison with the linguistic ignorance, and, much worse, the delight in insult and mockery, exhibited by Black Wallaby, all of which stinks most grossly.
Given this evil context of insult and patronization in which Black Wallaby mounted his request for a further comment, how can he possibly expect me to want to respond?
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 10:07 pm
13 May 2008
You do not know how to comment sensibly on Wolverine's stuff.
BTW I like dogs, I have a female Jack Russel....long leg or Parson or American variety
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 10:17 pm
13 May 2008
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 1:58 am
14 May 2008
google.com/search?q=%22canis+candida%22+%22white+dog%22
google.com/search?q=candida+%22white%2C+bright%22
google.com/search?q=candidus+%22white%2C+bright%22
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 2:49 am
14 May 2008
Yes, and a good starting point is obviously what Nucbuddy needs if he doesn't know basic definitions like ecosystem and biosphere but wishes to participate in an environmental forum.
I do realize the downsides to Wikipedia and how the site is edited and formatted. If Nucbuddy wishes for more "solid" or extensive background on certain subjects, all that is required is to type a few keywords into your standard search engine.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 8:07 am
14 May 2008
Permalink
Robco1 Posted 1:37 pm
14 May 2008
Once again you show that you don't understand the first thing about the world in which you live, Bob. This "small ecosystem" is linked into most of the ocean ecosystems on the planet. And while you are right that there would be a new balance in nature, there is no guarantee that we will like the result, and very strong evidence that we wouldn't.
The irony of all your trolling is that you are raving against making changes in our policies that will prove tremendously beneficial to our economy. The only people who would possibly loose out from converting to a clean renewable energy economy would be those working for the fossil fuel industry... Oh.
Permalink
Robco1 Posted 1:58 pm
14 May 2008
I am also a little skeptical about some of the conclusions drawn in the Seed article, though I chalked it up to having to explain a theory in layman's terms in 1,000 or so words. But I thought it was an intriguing hypothesis; it will be interesting to see what comes of it.
Permalink
Robco1 Posted 2:13 pm
14 May 2008
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 7:24 pm
14 May 2008
Tasermons Partner wrote: If [ecosystem] was the world, then it'd be called a biosphere
Canis Candida wrote: Sensible people [...] understand [Robco1's] words about "collapse" to refer to the imminent destruction of the community into which we have all been born
Tasermons Partner wrote: a good starting point is obviously what Nucbuddy needs if he doesn't know basic definitions like ecosystem and biosphere
Please stop raping me, Tasermons Partner.
Tasermons Partner wrote: If Nucbuddy wishes for more "solid" or extensive background on certain subjects, all that is required is to type a few keywords into your standard search engine.
Here is what Google returns:
12,900 hits for "world's ecosystem"
google.com/search?q=%22world%27s+ecosystem%22
19,500 hits for "world ecosystem"
google.com/search?q=%22world+ecosystem%22
3,230 hits for "worldwide ecosystem"
google.com/search?q=%22worldwide+ecosystem%22
84,800 hits for "global ecosystem"
google.com/search?q=%22global+ecosystem%22
14,300 hits for "earth ecosystem"
google.com/search?q=%22earth+ecosystem%22
27,300 hits for "earth's ecosystem"
google.com/search?q=%22earth%27s+ecosystem%22
1 hit for "earthwide ecosystem"
google.com/search?q=%22earthwide+ecosystem%22
11,100 hits for "planet's ecosystem"
google.com/search?q=%22planet%27s+ecosystem%22
9,090 hits for "planetary ecosystem"
google.com/search?q=%22planetary+ecosystem%22
16,800 hits for "planetwide ecosystem"
google.com/search?q=%22planetwide+ecosystem%22
3,380 hits for biosphere "life can exist"
google.com/search?q=biosphere+%22life+can+exist%22
Definition of biosphere from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary with audio ... 1 : the part of the world in which life can exist
A biosphere is a part, or an area, of a world. Because it is not a system, a biosphere cannot collapse in the way that an ecosystem can collapse -- e.g. ecologically. A global ecosystem, on the other hand, can collapse ecologically.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 3:16 am
15 May 2008
Notice how I put emphasis on a part, which differs from the definition you posted which says the part?
Part of the world where life can exist refers to the oceans, air, surface and immediate subsurface.
It ignores the rest of the world, because the rest of the world is unhabitable...why is it uninhabitable? Because it's rock and magma that lies miles underground.
That's what they mean when they say the parta the world that supports life.
That's why it says the part of the world in which life can exist and not a part of the world. Notice how the subtle word change will help denote the aspect of singular from plural.
And also, please actually read the full content of those links, if ya wish to gain valid information. Most of the ones for world ecosystem refer to world's ecosystem services, which is different concept. And many of those other links are just the words in the same article, but without an absolute definition.
I'll stop "raping" ya (as ya put it), just as soon as ya realize that it's a good idea to actually research basic environmental concepts before deciding to engage in discussion on an environmental forum.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 9:36 am
15 May 2008
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s3i33312
Does it bother you guys that they can also hybridize with the Grizzly
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 10:38 am
15 May 2008
If they are intelligent, wouldn't that only further the cause for their protection?
Or are ya against protection of intelligent creatures because ya believe that they can get themselves outta messes?
If so, why do ya advocate help for people in Africa? They're intelligent, aren't they? Shouldn't they be able to adapt to disasters like drought, genocide, famine, disease, climate change, etc.?
All on their own, without us? So why intervene?
See the hypocrisy here?
Does it bother you guys that they can also hybridize with the Grizzly
Hybridization with polar bears and grizzly bears is a fairly rare phenonmenon, in proportion to their overall populations. So long as climate change wouldn't force massive hybridization upon their populations, why would that be of concern to us?
Also, ever hear of the concept of genetic diversity?
Permalink
Brute Posted 11:16 am
15 May 2008
Seals and Bears are useless animals really...I mean, think about how much space they use and all of the carbon they emit. Beside that, if the Arctic ice cap melts it will make a shorter distance for ships to travel which will result in less global warming and less expensive goods. There is also tons of oil in the Northland which can be made available as the ice melts with easier access and warmer working conditions for the oil rig operators.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 11:20 am
15 May 2008
And the purpose of humans is...? What are we useful for?
Permalink
Brute Posted 11:57 am
15 May 2008
Building sky scrapers, conquering, autocross, procreating (and just plain sex), exploring, hunting, gambling, drinking, fishing, scuba diving, football, offshore powerboat racing, acquiring wealth........
Wow, if you haven't figured that out yet you really need to find something productive to occupy your time. Have you tried skeet shooting or golf perhaps?
Here's a thought....I just bought an All Terrain Vehicle that really tears up the woods.....loads of fun; you should try it....Very relaxing. The key is to just enjoy yourself!
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 1:10 pm
15 May 2008
Also enjoyin' those high gas prices every time ya haveta fuel that ATV up? ;)
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 2:23 pm
15 May 2008
How do you know Brute doesn't have one of those plug-in electric jobs!
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 2:28 pm
15 May 2008
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 7:04 pm
15 May 2008
Dark females would move north, because they know that "size does count"
White males would move south looking for more "humpy"
Dark males would be pushed further south by bigger white males, and would be less able to pass-on their genes
Interfering fundie greenies would set up "arctic seal" sanctuaries to protect them from excessive predation by the bears, when the seals birth on exposed rocks.
White bears would learn from the darkies to modify their diet, especially to increased vegetarianism, fish catching and stuff.
(Because it would be less cold, the whites would not need so much high-fat diet)
Forgotten dark genetic tendencies would tend to re-emerge in the whites
Biological diversity would be increased by greater hybridisation.
Doesn't seem too bad to me.
After all, black humans seem to survive OK in Detroit, and it's tough enough for the whites! (although many humans have some social mores about hybridization)
BTW, I don't know if the Australian expression "humpy" is universal, but see this photo of an Oz road-sign which explains succinctly:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3286/2496677998_46fb7aa3e9 ...
Zoom-out if necessary
Oh, and here's an excellent photo of a grizzly-polar hybrid: (Grolar, grizlar?)
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/images/be ...
Cute and cuddly, aren't they?.... Why not set-it-up as wallpaper on your desktop?
Oh and BTW......Try this:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/arctic-se ...
Bad news for shipping and peak oil!
Bugger! Just as the Vikings were thinking of returning to Greenland too!
Permalink
bobclive Posted 12:51 am
16 May 2008
Fossils show us that seals existed during the Miocene era, about 20 million years ago.
Polar bears have existed for at least 130,000 years.
Now err I believe there has been warmer periods over the 130,000 year existence of the Polar bear, and that warmer period obviously did not cause the extinction of the afore mentioned bear or its food, the seals. Scientists estimate that there are between 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears and counting.
My understanding is that three bears were recently drowned in a storm, a couple had a fight and the sea ice in the Arctic was less dense in the 1930-40`s than now. These greenies don`t like to go back too far, only to the late 1970`s.
I think the logic of these Greenies is somewhat flawed, what about the grizzly.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:18 am
16 May 2008
"I think the logic of these Greenies..."
These kind of unique spellings and phrases will tend to repeat,as a troll switches nicknames.
Bob and wall, same troll.
Brute uses "little devils". Another dead giveaway, it's an aussie phrase. Plus the moronic baiting theme.
Trolls eventually die off, their graves unmarked, their nasty nonsense forgotten. I bet his neighbors are praying for relief, imagine how much worse the suffering of experiencing this individual in real life, rather than virtual. Yikes.
Permalink
Brute Posted 2:29 am
16 May 2008
Wrong again! Just as you and the United Nations are wrong about GloBull Warming....I'm an American.
You Alarmists are going to have to get a grip....AGW is nothing more than a fraud.
You're going to have to climb off of your high horse and face the music that global temperatures are dropping while CO2 levels continue to rise proving your, (and the United Nation's Politicians), theory WRONG.
Your "Holier Than Thou" attitude has grown tiresome. Your entire theory is coming apart like a cheap suit.......time to find another boogeyman, (no one is listening anymore).
Yes, my previous posts were satirical nonsense akin to the entire "Climate Change" premise and your foolish delusions regarding environmentalism; sorry to rain on your parade, (pun intended).
Poor nations demand climate money
http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2008/04/ ...
Permalink
Robco1 Posted 2:44 am
16 May 2008
I'd actually like to engage in a rational discussion of the differences in underlying attitudes and world views between environmentalists and conventional thinkers, but so far all I see is debate-club rhetoric coming from the other side here. Sad to see minds so narrow and closed to reason.
Permalink
Brute Posted 3:48 am
16 May 2008
"I'd actually like to engage in a rational discussion of the differences in underlying attitudes and world views between environmentalists and conventional thinkers"
Fine; let's discuss this:
1. Global Warming Ranks Dead Last as Issue with Iowa Democrats in Poll
Washington Post-ABC News Poll
Even among Democratic voters, `global warming' is less than nothing politically. I thought you all might delight in seeing the revealing results of this `Washington Post-ABC News Poll' (Question 9), which was conducted by telephone between November 14-18, 2007, among a random sample of 500 Iowans likely to vote in the Democratic caucuses (the results have a four percentage point margin of sampling error, and the percentages are rounded, thus giving slightly higher than 100%).
When asked "What is the single most important issue in your choice for the Democratic candidate for president?", Iraq/War in Iraq 33%, Health Care 26%, Economy/Jobs 10% and Ethics/Honesty/Corruption In Government 5%. Global warming ranked dead last among 16 identified issues with less than 1%.
Or this:
BLACK DAYS FOR BRITISH GREENS: NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE ANYMORE
May 04, 2008
The Boris Effect: UK Government to Scrap Green Taxes in Bid to Calm Voter Fury
Gordon Brown is poised to scrap a series of unpopular tax rises as part of sweeping changes to stave off a dangerous revolt over the rising cost of living which last week dealt Labour its worst electoral hammering in 40 years. Today the Prime Minister will respond to a growing suburban uprising by signalling moves to help motorists and other consumers. Last night Downing Street sources hinted the 2 per cent rise in fuel duty due in the autumn may not go ahead, in a concession to tight household budgets.
--Gaby Hinsliff and Jo Revill, The Observer, 4 May 2008
Internal polling in London found Ken Livingstone's green policies, such as new charges for gas-guzzling cars, alienated older voters, while the environment was at best a low priority for others, suggesting that, as families' budgets shrink, so does their willingness to pay to save the planet. 'My colleagues will say Labour has got to be brave on green issues, but the public are really feeling the pinch,' said one senior minister.
--Gaby Hinsliff and Jo Revill, The Observer, 4 May 2008
U.K. voters resoundingly rejected the Labour Party in local elections last week. It was no capricious shift, but a citizen revolt against trendy carbon and nanny-state taxes that empower only bad government. For Labour, it was the worst election in 40 years. Every tax and intrusion imposed by Labour in recent years was justified as being for voters' "own good." Ending global warming, reducing carbon footprints, lowering carbon emissions and raising public funding of renewable energy - all were excuses used to hit the voters' pocketbook with more taxes. Yet none of these taxes improved the quality of life.
--Investor's Business Daily, 2 May 2008
Oh dear! The inevitable is happening. The 'global warming' trope is unravelling on a daily basis - scientifically, economically, and politically. The wheels are coming off the hysterical bandwagon, and it is not going to be a salutary sight watching the politicians and the media junkies jumping cart and trying to throw mud in everyone's eyes.
--Philip Stott, 3 May 2008
Global warming is a new religion and blasphemy against that religion is not a laughing matter. The high tide of unthinking adherence to this new religion has been reached and I think it may well be in the coming years the tide will gradually recede but it will be a very glacial progress.
--Nigel Lawson, The Guardian, 3 May 2008
But, of course, people aren't interested in these kinds of facts. They want the religion. They want the sweet moralistic feeling of telling someone to stop doing something. They want to be able to rage about Chelsea Tractors and Tony Blair's flights, and they want to give vent to their feelings of disgust at the whole triumph of Western consumerist capitalism.
--Boris Johnson, The Daily Telegraph, 11 January 2007
For the first time in years, voters seem skeptical that solar, wind, ocean waves and currents, biofuels and other so-called renewable sources of energy can replace gasoline, petroleum-based diesel, home heating oil, natural gas, and propane to any significant degree in the foreseeable future. Among ordinary middle class, working class and poor voters, global warming appears to be a non-issue. More and more hard-pressed people are more afraid of pauperization than the manmade greenhouse gases that supposedly cause climate change.
--China Confidential, 3 May 2008
Failed asylum seekers are sneaking out of Britain - because they are fed up with the poor healthcare and bad weather. Scores have been caught trying to break past border controls in recent weeks, according to immigration staff. Les Williams, a chief immigration officer for the UK Border Agency, said: "We cannot explain exactly why they are trying to go, but when some of these people were questioned they said they wanted to go to a warmer country as they are fed up with the English weather."
--The Daily Mail, 3 May 2008
Those who have knowledge, don't predict. Those who predict, don't have knowledge.
Or this:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/global-warming-mostly-hot-ai ...
Or this:
Globe may be cooling on Global Warming
http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/32821
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 4:55 pm
16 May 2008
Wherefore art thou?
Your dream may come true!
Carpe Diem!
Permalink
Robco1 Posted 5:13 pm
16 May 2008
Permalink
Brute Posted 10:40 pm
16 May 2008
Typical Alarmist, can't face facts and quits the debate.
-Brute
Permalink
Robco1 Posted 1:04 pm
17 May 2008
Try this: what is humankind's relationship to the world in which we live?
And: what is humanity's responsibility to future generations?
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 2:16 pm
17 May 2008
So, if ya think ya know more 'bout what will happen than a small army of biologists, wildlife experts, and climatologists, then ya can file a petition and take it up with the United States government...
...until then, it's quite obvious that the bears are threatened (thus their listing) and that they aren't adapting at this time (otherwise they wouldn't be decreasin' in overall number).
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 6:04 pm
17 May 2008
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
Tasermons Partner wrote: [polar bears are decreasing] in overall number).
Wikipedia indicates that that is untrue.
The global polar bear population, estimated to be 22,000-25,000 bears, is relatively stable.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear#Controversy_over_species_protection
Warnings about the future of the polar bear are often contrasted with the fact that worldwide population estimates have increased over the past 50 years and are relatively stable today.
Permalink
Brute Posted 10:14 pm
17 May 2008
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/in-the-news/more_on_polar_b ...
HOW THE ENVIRONMENTAL EXTREMISTS MANIPULATE THE MASSES
http://newswithviews.com/Williams/carole7.htm
Polar Bears listed as threatened - now comes the lawsuits
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/?s=polar+bears
Canada, U.S. at odds over bears
http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Canada/2008/05/15/5570311 ...
Our scientists in the field as well as Inuit elders have observed an overall increase in the polar bear population," said Nunavut Premier Paul Okalik. "It is unfortunate the U.S. decided to disregard the facts."
Permalink
Brute Posted 10:46 pm
17 May 2008
Well, I guess we all expected it, but it is no less galling to see polar bears listed by the US Government as a threatened species. This despite rising polar bear populations and no evidence that a smaller Arctic ice cap will have a negative effect on the bears. This is, even by admission of its supporters, mainly intended as an open license to sue any one or group over anything that has any element of economic growth. Freeway projects in Arizona, power plants in Florida, desperately needed new refineries in Texas, oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, and even a new shopping mall in California can now be held up in court as a danger to polar bears.
Here are a few reactions. From my Princeton classmate Henry Payne:
Once again, my profession -- journalism -- failed its fundamental duty to report the facts Wednesday as the Interior Department bowed to political pressure from green groups to declare polar bears an threatened species due to global warming. This, despite the fact that bear populations have increased from 5,000-10,000 in the early 1970s to between 20,000 and 25,000 today (during the very period their habitat was allegedly shrinking). This is in part due to concentrated efforts to impose harvesting controls that have allowed this once-overhunted species to recover.
Indeed, Dr. Mitchell Taylor, a bear biologist with the Canadian government, wrote in 2006: "There is no need to panic. Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present."
This data is readily available in the public record, and yet a review of reports from America's two leading print sources found nary a mention. The Associated Press completely ignored the bear population data and any critics of the decision. As for The New York Times, reporter Felicity Barringer also ignored the data, but at least alluded to it by quoting M. Reed Hopper of the Pacific Legal Foundation (which is suing the Department of the Interior over the decision) at the very end of her article as saying: "Never before has a thriving species been listed nor should it be."
From the Wall Street Journal:
Polar bears are not the fragile, vulnerable creatures of liberal iconography. They have thrived in the Arctic for thousands of years, both through periods when their sea-ice habitat was smaller, and larger, than it is now. They will continue to adapt - and the Endangered Species Act can't make the slightest difference.
Such realities haven't prevented green showboaters from claiming victory after the Bush Administration designated the polar bear as a "threatened" species yesterday. And it is a kind of victory, though the ruling itself is mostly symbolic - at least for now. However, this is really the triumph of bad legislation over the democratic process.
From the SPPI via Q&O:
Although two polar bear subpopulations (Western Hudson Bay and Southern Beaufort Sea) no longer appear to be viable due to reduction in sea ice habitat, polar bears as a species do not appear to be threatened by extinction in the foreseeable future from either a demographic or an ecological perspective.
Current and historical polar bear subpopulation performance demonstrates that viable polar bear subpopulations have persisted and generally increased throughout the current period of climate warming ...
The popular notion that polar bears are declining or already expatriated worldwide has been initiated and perpetuated by environmental organizations and individuals who apparently believe that current subpopulation numbers and trends are an insufficient basis for an appropriate status determination. ... Anecdotal information, although useful and interesting, is not equivalent to scientific information based on valid statistical analysis of sample data.
From TJIC:
Let's just all ignore the Canadian government study that showed that polar bear population is up over the last two decades.
Let's also ignore the fact that arctic sea ice grew faster in 2008 than ever before : 58,000 square miles of sea ice per day, for 10 days straight.
"Because polar bears are vulnerable to this loss of habitat, they are, in my judgment, likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future - in this case 45 years," Kempthorne said at a news conference in Washington.
So if short term, potentially random variations are taken as a trend, and if we extend that trend out half a century, then polar bears are "likely" to become endangered ... and therefore they are declared endangered now
From Marc Sheppard:
Now consider this -- taken but a miniscule regulatory step further, a family motoring about in an SUV in Texas could be cited not only for polluting under the Clean Air Act, but as their "pollution" has been regulated as a global warming contributor, they could be further fined under the Endangered Species Act for harming the protected polar bear.
Did I mention that penalties for such ESA transgressions can be a maximum fine of up to $50,000 or imprisonment for one year, or both -- per violation?
Permalink
Brute Posted 10:54 pm
17 May 2008
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/05/16/wh ...
Permalink
Brute Posted 12:43 am
18 May 2008
How existential...... Maybe I'll smoke some dope, climb into a sensory deprivation tank and ponder that all afternoon.
Permalink
Robco1 Posted 10:17 am
18 May 2008
Permalink
Brute Posted 10:51 am
18 May 2008
Come down off of whatever hallucinogens you've been ingesting, shave off the beard and get a haircut....... Get rid of the peace signs and the Che Guevara paraphernalia. Next, get a JOB and move out of your parent's basement and make something of yourself.
Once you start taking care of yourself, paying taxes and being a responsible adult, you'll understand that life isn't about hanging around the coffee house with Beatniks and whining about how "unfair" the world is......Grow up for heaven's sake.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 11:01 am
18 May 2008
Ya are aware that the population increase was in response to a ban/restictions on hunting in many northern countries? And that even with the population increase in the past 50 years as a whole, populations still haven't recovered to their original numbers before they were hunted for reasons other than native sustinance?
Permalink
Brute Posted 11:46 am
18 May 2008
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 12:29 pm
18 May 2008
I said polar bear populations increased over a 50 year timespan overall due to a ban in non-sustinance hunting.
Did you even read the report the DOI made for their listing?
More recently, polar bear populations have declined due to melting ice.
And they weren't back to their original numbers before sport hunting to begin with, even after a 50 year ban.
And, their recent decline has been much quicker and at much greater percentage than their initial recovery was.
In other words, it took 50 years, and they still weren't back at their original levels, and now that 50 years worth of work has almost been entirely undone just by the ice melt of the past few years.
In lame speak: big dive, very fast!
Permalink
Brute Posted 11:15 pm
18 May 2008
Year Number of Polar Bears
1950 5,000
2008 25,000
That would be a FIVE FOLD increase in polar bear population despite hunting and 50 years of GloBull Warming.
Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son............
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 5:39 pm
21 May 2008
The question is...........?
(Goodie goodie greenie fundies, please offer your valued wisdom)
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 5:24 pm
22 May 2008
http://www.grist.org/news/2008/05/07/alaska/index.html#co ...
"Nice try, Bob. [Black Wallaby] Not even close. Heck, this was even demonstrated on a Discovery Channel TV show with an infared monitor in the arctic circle. 23 hours of summer sunlight more than make up for the angle. Ice and snow reflect up to 70% of sunlight, but darker water only about 10%. Maybe BHP can send you to NZ's South Island in a month, and you can test it for yourself on a glacier? ;-)"
I suspect Robco1, from various things you have said that you are either brainwashed by RealClimate, or/and, are without any scientific background. Let me give you a tad of tuition concerning that awesome substance; water. Among many other amazing (God-like) things, it has a surface tension layer which has significant optical properties. It has zero reflective qualities with normally opposed light, but as the angle approaches the horizontal, it is like a mirror. This can be seen by observation of the Sun setting over water, depending to a degree on the water roughness.
I have just stumbled upon a tabulation of various Earth albedos, and extract four lines, that seem to suggest that you are just shooting the breeze, from:
http://www.udel.edu/Geography/DeLiberty/Geog474/geog474_e ...
Material........Percentage of light reflected
Fresh snow......................80-95
Old snow.........................50-60
Water (Sun near horizon)...50-80
Water (Sun near zenith).....3-5
You were saying. Robco1?
Ask me if you do not understand the data, or advise if you have conflicting data
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 5:27 pm
22 May 2008
Permalink
PeterMartin Posted 10:21 am
23 May 2008
I don't think that you have it quite right about the surface tension and optical properties of water. A tiny drop of detergent added to a litre of water will destroy the surface tension. You can check this for yourself. Beforehand, you'll be able 'float' a pin on the water. Afterwards it will sink, but the optical properties will remain essentially unchanged. So, the optical properties of water aren't determined by surface tension.
What you say about the high reflectivity of water, when light hits it with low grazing angle, is correct, but only if it is very flat and smooth. Even a moderate wind on the ocean will cause waves which will effectivly catch the light, reducing the albedo. Also it should be borne in mind that the sun , even in polar regions, can reach relatively high angles in the sky in summer, and lower reflectivity figures need to be used.
You don't define what you mean by old and new snow. From my limited experience on ski slopes I can't say that I have noticed much difference. All clean snow is highly reflective, and sunvisors are always recommended to guard against the glare from the snow. You don't get the same glare from water. Of course, old snow can often be contaminated with soot particulates and this would certainly reduce its reflectivity, which is argument enough for strict pollution controls on all 'smokestacks'.
Permalink
PeterMartin Posted 1:23 pm
23 May 2008
You say " the sea ice in the Arctic was less dense in the 1930-40`s than now"
Not according to the NSDISC.
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050928_trendscontinue.html
In this 2005 report, they say "A recent assessment of trends throughout the past century indicates that the current decline also exceeds past low ice periods in the 1930s and 1940s".
Since 2005, the situation has continued to deteriorate, and the area of Arctic summer ice reached an all-time recorded minimum in 2007.
Permalink
PeterMartin Posted 1:33 pm
23 May 2008
"Beatniks"? Hey, Daddio, have you just stepped out of some time machine? Youth culture has moved on a bit since the 50's through Hippies, Punks, and Hip Hop. Kids of the present day are more likely to be Goths or Emos, I believe.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 2:45 pm
23 May 2008
Brute, in case ya didn't read any of the previous posts (which ya obviously didn't) hunting of polar bears was banned in the 1950's for all but a few small native tribes.
Before that, there was massive commercial hunting of polar bears, which caused their populations to plummet.
That's why their population showed so much of an increase over a 50 year total period...they were trying to recover from hunting. But even then, after 50 years, they weren't up to their original pre-commercial hunting levels.
For future reference, it's generally considered a good idea on internet blogs and forums to read previous posts carefully before jumpin' into one.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 7:13 pm
23 May 2008
http://www.newstatesman.com/environment/2008/01/global-wa ...
Currently there are 1364 posts just on this huge thread. He is the sole AGW alarmist there and his efforts arguing against many rationalists can be commended for his persistence. However, he never answers hard questions, changes subject, and obfuscates in a tireless manner, for which I no longer have patience to respond to him directly.
For instance, in his post above @
http://www.grist.org/news/2008/05/07/alaska/index.html#co ...
He wrote in part:
"You (Black Wallaby) don't define what you mean by old and new snow. From my limited experience on ski slopes I can't say that I have noticed much difference. All clean snow is highly reflective, and sunvisors are always recommended to guard against the glare from the snow. You don't get the same glare from water."
What a load of waffle!
1) I don't define anything, I am merely quoting data from:
http://www.udel.edu/Geography/DeLiberty/Geog474/geog474_e ... If he disagrees with this data source, he should give grounds why he thinks they are wrong
2) Standing on snow with normal reflection is geometrically very different from reflection from the sun low in the sky from water
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May I suggest that the data from Udel (Link immediately above) is probably more reliable than Peter Martins unbacked opinion and guesswork
Permalink
PeterMartin Posted 11:49 pm
23 May 2008
Yes you've said it yourself, you don't define anything do you? You may suggest all you like about water and ice having the same or similar albedo but, if that's what you really think, you've clearly failed to understand the issue.
If you're unhappy with my opinion, how about NASA's? Are those guys smart enough for you? I'd say they should be.
This is the way they explain it:
"Ice reflects the Sun's rays up into the atmosphere and out to space, which keeps solar radiation from warming the Arctic lands and ocean. Both sea ice, which floats on water, and glaciers and ice on land cool the Earth in this manner. Without large ice masses at the poles the Earth would absorb more heat and warming would escalate. When ocean temperature rises sea ice becomes thinner, exposing more water, thus reinforcing the warming trend and creating a positive feedback loop"
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/ArcticIce/
Is that a load of "waffle" too? Maybe now that you've retired with time on your hands you might want to think about enrolling in one of the many excellent science courses that you'll find at your local TAFE college. It would be well worth your while if it saved you from future blunders like mixing up surface tension with surface reflectivity.
Permalink
Brute Posted 12:14 am
24 May 2008
"Beatniks"? Hey, Daddio, have you just stepped out of some time machine? Youth culture has moved on a bit since the 50's through Hippies, Punks, and Hip Hop. Kids of the present day are more likely to be Goths or Emos, I believe.
I'm writing:
You're correct. I should have written "Depraved Degenerates" and left it at that.....(I know, it's redundant.... but appropriate). Don't know about that Emos thing......is that some type of extinct fowl akin to the Dodo bird?
Tasermons Partner,
As you've postulated, polar bear populations are thriving post 1950 because of a hunting ban proving that "global warming" has had either no effect or a beneficial effect on their mortality rate.
By the way, where the hell did you attend school, Dog Patch? Judging from your (lack) of writing skills, it would seem to be the case.
http://deniskitchen.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTG ...
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 4:43 am
24 May 2008
Good, you've proven you can read a chart over of polar bear populations over a 50-year period.
Now, try to see if ya can read one over a ten year period, specifically, the last ten years...
...notice the huge decline in polar bear numbers?
Look at this as an analogy...(assumin' you're a person who has physically matured), you probably don't grow much as far as height from year to year anymore. Yet, if we chart your height over the period of your lifetime and then come up with an average, it would appear as if you've been growin' at the same rate all this time (which would come out to several inches a year, probably). But ya haven't.
The same is true of the polar bears. Their population has stopped increasing and has actually started to decrease. Likewise, even when their population was increasing as a whole, there were good years and bad years when their population rose at certain levels.
It wasn't constant.
By the way, where the hell did you attend school, Dog Patch?
Suppose that I did...what does that say when a graduate of Dog Patch knows more 'bout ecology and population growth than you do? ;)
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 9:59 am
24 May 2008
I have just stumbled upon a tabulation of various Earth albedos, and extract four lines, that seem to suggest that you are just shooting the breeze, from:
http://www.udel.edu/Geography/DeLiberty/Geog474/geog474_e ... ...
Material........Percentage of light reflected
Fresh snow......................80-95
Old snow.........................50-60
Water (Sun near horizon)...50-80
Water (Sun near zenith).....3-5
You were saying. Robco1?
Ask me if you do not understand the data, or advise if you have conflicting data
It was to be taken in the context of earlier discussions. The crux of the matter, is that this source of data, (Udel), publishes what seems counter-intuitive, that water can reflect sunlight at about the same level, or even more than old snow, when the sun is low in the sky.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Enter Peter Martin @ 8:23PM on 23 May, and 6:49AM on 24 May
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Notice that in his extensive obfuscation, he does not say that Udel are wrong, but wanders-off into his contrary opinions and alarmism by others, etc. He even accuses ME of not defining old versus new snow as published by UDEL.
Others may rise to his bait, (trolling), but I prefer to ignore it
Permalink
Brute Posted 9:10 pm
24 May 2008
Scientists Debunk Fears of Global Warming Related Polar Bear Endangerment:
Canadian biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor, the director of wildlife research with the Arctic government of Nunavut: "Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present," Taylor said. "It is just silly to predict the demise of polar bears in 25 years based on media-assisted hysteria."
Evolutionary Biologist and Paleozoologist Dr. Susan Crockford of University of Victoria in Canada has published a number of papers in peer-reviewed academic journals. "Polar bears, for example, survived several episodes of much warmer climate over the last 10,000 years than exists today," Crockford wrote. "There is no evidence to suggest that the polar bear or its food supply is in danger of disappearing entirely with increased Arctic warming, regardless of the dire fairy-tale scenarios predicted by computer models."
Award-winning quaternary geologist Dr. Olafur Ingolfsson, a professor from the University of Iceland, has conducted extensive expeditions and field research in both the Arctic and Antarctic. "We have this specimen that confirms the polar bear was a morphologically distinct species at least 100,000 years ago, and this basically means that the polar bear has already survived one interglacial period," Ingolfsson said. "This is telling us that despite the on-going warming in the Arctic today, maybe we don't have to be quite so worried about the polar bear."
Internationally known forecasting pioneer Dr. Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School at the Ivy League University of Pennsylvania and his colleague, forecasting expert Dr. Kesten Green of Monash University in Australia, co-authored a January 27, 2008 paper with Harvard astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon which found that polar bear extinction predictions violate "scientific forecasting procedures." Excerpt: The study analyzed the methodology behind key polar bear population prediction and found that one of the two key reports in support of listing the bears had "extrapolated nearly 100 years into the future on the basis of only five years data - and data for these years were of doubtful validity."
Biologist Dr. Matthew Cronin, a research professor at the School of Natural Resources and Agricultural Sciences at the University of Alaska Fairbanks: "We don't know what the future ice conditions will be, as there is apparently considerable uncertainty in the sea ice models regarding the timing and extent of sea ice loss. Also, polar bear populations are generally healthy and have increased worldwide over the last few decades," Cronin said.
Naturalist Nigel Marven is a trained zoologist, botanist, and a UK wildlife documentary maker who spent three months studying and filming polar bears in Canada's arctic in 2007. "As far as the polar bear disappearing is concerned, I have never been more convinced that this is just scaremongering. People are deliberately seeking out skinny bears and filming them to show they are dying out. That's not right," Marven said.
Biologist Josef Reichholf, who heads the Vertebrates Department at the National Zoological Collection in Munich: "In warmer regions it takes far less effort to ensure survival," Reichholf said. "How did the polar bear survive the last warm period? ... Look at the polar bear's close relative, the brown bear. It is found across a broad geographic region, ranging from Europe across the Near East and North Asia, to Canada and the United States. Whether bears survive will depend on human beings, not the climate."
Polar bear expert Dennis Compayre, formerly of the conservation group Polar Bears International, has studied the bears for almost 30 years in their natural habitat and is working on a new UK documentary about the bears. "I tell you there are as many bears here now as there were when I was a kid," Compayre said. "Churchill [in Northern Canada] is full of these scientists going on about vanishing bears and thinner bears. They come here preaching doom, but I question whether some of them really have the bears' best interests at heart."
Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University, and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife: "Why scare the families of the world with tales that polar bears are heading for extinction when there is good evidence that there are now twice as many of these iconic animals, most doing well in the Arctic than there were 20 years ago?"
Scientists and Recent Studies Cast Doubt on Man-Made Melting Of Arctic:
A NASA study published in the peer-reviewed journal Geophysical Research Letters on October 4, 2007 found "unusual winds" in the Arctic blew "older thicker" ice to warmer southern waters. Despite the media's hyping of global warming, Ignatius Rigor, a co-author of the NASA study, explained, "While the total [Arctic] area of ice cover in recent winters has remained about the same, during the past two years an increased amount of older, thicker perennial sea ice was swept by winds out of the Arctic Ocean into the Greenland Sea. What grew in its place in the winters between 2005 and 2007 was a thin veneer of first-year sea ice, which simply has less mass to survive the summer melt." "Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic," said Son Nghiem of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and leader of the study.
A November 2007 peer-reviewed study in the journal Nature found natural cause for rapid Arctic warming. Excerpt: [The study] identifies a natural, cyclical flow of atmospheric energy around the Arctic Circle. A team of researchers, led by Rune Graversen of Stockholm University, conclude this energy flow may be responsible for the majority of recent Arctic warming. The study specifically rules out global warming or albedo changes from snow and ice loss as the cause, due to the "vertical structure" of the warming ... the observed warming has been much too weak near the ground, and too high in the stratosphere and upper troposphere. This study follows hot on the heels of research by NASA, which identified "unusual winds" for rapid Arctic ice retreat. The wind patterns, set up by atmospheric conditions from the Arctic Oscillation, began rapidly pushing ice into the Transpolar Drift Stream, a current which quickly sped the ice into warmer waters. A second NASA team, using data from the GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) satellite, recently concluded that changes in the Arctic Oscillation were, "mostly decadal in nature," rather than driven by global warming.
A January 2008 study in the peer-reviewed journal Science found North Atlantic warming tied to natural variability. Excerpt: A Duke University-led analysis of available records shows that while the North Atlantic Ocean's surface waters warmed in the 50 years between 1950 and 2000, the change was not uniform. In fact, the sub-polar regions cooled at the same time that subtropical and tropical waters warmed. This striking pattern can be explained largely by the influence of a natural and cyclical wind circulation pattern called the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), wrote authors of a study published Thursday, January 3 in Science Express, the online edition of the journal Science. Winds that power the NAO are driven by atmospheric pressure differences between areas around Iceland and the Azores. "The winds have a tremendous impact on the underlying ocean," said Susan Lozier, a professor of physical oceanography at Duke's Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences who is the study's first author. [...] "It is premature to conclusively attribute these regional patterns of heat gain to greenhouse warming," they wrote.
A November 2007 peer-reviewed study conducted by a team of NASA and university experts found cyclical changes in ocean currents impacting the Arctic. Excerpt: "Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming," said James Morison of the University of Washington's Polar Science Center Applied Physics Laboratory in Seattle, according to a November 13, 2007 NASA release. Morison led the team of scientists using data from an Earth-observing satellite and from deep-sea pressure gauges to monitor Arctic Ocean circulation from 2002 to 2006. Excerpt: A team of NASA and university scientists has detected an ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation triggered by atmospheric circulation changes that vary on decade-long time scales. The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming. [...] The team of scientists found a 10-millibar decrease in water pressure at the bottom of the ocean at the North Pole between 2002 and 2006, equal to removing the weight of four inches of water from the ocean. The distribution and size of the decrease suggest that Arctic Ocean circulation changed from the counterclockwise pattern it exhibited in the 1990s to the clockwise pattern that was dominant prior to 1990. Reporting in Geophysical Research Letters, the authors attribute the reversal to a weakened Arctic Oscillation, a major atmospheric circulation pattern in the northern hemisphere. The weakening reduced the salinity of the upper ocean near the North Pole, decreasing its weight and changing its circulation. "While some 1990s climate trends, such as declines in Arctic sea ice extent, have continued, these results suggest at least for the 'wet' part of the Arctic - the Arctic Ocean - circulation reverted to conditions like those prevalent before the 1990s," Morison added.
NASA Study Blames Natural High Pressure Leading to More Sunny Days for Arctic Ice Reduction Excerpt: But experts say it was the peculiar weather Mother Nature offered up last summer - whatever caused it - that is largely to blame for the recent unusual events. There was a high-pressure system that sat over the Arctic for much of the summer. It shooed away clouds, leaving the sun alone to beat down. That created higher ocean temperatures, which in turn accelerated the melt. Son Nghiem, who led that NASA study on sea ice released this week, also pointed to unusual winds, which compressed sea ice, pushing it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and into warmer water where melting happened more quickly.
A July 2007 analysis of peer-reviewed literature thoroughly debunks fears of Greenland and the Arctic melting and predictions of a frightening sea level rise. Excerpt: "Research in 2006 found that Greenland has been warming since the 1880s, but since 1955, temperature averages at Greenland stations have been colder than the period between 1881-1955. A 2006 study found Greenland has cooled since the 1930s and 1940s, with 1941 being the warmest year on record. Another 2006 study concluded Greenland was as warm or warmer in the 1930s and 40s and the rate of warming from 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than the warming from 1995-2005. One 2005 study found Greenland gaining ice in the interior higher elevations and thinning ice at the lower elevations. In addition, the often media promoted fears of Greenland's ice completely melting and a subsequent catastrophic sea level rise are directly at odds with the latest scientific studies." [See July 30, 2007 Report - Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt -
In September 2007, it was announced that a soon to be released survey finds Polar Bear population rising in warmer part of the Arctic. Excerpt: Fears that two-thirds of the world's polar bears will die off in the next 50 years are overblown, says [Arctic biologist] Mitchell Taylor, the Government of Nunavut's director of wildlife research. "I think it's naïve and presumptuous," Taylor said. [...] The Government of Nunavut is conducting a study of the [southern less ice region of the] Davis Strait bear population. Results of the study won't be released until 2008, but Taylor says it appears there are some 3,000 bears in an area - a big jump from the current estimate of about 850 bears. "That's not theory. That's not based on a model. That's observation of reality," he says. And despite the fact that some of the most dramatic changes to sea ice are seen in seasonal ice areas such as Davis Strait, seven or eight of the bears measured and weighed for the study this summer are among the biggest on record, Taylor said. "Davis Strait is crawling with polar bears. It's not safe to camp there. They're fat. The mothers have cubs. The cubs are in good shape," Taylor said, according to a September 14, 2007 article.
An August 2007 peer-reviewed study finds global warming over last century linked to natural causes: Published in Geophysical Research Letters: Excerpt: "Tsonis et al. investigate the collective behavior of known climate cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, the El Niño/Southern Oscillation, and the North Pacific Oscillation. By studying the last 100 years of these cycles' patterns, they find that the systems synchronized several times. Further, in cases where the synchronous state was followed by an increase in the coupling strength among the cycles, the synchronous state was destroyed. Then a new climate state emerged, associated with global temperature changes and El Niño/Southern Oscillation variability. The authors show that this mechanism explains all global temperature tendency changes and El Niño variability in the 20th century." Authors: Anastasios A. Tsonis, Kyle Swanson, and Sergey Kravtsov: Atmospheric Sciences Group, Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, U.S.A. See August 2, 2007 Science Daily - "Synchronized Chaos: Mechanisms For Major Climate Shifts"
According to a 2005 peer-reviewed study in Geophysical Research Letters by astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon, solar irradiance appears to be the key to Arctic temperatures. The study found Arctic temperatures follow the pattern of increasing or decreasing energy received from the sun. Excerpt: Solar forcing explains well over 75% of the variance for the decadally-smoothed Arctic annual-mean or spring SATs (surface air temperatures). [...] In contrast, a CO2-dominated forcing of Arctic SATs is inconsistent with both the large multidecadal warming and cooling signals and the similar amplitude of warming trends between cold (winter) and relatively warmer (spring and autumn) seasons found in the Arctic-wide SAT records.
Meteorologist Craig James Debunks Myths about Northwest Passage Excerpt: The headline in this press release from the European Space Agency reads "Satellites witness lowest Arctic ice coverage in History." In history! That sounds like a long time. However, when you read the article you find "history" only goes back to 28 years, to 1979. That is when satellites began monitoring Arctic Sea ice. The article also says "the Northwest Passage - a long-sought short cut between Europe and Asia that has been historically impassable." I guess these people flunked history class. It has been open several times in history without ice breakers. The first known successful navigation by ship was in 1905. This is all very similar to the story on the NBC Nightly News Friday, 14 September 2007 where the story on water levels in Lake Superior never mentioned that the lowest recorded water level on the lake occurred in March and April 1926, when the lake was about 5 inches lower than it is now. Instead, NBC interviewed several people who could never remember seeing it this low and blamed most of the problem on global warming. Never mind that the area has seen below normal precipitation for several years and for most of this year has been classified as being in an extreme to exceptional drought.
History of Northwest Passage - Navigated in 1905 and multiple times in 1940s (Note: 80% of man-made CO2 came after 1940) Excerpt: 2. ROALD AMUNDSEN: First Navigation by Ship 1905: In mid August, Amundsen sailed from Gjøahaven (today: Gjoa Haven, Nunavut) in the vessel Gjøa On August 26 they encountered a ship bearing down on them from the west, and with that they were through the passage. From Amundsen's diary: The North West Passage was done. My boyhood dream - at that moment it was accomplished. A strange feeling welled up in my throat; I was somewhat over-strained and worn - it was weakness in me - but I felt tears in my eyes. `Vessel in sight' ... Vessel in sight. 3. ST. ROCH: First West-East Crossing 1940-1942: The St. Roch was given the task of demonstrating Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic. It was ordered to sail from Vancouver to Halifax by way of the Northwest Passage. The St. Roch left Vancouver in June 1940 and on October 11, 1942, it docked at Halifax - the first ship to travel from the Pacific to the Atlantic via the Northwest Passage. The journey had taken almost 28 months. 4. ST. ROCH: Northern Deep-Water Route (East-West) 1944: The St. Roch was the first ship to travel the Northwest Passage through the northern, deep-water route and the first to sail the Passage in both directions.
In a 2005 study published in the Journal of Climate, Brian Hartmann and Gerd Wendler linked the 1976 Pacific climate shift to a very significant one-time shift upward in Alaskan temperatures.
According to a 2003 study by Arctic scientist Igor Polyakov, the warmest period in the Arctic during the 20th Century was the late 1930s through early 1940s. Excerpt: Our results suggest that the decadal AO (Arctic Oscillation) and multidecadal LFO (low-frequency oscillation) drive large amplitude natural variability in the Arctic making detection of possible long-term trends induced by greenhouse gas warming most difficult.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 1:49 am
25 May 2008
No, there isn't...the graph is in the report that the DOI released on the polar bear listing...didn't ya read it?
If ya didn't, then what the heck are doin' still here? You're gonna argue against the listing when ya haven't even read the report on the listing?
Methinks Dog Patch may have standards that're too high for you ;)
Canadian biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor, the director of wildlife research with the Arctic government of Nunavut: "Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number.
I wasn't aware that United States annexed Canada. Perhaps they don't teach geography at your school?
A NASA study published in the peer-reviewed journal Geophysical Research Letters on October 4, 2007 found "unusual winds" in the Arctic blew "older thicker" ice to warmer southern waters. Despite the media's hyping of global warming, Ignatius Rigor, a co-author of the NASA study, explained, "While the total [Arctic] area of ice cover in recent winters has remained about the same, during the past two years an increased amount of older, thicker perennial sea ice was swept by winds out of the Arctic Ocean into the Greenland Sea. What grew in its place in the winters between 2005 and 2007 was a thin veneer of first-year sea ice, which simply has less mass to survive the summer melt." "Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic," said Son Nghiem of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and leader of the study.
I commented on this artcile in a seperate thread awhile back.
First, it doesn't cast doubt on man-made global warming. It states that unusual wind patterns are responsible, but doesn't state what the caused the winds other than unusual atmospheric conditions, and there's theory that the unusual atmospheric conditions are linked to changes in the jet streams and changes in the frequency of the el nino-la nina cycles, which could be a result of climate change.
Second, and most importantly, is that the article supports the listing for the polar bears (indirectly) by statin' that the ice is disappearing and not as thick as it should be.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 8:48 am
25 May 2008
Not to tax you too hard, just a couple of easy things to start with:
Try to understand the meaning of decadal
Try to understand what a natural cycle such as the NAO means
Crack these two and see if you can understand Brute's long post better. Perhaps split it into two over a few days, if reading it all at once is too taxing for you
Go on.....give it a go, and ask if there is anything else that confuses you
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 11:38 am
25 May 2008
Ya do realize that if the phenomenon were parta the NAO (at least under typical circumstances), then they wouldn't have labeled it as "unusual", correct?
Also, you're aware that though the climate is influenced by NAO, that the NAO itself can be altered by man-made factors which would influence the climate, correct?
So, while it's good that ya know 'bout the North Atlantic oscillation, ya may wanna brush up on some simpler definitions such as "unusual".
Really now, if this was a regular-occuring phenomenon, then it would actually occur on a regular basis...but since ice levels haven't been this low/thin since...well...ever (at least in the past 800,000 years or so), that kinda leads one to think it just might not be parta the natural system, hmm?
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 12:29 pm
25 May 2008
A recommendation was that you should carefully read Brute's long post above....maybe it was too long for you in one day, but take care, take your time, and possibly come to comprehension with a more prolonged effort.
For instance why do you claim that recent ice melting in the Arctic is unusual, when records outside of the brief satellite data, show that it was warmer in the early 1900's? Did this information fail to register upon your first reading?
Permalink
PeterMartin Posted 2:17 pm
25 May 2008
"Brute's long posting" is actually copied from elsehere. He's quite fond of doing that rather than posting the relevant links. So when Mr Roadkill gets cross about you ignoring 'elders advice' there is really no easy way of knowing how old the actual author of the report actually was.
Hang in there. Neither Brute or Mr Wallaby are scientifically qualified so don't let them bullshit you with long copied and pasted postings.
It's debatable whether or not the Polar Bear is in any danger in the short term. Even if it isn't, it still doesn't mean that they shouldn't be protected. In Australia we have a healthy population of crocodiles, for instance, and they do eat lots of wallabies ( maybe even some black ones), and the occasional tourist. They are still well protected though, and you aren't allowed to shoot them whenever you like.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 2:25 pm
25 May 2008
Look closely. You'll notice that the warming period was not for as long of a duration as the current one. You'll also notice that that warming period was relatively gradual, whereas this one is very abrupt.
Also, please notice that due to the bell shaped cruve (when graphed), one could see the levels tapering off, whereas there is no such indication for this period.
Also, you're confusin' the temperature data with melt data. Please note that, due to the shorter duration of the early 1900's warm period (which may have just been an overbalance conuter-measure, so to speak, to a cooling period a few years before caused by abrupt volcanic activity), ice melt data (what little was available) showed no significant decrease in ice coverage.
Whereas the current warm period, due to lengthened duration and continuing increase, is associated with massive ice decrease in terms of amount as well as relative depth.
Thus, resulting in loss of polar bear habitat.
Permalink
PeterMartin Posted 2:32 pm
25 May 2008
Do you have scientific references for your assertion " records outside of the brief satellite data, show that it was warmer in the early 1900's?"
I previously pointed out to BobClive that the NSDISC, in this 2005 report,
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050928_trendscontinue.html
say "A recent assessment of trends throughout the past century indicates that the current decline also exceeds past low ice periods in the 1930s and 1940s".
Since 2005, the situation has continued to deteriorate, and the area of Arctic summer ice reached an all-time recorded minimum in 2007.
Did this information fail to register upon your first reading?
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 2:32 pm
25 May 2008
I know. This isn't the only forum where I've debated with climate change skeptics before. * wink
But someone's gotta show 'em how their data, while not necessarily flawed, draws incorrect conclusions due to only "selective" data bein' shown.
Take *Black Wallaby's recent post for example, if he'd done more research, he'd know that just before the early 1900's warm period, there was a cool period caused by volcanic activity. The warm period was a counter-balance effect.
Selective data. Tells ya 'bout the temperature increase, but forgets to mention the cool period just before, or what caused it.
Permalink
Brute Posted 10:13 pm
25 May 2008
"All-Time record minimum" would be since 1979?
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 1:39 am
26 May 2008
Look up "ice core samples".
Good way to get an idea of ice amounts and thickness for the past few millenia.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 9:07 am
26 May 2008
As far as I'm aware, ice cores are discussed mostly for the ice-sheets of greenland and antarctica. They are quite different to sea-ice. In the case of Antarctica, the firn layer may be about 6,000 years old, and 90 metres thick. This is not part of "The ice-core record"
Permalink
PeterMartin Posted 10:31 am
26 May 2008
No the recorded minimum would go back further than 1979. This is when satellite records began.
Previous records won't be as good of course but the link I gave Mr Wallaby shows that the NSDISC are stating that the 2007 minimum was lower than at any time in the 20th century. Satellite photos showed that the NW passage was free through navigable channels to conventional shipping for the first time ever. See encarta extract below.
In the 1940's ice cover was also measured to be relatively low, but not as low as in 2007, and it was just about possible possible for ships such as the St Roch to struggle through. The St Roch was fortified against ice and certainly couldn't be described as "conventional shipping" though.
The warming prior to the 1940s was a recovery from the LIA, so if you go back into the 19th century, and previously the records show that the NW passage was complete impassable even in mid- summer. You may be aware of the disappearance of the Franklin expedition of 1845.
Encarta Extract:
"In 2007 scientists announced that satellite images showed that the M'Clure Strait, the most direct route through the Northwest Passage, was ice-free in August of that year. This was the first time that the passage has been fully open and navigable. The Arctic sea ice cover in the summer of 2007 was also the lowest on record. Experts on global warming have forecast the opening of the Northwest Passage as the Arctic warms and sea ice thins. However, the 2007 M'Clure occurrence indicates that the process could be happening much faster than previously predicted, opening the Northwest Passage to maritime traffic and exploration."
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761556111/northwest_p ...
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 11:49 am
26 May 2008
I can give ya links to data collected from ice samples (includin' from some areas which were originally considered "melt-proof", but have since melted away), but as for satellite observations linkage, well, it wouldn't mean much, since ice core samples are generally used to help determine what it was like before satellites (or before modern humans, for that matter), but I suppose ya could compare them.
As for prior to 1979, like I said, it goes back for millenia in some cases (though maybe not as much for sea ice as it does in some other locations).
Would ya like the links? (Warning-most won't be quick or summary reads...we're talkin' seriously long reports here...)
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 4:12 pm
26 May 2008
"Tis a miserable damp winter day here, and I've sat-down early, with a glass of Cabernet-Merlot + cheese, unusually early:
Earlier you wrote about ice-core samples, and I mentioned that that stuff is normally talked about WRT the two big ice-sheets, and not sea-ice that I'm aware of. As you may be aware, sea-ice is annually deciduous, and sheds to warmer waters together with iceberg calving. It is pushed-out by extending ice-shelves and wind etc
I see that you seem to be hedging your bets now, re millennial records, and the difference between ice and firn, and the difference between ice sheets and sea ice. (with ice-shelves in-between)........will that do for now?
You also wrote: Could provide some links...
Well why don't you? ......but see my following post...... I will not download until 1, June earliest.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 4:54 pm
26 May 2008
I am delaying any response for two reasons:
I've somehow (?) done the unlikely and blown my monthly broadband allowance, so that I am cut back at beard-growing speed. Thus I have not downloaded any links or had the patience to search anything.
After lengthy cogitation, I still don't really understand some of the things you wrote
Meanwhile until June arrives, with broadband, I'd like it if you could elucidate several things:
a) What temperature series are you referring to, when you talk of warming and cooling periods?
b) When you talk of the bell-shaped curve, do you mean maybe the break-over from warming to cooling around 1940, as seen on the latest Hadley graph?
c) Are you aware that Hadley and GISS use different arbitrary smoothing methods, among other things, and that the coding breaks-down in the last half of the filter width? (In the case of Hadley, the last ten years.)
d) Could you please expand on what you mean by:
"...you're confusin' the temperature data with melt data..."
BTW:
It seems to me that you read RealClimate too much.
And, Ah yes, volcanoes long, long ago, the complete solution for everything, with precise records of the particulates and gasses regional distributions and regional longevity, reduced albedo on snow/ice, etc and whatnot!
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 3:17 am
27 May 2008
It seems to me that you read RealClimate too much.
And, Ah yes, volcanoes long, long ago, the complete solution for everything, with precise records of the particulates and gasses regional distributions and regional longevity, reduced albedo on snow/ice, etc and whatnot!
Yes, you're absolutely right of course, it wasn't volcanic activity at all...it was magical pixies!
Okay, please show me links to scientific papers which claim the cool period was caused by somethin' other than volcanic activity.
d) Could you please expand on what you mean by:
"...you're confusin' the temperature data with melt data..."
Temperature rise and melting of ice do not correlate linearly.
In other words, a 1 degree temperature change doesn't cause a 10% change in ice, follwed by 20% for 2 degrees, by 30% for 3 degrees, etc. The curve shows a sharp increase in melt amounts as temperatures go higher.
But as for the forementioned 1900's warm period, you also haveta realize that melt amounts do not correlate automatically to temperature changes. In other words, there's a lag time.
A 1 degree change in temperatures for a period of 1 or 2 years won't have as much of an effect as a 1 degree change in temperatures which happens to last for 10 years or more.
Makes sense to ya?
You also wrote: Could provide some links...
Well why don't you? ......but see my following post...... I will not download until 1, June earliest.
Well then, it doesn't seem to matter whether or not I posted them, does it? ^rolls eyes^
Anyway, when you're ready:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid ...
http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/GISP2/Contri_Series/full/
http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/GISP2/PERSONALHTML/ajgow.html ...
Most of it refers to samples from Greenland, Antartica, and various glaciers (since, as ya said, those are more common), but there is some data from both Arctic sea ice as well (though records don't go back as far). Note 'specially the comparison made between sea ice samples and glacial samples from Greenland for a baseline in the second link-directories 4 and 9.
Here are some research papers (and reviews of) which I found at the library (either on site, or through the exchange program), but they don't have full text available online (that I know of).
[Alley, 2000]
Alley, R. Ice-core evidence of abrupt climate changes. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences of the united states of america, 97(4):1331 -- 1334, 2000.
[Barnola, 1999]
Barnola, J. Status of the atmospheric CO2 reconstruction from ice cores analyses. Tellus Series B-Chemical and Physical Meteorology, 51(2):151 -- 155, 1999.
[Legrand and Mayewski, 1997]
Legrand, M. and Mayewski, P. Glaciochemistry of polar ice cores: A review. Reviews of Geophysics, 35(3):219 -- 243, 1997.
[RAISBECK et al., 1990]
RAISBECK, G., YIOU, F., JOUZEL, J. and PETIT, J. BE-10 AND DELTA-H-2 IN POLAR ICE CORES AS A PROBE OF THE SOLAR VARIABILITY INFLUENCE ON CLIMATE. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A-Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences, 330(1615):463 -- 470, 1990.
(This one is good for refuting the argument that solar activity has caused the recent warming, and not human activity)
[Jouzel et al., 1997]
Jouzel, J., Alley, R., Cuffey, K., Dansgaard, W., Grootes, P., Hoffmann, G., Johnsen, S., Koster, R., Peel, D., Shuman, C., Stievenard, M., Stuiver, M. and White, J. Validity of the temperature reconstruction from water isotopes in ice cores. Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans, 102(C12):26471 -- 26487, 1997.
(This one probably has most relevancy to sea ice samples, since it uses it for baseline comparison, I think).
Thank goodness one of the University librarians used to be in my ecology class...it really comes in handy! ('specially since climate change is a passion of hers).
Permalink
PeterMartin Posted 9:05 am
27 May 2008
They may counter than the "Alarmists" do exactly the same. This is not really true. In the 70's and 80's there was much scepticsm in mainstream science too. It's the scientific evidence which has emerged in the last 20 years which has clarified the picture considerably.
Having said that, there are a few genuine scientists are on their team, who are still sceptical. They tend not to blather on about UHIE effects or deny that the earth is warming , when it clearly is, but on the whole they do tend to downplay the negative effects of global warming and are therefore highly regarded in contrarian circles. The two best known would probably be Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer.
The contrarians could do worse than read what these guys actually say. Some of it is quite good. For instance, before Mr Wallaby pours scorn on the idea of volcanoes having a climatic effect, such as occurred after the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa, he might well be advised to read what the scientists who he does support have to say on the subject.
This is Roy Spencer explaining the emergence of the world from the Little Ice Age
"The warming up until 1940 represents the end of the multi-century cool period known as the Little Ice Age, a time that was particularly harsh for humanity. This warming must have been natural because mankind had not yet emitted substantial amounts of greenhouse gases"
Nothing controversial about that. The world's temperature had been very cool for several hundred years prior to the 1930's.
Neither is Roy Spencer denying that the earth is now much warmer than it has been since at least before the LIA saying " There is little doubt that globally averaged temperatures are unusually warm today (at this writing, 2008)."
But the truth is that we can never defeat the sceptics with scientific arguments. They'll shift their ground repeatedly. At one time, they will say the measured warming is caused naturally. Solar changes is the usual explanation, even though there is no scientific evidence to support that view. At other times they will say that the measurements are wrong and there is no warming. At yet other times they will say that maybe the warming is caused by CO2 but that the extra warming is a good thing. They will say the extra CO2 itself is also a good thing because it supports extra plant life.
The scientific position is quite clear and unequivocal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climat ...
Rising CO2, and other GHG, levels are a big threat to human, animal and plant life. Reducing these levels has to be one of the main priorities of the 21st century.
Permalink
Brute Posted 11:18 am
27 May 2008
May 21, 2008
31,000 Scientists Reject `Global Warming' Agenda
By Bob Unruh
More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. - including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties - have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," the petition states. "Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
"Mr. Gore's movie, asserting a `consensus' and `settled science' in agreement about human-caused global warming, conveyed the claims about human-caused global warming to ordinary movie goers and to public school children, to whom the film was widely distributed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore's movie contains many very serious incorrect claims which no informed, honest scientist could endorse," said project spokesman and founder Art Robinson. WND submitted a request to Gore's office for comment but did not get a response.
Robinson said the dire warnings about "global warming" have gone far beyond semantics or scientific discussion now to the point they are actually endangering people. "The campaign to severely ration hydrocarbon energy technology has now been markedly expanded," he said. "In the course of
this campaign, many scientifically invalid claims about impending climate emergencies are being made.
Simultaneously, proposed political actions to severely reduce hydrocarbon use now threaten the prosperity of Americans and the very existence of hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries," he said. Read more here.
Permalink
Brute Posted 11:27 am
27 May 2008
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=63542
Permalink
Brute Posted 11:56 am
27 May 2008
Help me out here...below are two graphs:
Here's a graph of solar cycles vs. temperature......
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/essifi ...
Here's a graph of CO2 vs. temperature......
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/FULLRECORDCO2TEMPS.jpg
Which fits better against temperature, solar or CO2? Need your opinion....
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 1:35 pm
27 May 2008
Also notice that the first graph uses yearly averages...whereas the second graph is using seasonal data (which is much more variable) to construct 5-year averages and the correlate them to one-year averages of CO2 production.
In other words, the data sets used to create the lines don't match due to the variance in time factors.
Plus you're aware of the problems with the USHCN V2 temperature data, correct? 'Specially when talkin' 'bout a global phenonmenon and not one limited to North America?
So why you'd even use a USHCN data set of temperatures for global warming is beyond me.
...ya don't even know what a USHCN data set is, do ya?
Here's one related to solar activity:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Solar- ...
Notice the solar activity (particularly flare activity) is actually lower in recent years.
As for this:
May 21, 2008
31,000 Scientists Reject `Global Warming' Agenda
By Bob Unruh
It's already been posted and discussed in another thread.
It was found that many of the signature holders needed to be much more specific in their categorizing as "specialists". Oil drilling geologists and petroleum engineers were found to have signed themselves as "earth science specialists" and certain lumberjacks who got degrees in forestry claimed to be "ecologists". Farmers and cattlemen put down "natural resource managers" and several fishermen put down "oceanographers" and "marine biologists". In some cases, they did earn these degrees, but obviously their emphasis on certain scientific aspects backing those degrees was left asunder, as is obvious by their career choices.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 5:50 pm
27 May 2008
ME: "And, Ah yes, volcanoes long, long ago, the complete solution for everything, with precise records of the particulates and gasses regional distributions and regional longevity, reduced albedo on snow/ice, etc and whatnot! "
YOU: "Yes, you're absolutely right of course, it wasn't volcanic activity at all...it was magical pixies! Okay, please show me links to scientific papers which claim the cool period was caused by somethin' other than volcanic activity."
Dear TP, to help you understand my cynical/satirical comment better, (I hope !), I've added emphasis to four, two, and two, key words. What you need to understand is that nature is complicated, and that there are commonly multiple reasons for natural cycles, not just one cause. If you would be kind enough to answer my questions a), b) and c) above yours, I will be in a better position to give a fuller answer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You quoted me thus
"d) Could you please expand on what you mean by:
"...you're confusin' the temperature data with melt data..." "
And came back with a lengthy explanation which I translate to mean:
Ice melts faster the warmer it is relative to freezing point, and melts a greater net amount the longer it is warmer than freezing point.
Gee! After 5 years doing full-time maybe 10% specifically thermodynamics, that would never have occurred to me.....I'm indebted with your advice TP
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In reponse to my puzzled enquiry about your reference to ice-cores on sea ice, you gave some links and then wrote in part:
"...Most of it refers to samples from Greenland, Antartica, and various glaciers (since, as ya said, those are more common), but there is some data from both Arctic sea ice as well (though records don't go back as far)..."
In case you are not aware, let me advise that there are basically four basic types of ice, and/or firn within the realm of where you have wandered:
Ice-sheets, eg, Greenland and Antarctica grounded ice (1)
Ice-caps, that are somewhat similar, but far more dynamic on high mountains (1)
Ice -shelves: basically extrusions from ice sheets that are floating on water
Sea ice, comprising frozen sea water, (at ~2C compared with fresh water 0C) (2)
(1) These two forms also "extrude" in the form of glaciers
(2) Ice shelves are much thicker than salt-sea-ice, and calve-off to form freshwater icebergs or debris.
Would you be kind enough to single-out the ice-core data for sea ice, because that is what we started off discussing, and it is unfair for you to link to mostly irrelevant material
As I have explained, I won't be back on broadband until 1, June, so take your time.
Permalink
Brute Posted 8:22 pm
27 May 2008
by S. Fred Singer
The World & I, July 1997
The Ehrlichs have a message--simplistic and wrong; the paranoid title of their book pretty much tells the story: They sense a conspiracy by "anti- environmentalists," who have "successfully sowed seeds of doubt among journalists, policy-makers, and the public at large about the reality and importance of such phenomena as overpopulation, global climate change, ozone depletion, and loss of biodiversity." But there is no conspiracy out there; and if journalists are listening, it may just be that they find scientific facts persuasive.
Paul Ehrlich is a professor of biology at Stanford University, who has specialized in population dynamics of insects. He is best known for his book The Population Bomb, published in 1968, which gained much notoriety when environmental consciousness was raised by Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring. These books nurtured organizations like Zero Population Growth and fired up environmental activism, which transformed old-line conservation organizations like the Audubon Society and Sierra Club, and spawned new ones like the Environmental Defense Fund and Greenpeace. As Ehrlich's new book proudly relates, he received a MacArthur Foundation "genius grant" and numerous ecology awards--which tells you something about the judgment of the judges.
It is a matter of record that Paul Ehrlich has a consistent history of failed predic- tions; a good source is the book Eco-Scam by Ronald Bailey (St. Martins Press, New York, 1993), with over two dozen references to Ehrlich. In his 1969 article "Eco-Catastrophe!" Ehrlich predicted the following: the oceans dead from DDT poisoning by 1979 and devoid of fish; 200,000 deaths from "smog disasters" in New York and Los Angeles in 1973; U.S. life expectancy dropping to 42 years by 1980 because of pesticide-induced cancers, with U.S. population declining to 22.6 million by 1999 (!), and so on.
In a July 1995 article in Contingencies, R. A. Dousette comments trenchantly that one of Ehrlich's earlier books, The End of Affluence (1974), has "much of the comic quality of an old Marx Brothers film." Ehrlich recommends stockpiling cans of tuna, "because periodic protein shortages...seem certain to occur...", with the President dissolving Congress "during the food riots of the 1980s." These food shortages would drive the United States to using insecticides so damaging to the environment that a horrified world would launch a nuclear attack on our country, in order to forestall environmental despoliation of this magnitude. The book is an endless catalog of failed predictions. Potential problems are treated as certain to occur and then magnified into disasters. There is not even the slightest acknowledgment of the possibilities imminent within human creativity and our problem-solving capacity as antidotes to Ehrlich's dark and pessimistic vision.
In promoting their new book, the Ehrlichs employed an outfit called Environmental Media Services. EMS appears to be closely tied to Fenton Communications, the folks that brought us the notorious cancer scare about the chemical Alar. More recently, Fenton has been touting other environmental "catastrophes" that seem to have little scientific basis, like the endocrine-disrupter scare featured in the book Our Stolen Future.
EMS/Fenton attempted to gain scientific respectability--and to mislead journalists to boot--by holding a press conference in the offices of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and inveigling the current AAAS president, Dr. Jane Lubchenco, to appear on a panel with Paul Ehrlich. It is not clear how the AAAS allowed itself to be used as seeming to endorse Betrayal of Science and Reason. When questioned by reporters, however, Lubchenco had to admit that she was not speaking for the AAAS--but her disclaimer could not erase the impression that the AAAS stood behind the Ehrlichs' thesis.
The press release issued by EMS/Fenton pulls no punches. (They evidently did not employ the services of a libel lawyer, which may have been a mistake on their part.) Under the heading "Scientists hit `brownlash' in new book: Authors of The Population Bomb detail backdoor campaign to derail environmental and health policy," the release describes the strategy of these 'brownlashers' who "have opened a new line of attack...by challenging science upon which environmentalism is based." How dastardly! I am shocked, shocked! How dare anyone question the science of the Ehrlichs and their allies?
Of course, their real problem seems to be that journalists are listening to these challenges, so the press release attacks them all--from Ted Koppel to Rush Limbaugh ... an interesting constellation. Apparently, on ABC-Nightline a few years ago, Koppel opined that scientific critics should be judged on the basis of their science rather than on who supports their work.
The press release then goes on to label as "anti-environmentalists" well-known writers Michael Fumento, author of Science Under Siege, and Gregg Easterbrook, author of A Moment on Earth. I find my name listed alongside of theirs and attacked by patently false smears that are probably actionable.
In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that the book itself refers to me unfavorably but in a reasonably civil manner. The Ehrlichs acknowledge that a specialist in libel law reviewed their manuscript; perhaps that had something to do with it.
Betrayal claims to move the debate on environment "away from politics and polemics into the realm of science." A letter in the Washington Post (Jan.5, 1997) comments: "This is absurd... the book is itself a polemic. It mixes truths, half- truths, quarter-truths, and untruths in whatever proportions are needed to fit the Ehrlichs' beliefs on any issue. It caricatures the arguments of others to make demolition easier. It treats anyone who disagrees with the Ehrlichs as an enemy of the environment."
Perhaps the most amusing part of Betrayal is a listing of so-called "fables" about the atmosphere and climate, every one of which turns out to be true, even though the Ehrlichs state them to be myths. The most obvious one is: "Paul Ehrlich has made incredible claims about the climate before; he is not credible on this subject". This supposed myth, of course, happens to be absolutely correct. Here are some others, taken from the book and the EMS media advisory:
"Global warming is not a major environmental problem."
Is this statement a myth? Certainly not. Our best estimate is that global average temperatures might increase by no more than a half a degree over the next hundred years as a result of greenhouse warming.
"There is no evidence that global warming is real."
A myth? No. Plenty of natural fluctuations in the climate record, but no evidence yet of any warming trend.
"The atmosphere has actually cooled since 1979, according to accurate satellite- based measurements."
A myth? Not at all; the statement is absolutely correct. Just check the scientific publications.
"The less than one-half degree of temperature rise - all that global warming enthusiasts can find - is probably part of the slow recovery from the `Little Ice Age'."
A myth? Hardly. This is considered the most likely interpretation of why the temperature increased between 1900 and 1940, well before industrial activity and population grew.
"Even if global warming does occur, any necessary adjustments would be small compared to the adjustments we make to temperature differences over the course of a year."
A myth? No. Just compare a half-a-degree increase to a summer-winter difference of as much as fifty degrees Celsius (in Minnesota).
"If global warming is occurring, there's probably not much we can do about it anyway."
Even without the benefit of modern technology, humanity has adjusted to much larger changes in the past millennia than we anticipate to happen in the next centuries.
"Just a few decades ago, climatologists were concerned about global cooling. Scientists are obviously confused about the issue."
The first part of the statement is absolutely correct. And some scientists--like the Ehrlichs--are still confused.
In the Appendix, the Ehrlichs attack popular books that throw doubt on environmentalist claims. They stay away from the carefully researched The Resourceful Earth, edited by Julian Simon and the late Herman Kahn. It is interesting that they do not mention the widely publicized 1972 book Limits to Growth, which predicts an exhaustion of all mineral resources in the 1980s and of oil soon thereafter. It would be too embarrassing to remind people of such failed predictions.
The same selective treatment is given to the so-called "scientific consensus" about global disasters. They quote a statement by scientific academies, concerned mainly with population growth, and the "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity," put out by the activist Union of Concerned Scientists. They carefully avoid mentioning the "Heidelberg Appeal," which cautions against hasty policies based on shaky science and was signed by over 4000 scientists worldwide, including some 70 Nobel laureates. Nor do they mention the "Leipzig Declaration," specifi- cally concerned with the global warming scare, signed by nearly 100 atmospheric specialists.
I also note the absence of any mention of the "Morelia Declaration," a 1992 document signed by scientists that include some of the icons mentioned by the Ehrlichs in their acknowledgments--specifically, Thomas Lovejoy and Sherwood Rowland. Morelia calls for equal treatment of all species, including not only animals but also plants. So stinkweed should have the same rights as a human being? That notion might have been a bit too radical, even for the Ehrlichs.
S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist, is the founding president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, headquartered in Fairfax, Virginia, and emeritus professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia. He was the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service. In early publications, he predicted the increase of atmospheric methane, an important greenhouse gas, and devised the instrument used to measure stratospheric ozone from satellites.
Permalink
Brute Posted 8:26 pm
27 May 2008
27
05
2008
Stuck in the arctic ice that doesn't exist. (file photo)
Last year as arctic sea ice melted to record levels, panic set in for many. But then, as the sea ice rebounded and froze again quickly in the 2007/2008 winter, making up for that record loss and reaching heights not seen for several years, many exclaimed that even though the ice areal extent had recovered, this new ice was "thin" and would likely melt again quickly. There were also many news stories about how the Northwest Passage was ice free for the first time "ever". For example, Backpacker Magazine ran a story saying "The ice is so low that the photos clearly show a viable northwest passage sea route along the coasts of Greenland, Canada, and Alaska."
Cashing in on the panic that has set in with the help of some climate alarmists, tour operators like Quark Expeditions of Norwalk Connecticut are offering polar expeditions catering to that "see it before it's gone" travel worry. One of them is in fact a trip though the Northwest Passage on a former Soviet Icebreaker called the Kapitan Khlebnikov which is a massive 24,000 horsepower Polar Class icebreaker capable of carrying 108 passengers in relative luxury through the arctic wilderness. Here is some background on this icebreaker:
Kapitan Khlebnikov - The Kapitan Khlebnikov was built in Finland in 1981 and is one of three vessels of this class. Not simply an ice-reinforced ship, the Kapitan Khlebnikov is a powerful polar class icebreaker, which has sailed to extremely remote corners of the globe with adventurous travelers since 1992. It was the first ship ever to circumnavigate Antarctica with passengers in 1996-97. See more on this vessel at Wikipedia
According to Quark Expeditions, they've even fitted this icebreaker with a heated indoor swimming pool, exercise room and sauna, and a theater-style auditorium for "Expedition Team presentations" ( presumably so you can watch Gore's AIT polar bear tears while in situ ). It is quite a difference from the travel conditions that Robert Peary experienced just 99 years ago when he reached the North Pole.
One of my alert readers, Walt from Canada, pointed out this story in the Globe and Mail on may 24th in the travel section. It seems the irony of a polar expedition to see such things as record sea ice loss being stopped cold by the very ice that doesn't exist was not lost on the editors.
From the Globe and Mail article:
I am on the bridge of the massive Russian icebreaker Kapitan Khlebnikov, and the tension is palpable. We have hit ice - thick ice.
The ice master studies the mountains of white packed around the ship while the 24,000-horsepower diesel engines work at full throttle to open a path. The ship rises slowly onto the barrier of ice, crushes it and tosses aside blocks the size of small cars as if they were ice cubes in a glass. It creeps ahead a few metres, then comes to a halt, its bow firmly wedged in the ice. After doing this for two days, the ship can go no farther.
The ice master confers with the captain, who makes a call to the engine room. The engines are shut down. He turns to those of us watching the drama unfold, and we are shocked by his words: "Now, only nature can help this ship." We are doomed to drift.
What irony. I am a passenger on one of the most powerful icebreakers in the world, travelling through the Northwest Passage - which is supposed to become almost ice-free in a time of global warming, the next shipping route across the top of the world - and here we are, stuck in the ice, engines shut down, bridge deserted. Only time and tide can free us.
What irony indeed.
They eventually had nature on their side, and on the seventh day of being trapped in the ice, winds and tide moved the ice pack enough that they could continue. But, I have to wonder, will the pampered eco-tourists on this trip see the irony that we do?
Permalink
PeterMartin Posted 11:37 pm
27 May 2008
Well I have checked the scientific publications and this is certainly not the case.
Both satellite and surface measurements have shown an increase of between 0.1 and 0.2 deg C per decade since then.
I'd be interested to see any genuine peer reviewed scientific papers which support your assertion.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 2:33 am
28 May 2008
Obviously it didn't occur to you. If it had, then ya wouldn't have gotten the two confused and used the 1900 warm period as an example.
Would you be kind enough to single-out the ice-core data for sea ice, because that is what we started off discussing, and it is unfair for you to link to mostly irrelevant material
I already told ya which ones...pay attention:
http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/GISP2/Contri_Series/full/
Look in directories 4 and 9.
Don't suppose it occurred to ya that it might be a good idea to actually wait until ya could read 'em before ya criticized?
Though your assertions 'bout the type and general thickness of ice cores are correct, which is why they used sea ice as a baseline in most of these findings.
In other words, they compared drilled samples from the sea ice, measured the atmospheric components in the air pockets, and then compared it to the known atmospheric data which had been measured in recent years in order to confirm that the data matched the records in the ice samples (since sea ice is more recent).
Using this as an effective means to make sure that ice core samples in general are accurate, they can now say with a good amount of certainty that ice core samples from other locations are likely to reflect the atmospheric conditions of the past times.
Brute, how many times we gotta tell ya-if you're gonna copy and paste somethin', read it first! Or did they not teach ya how to read an entire article in school?
It is a matter of record that Paul Ehrlich has a consistent history of failed predic- tions;
Do ya even know what the book Silent Spring, (which your article refers to, but I doubt ya knew that since ya didn't read it), refers to?
It refers to DDT and other pesticides. The book was a catalyst for the banning of DDT. How was that a failed prediction?
In his 1969 article "Eco-Catastrophe!" Ehrlich predicted the following: the oceans dead from DDT poisoning by 1979 and devoid of fish; 200,000 deaths from "smog disasters" in New York and Los Angeles in 1973; U.S. life expectancy dropping to 42 years by 1980 because of pesticide-induced cancers, with U.S. population declining to 22.6 million by 1999 (!), and so on
Gee, I wonder why that didn't happen?
Could it possibly be because after the article was written (in 1969), we banned DDT, enacted the Clean Air Act and put restrictions on pesticides?
The reason the prediction was wrong was because we took measures to help alleviate the problems.
That was the purpose of the article to begin with...to incite action before the prediction came true.
Even so, the article actually cited these as worse-case scenarios (know what a scenario is, Brute?). It might be helpful to actually read the article they criticize before you decide to agree with 'em.
Or perhaps you'd agree with Hitler's manifesto if they had simply said it was a good thing? Without actually reading the manifesto?
Really, PLEASE READ THE ARTICLE BEFORE POSTING
Is this statement a myth? Certainly not. Our best estimate is that global average temperatures might increase by no more than a half a degree over the next hundred years as a result of greenhouse warming.
Temperatures already have risen more than 1 degree Celsius and are expected to increase bay at least 3 to 5 degrees Celsius before century's end.
Where did they get the idea that it would be only 1/2 a degree?
Obviously off the top of their heads, since they didn't cite sources.
Even without the benefit of modern technology, humanity has adjusted to much larger changes in the past millennia than we anticipate to happen in the next centuries.
Yes, but unfortunately, millions died durin' those adjustments (which they don't even cite specifically).
"Just a few decades ago, climatologists were concerned about global cooling. Scientists are obviously confused about the issue."
The first part of the statement is absolutely correct. And some scientists--like the Ehrlichs--are still confused.
Scientists were concerned about overpopulation, now they're concerned 'bout nuclear war wipin' out the population, so they're obviously confused 'bout the issue. ^rolls eyes^
Do ya even understand the concepts behind the global coolin' "concern"? It's been covered on Grist a number of times, but I'll link ya to a quick summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
Please READ YOUR ARTICLES BEFORE POSTING THEM. Save yourself the embarrasement of looking like a person who is dumber than a Dog Patch. ;)
Permalink
Brute Posted 9:55 am
28 May 2008
Note to self: Get rid of enormous vat of DDT that you've been storing in garage for all this time.
Just an aside; your writing "style" is atrocious. Are you actually that inept? Do they teach that "ability" somewhere?
Permalink
Brute Posted 11:59 am
28 May 2008
By Keith Lockitch
September 10, 2007
This September marks the 45th anniversary of the publication of Silent Spring, Rachel Carson's anti-pesticide manifesto credited with inspiring the environmentalist movement.
But this anniversary is no cause for celebration. The legacy of Silent Spring includes more than a million deaths a year from the mosquito-borne disease malaria. Though nearly eradicated decades ago, malaria has resurged with a vengeance because DDT, the most effective agent of mosquito control, has been essentially discarded--discarded based not on scientific concerns about its safety, but on environmental dogma.
Published in 1962 at the height of the worldwide antimalaria campaign, Silent Spring sparked a crusade against DDT. The widespread spraying of DDT had caused a spectacular drop in malaria incidence--Sri Lanka, for example, reported 2.8 million malaria victims in 1948, but by 1963 it had only 17. Yet Carson's book made no mention of this. It said nothing of DDT's crucial role in eradicating malaria in industrialized countries, or of the tens of millions of lives saved by its use.
Instead, Carson filled her book with misinformation--alleging, among other claims, that DDT causes cancer. Her unsubstantiated assertion that continued DDT use would unleash a cancer epidemic generated a panicked fear of the pesticide that endures as public opinion to this day.
But the scientific case against DDT was, and still is, nonexistent. Almost 60 years have passed since the malaria-spraying campaigns began--with hundreds of millions of people exposed to large concentrations of DDT--yet, according to international health scholar Amir Attaran, the scientific literature "has not even one peer-reviewed, independently replicated study linking exposure to DDT with any adverse health outcome." Indeed, in a 1956 study, human volunteers ate DDT every day for over two years with no ill effects then or since.
Abundant scientific evidence supporting the safety and importance of DDT was presented during seven months of testimony before the newly formed EPA in 1971. The presiding judge ruled unequivocally against a ban. But the public furor against DDT--fueled by Silent Spring and the growing environmental movement--was so great that a ban was imposed anyway. The EPA administrator, who hadn't even bothered to attend the hearings, overruled his own judge and imposed the ban in defiance of the facts and evidence. And the 1972 ban in the United States led to an effective worldwide ban, as countries dependent on U.S.-funded aid agencies curtailed their DDT use to comply with those agencies' demands.
So if scientific facts are not what has driven the furor against DDT, what has? Estimates put today's malaria incidence worldwide at around 300 million cases, with a million deaths every year. If this enormous toll of human suffering and death is preventable, why do environmentalists--who profess to be the defenders of life--continue to oppose the use of DDT?
The answer is that environmental ideology values an untouched environment above human life. The root of the opposition to DDT is not science but the environmentalist moral premise that it is wrong for man to "tamper" with nature.
The large-scale eradication of disease-carrying insects epitomizes the control of nature by man. This is DDT's sin. To Carson and the environmentalists she inspired, "the 'control of nature' is a phrase conceived in arrogance, born of the Neanderthal age of biology and philosophy." Nature, they hold, is intrinsically valuable and must be kept free from human interference.
On this environmentalist premise, the proper attitude to nature is not to seek to improve it for human benefit, but to show "humility" before its "vast forces" and leave it alone. We should seek, Carson wrote, not to eliminate malarial mosquitoes with pesticides, but to find instead "a reasonable accommodation between the insect hordes and ourselves." If the untouched, "natural" state is one in which millions contract deadly diseases, so be it.
Carson's current heirs agree. Earth First! founder Dave Foreman writes: "Ours is an ecological perspective that views Earth as a community and recognizes such apparent enemies as 'disease' (e.g., malaria) and 'pests' (e.g., mosquitoes) not as manifestations of evil to be overcome but rather as vital and necessary components of a complex and vibrant biosphere."
In the few minutes it has taken you to read this article, over a thousand people have contracted malaria and half a dozen have died. This is the life-or-death consequence of viewing pestilent insects as a "necessary" component of a "vibrant biosphere" and seeking a "reasonable accommodation" with them.
This anniversary of Silent Spring should be commemorated, not with laudatory festivities, but with the rejection of the environmental ideology the book inspired.
Keith Lockitch is a PhD in physics and a resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand--author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead." Contact the writer at (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[22]='\"';l[23]=' 103';l[24]=' 114';l[25]=' 111';l[26]=' 46';l[27]=' 100';l[28]=' 110';l[29]=' 97';l[30]=' 114';l[31]=' 110';l[32]=' 121';l[33]=' 97';l[34]=' 64';l[35]=' 97';l[36]=' 105';l[37]=' 100';l[38]=' 101';l[39]=' 109';l[40]=':';l[41]='o';l[42]='t';l[43]='l';l[44]='i';l[45]='a';l[46]='m';l[47]='\"';l[48]='=';l[49]='f';l[50]='e';l[51]='r';l[52]='h';l[53]='a ';l[54]='
Permalink
Brute Posted 12:05 pm
28 May 2008
By Mike Toth
Copyright 1998 The Stanford Review
March 10, 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you have trouble confusing fact and myth? Do you have a penchant for spending days, months, years reaffirming what has been uniformly proven false? Have you ever lost money because of your unyielding faith in your nutty ideas? If you answered "Yes" to one or more of these questions, fear not! -- you'll get an A from at least one Stanford professor, tenured biologist Paul Ehrlich.
Author of the best-selling Population Bomb, an intellectual spark for the modern ecological movement, Ehrlich has been a tenured faculty member on the Farm since the early sixties. While his early research centered on butterflies, Ehrlich reached national prominence for the startling ecological predictions he made in his 1968 Population Bomb and on a famous Tonight Show interview shortly after the release of his book.
The three-million copies of the Population Bomb that sold were influential in the radicalizing of conservationist organizations such as the Sierra Club, and in the creating new ones like Greenpeace. A founding father of Earth Day, in 1990 Ehrlich won a five-year MacArthur Foundation grant for $345,000 and shared half of the Crafoord Prize, the ecologist's version of the Nobel. Most recently, Ehrlich and his wife Anne published Betrayal of Science and Reason: How Anti-Environmental Rhetoric Threatens our Future . This spring, he is teaching a Freshman Seminar entitled, "Environmental Problems and Solutions."
So hurrah for Professor Ehrlich and hurrah for Stanford University. Except for one problem. Since his foray into environmental tomfoolery, Ehrlich's predictions have been consistently and tragically wrong, for four decades and counting.
In the mid-sixties, Ehrlich began the modern ecological movement's resurrection of Malthusian thought. Thomas Malthus was the British economist who, in 1798, predicted that, because population growth outstrips the growth in food supply, the starvation of Great Britain was imminent and inevitable. Unfortunately for Malthus, Great Britain was still alive and well two centuries later; unfortunately for the world, Ehrlich made it his task to bring Malthus' dead wrong ideas back to life.
After limiting his family size to one (Ehrlich had a vasectomy shortly after receiving tenure at Stanford -- showing once again that tenure does limit production), Ehrlich resolved in 1968 to write an environmental text that would warn the world of the immediate danger it faced. Ehrlich's logic was simple: a growing population increasingly consumes the earth's finite resources.This left humanity with three options: 1) stop producing, 2) stop consuming, or 3) die from starvation.
His Population Bomb began, "The battle to feed all of humanity is over ... hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." In 1969, Ehrlich added, "By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth's population to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people." The same year, he predicted in an article entitled "Eco-Catastrophe!" that by 1980 the United States would see its life expectancy drop to 42 because of pesticides, and by 1999 its population would drop to 22.6 million. In the mid-seventies, with the release of his The End of Affluence, Ehrlich incorporated drama into his dire prophesies. He envisioned the President dissolving Congress "during the food riots of the 1980s," followed by the United States suffering a nuclear attack for its mass use of insecticides. That's right, Ehrlich thought that the United States would get nuked in retaliation for killing bugs.
As good as they were for the rest of us, the 1980s weren't so kind to Prof. Ehrlich. There were no food riots of 1980, Congress stayed in session (though perhaps Reagan should have taken a hint from Ehrlich when the Senate started wondering why we didn't send the Girl Scouts to deal with the Sandinistas), and in general Americans got richer, fatter, and more numerous. As did the rest of the world. According to the Food and Agriculture, the Third World now consumes 27 percent more calories per person per day than it did in 1963. India is now exporting food, and deaths from famine, starvation, and malnutrition are fewer than ever before.
Despite the increase in population and consumption, there is no sight of the shortages that Ehrlich predicted. Since 1980, The Economist reports, the world food commodity index has fallen 50 percent. If there were no food left, it would make little sense for farmers to lower the price on what little remains. During the 1980s thirty-three of thirty-five common minerals fell in price. In 1990, unexploited reserves of oil amounted to 900 billion barrels, 350 billion more than the total oil reserves of the 1970s, when Paul Ehrlich asked poignantly, "What will we do when the pumps run dry?"
For those wondering why things are so good when they should be so bad, the answer is not Al Gore. Rather, we're richer, fatter, and more populous because technology -- the gift of free minds -- has again advanced us. When scarcity rears its angry head, historically it's been techies (the types that consider the "outdoors" to be the parking lot outside the lab) that have kept humanity afloat, and not academic doomsayers or pretentious tie-dyed greens. The Iron Age began after wars in the eastern Mediterranean caused tin shortages; the age of coal resulted from timber shortages in 16th century Britain; the 1850s shortage of whale oil translated into the first oil well in 1859; as pessimists began worrying about the copper shortage that telephone wiring would cause, fiber optic communication emerged.
This was at least the theory of a lone American economist, Julian Simon. And after a decade of being attacked or ignored by Ehrlich, Simon resolved to show Ehrlich what a joke the doomsayers were. The two never debated (Ehrlich refused, calling Simon a "fringe character"), rather he put his money were his mouth was. In 1980, when Ehrlich was still predicting imminent scarcity, Simon set up a bet wherein he would sell Ehrlich $1,000 dollars worth of any five commodities that Ehrlich chose. Ehrlich would hold the commodities for ten years. If the prices rose -- meaning scarcity -- Simon would buy the commodities back from Ehrlich at the higher price. If the prices fell, Ehrlich would pay Simon the difference. Professor Ehrlich jumped at the bet, noting that he wanted to "accept the offer before other greedy people jumped in."
In October of 1990, Ehrlich mailed Simon a check for $570.07. As Simon predicted, free markets provided lower prices and more options. Simon would have won even if prices weren't adjusted for inflation. He then offered to raise the wager to $20,000 and use any resources at any time that Ehrlich preferred. The Stanford professor was slightly less bold this time. He refused Simon's offers, mailing him only a check and a table of his calculations, with no note attached. No longer was the bet Ehrlich's way of saving Simon from greedy speculators. Looking back, Ehrlich claimed that he was "goaded into making a bet with Simon on a matter of marginal environmental importance."
Like any good loser, the Stanford biologist has yet to acknowledge any fault in his career of failed predictions, and frankly, The Review is not holding its breath, expecting Ehrlich to take a trip to Damascus. To some there seems little relevance to focus on a scientist whose predictions were never realized. History is already in the course of forgetting Professor Ehrlich. Fortune magazine recently listed Simon among "the world's most stimulating thinkers." Ehrlich's name didn't appear. But before we forget Professor Ehrlich, we must remember the influence his ideas have had on the world. Ehrlich has suggested that governments should consider using coercion to limit family size and that the United States should end food aid for countries that refuse population control. His fellow eco-nut Garrett Hardin said bluntly the "freedom to breed is intolerable."
Coerced birth control had its day; China adopted the one child per family policy and slaughtered a disproportionate number of female children, as birth control advocates stood in silent assent. The Third World has grown healthier, richer, and more populous as Mr. Ehrlich"s predictions have failed. But if Professor Ehrlich's ideas were left unchecked, we would have scores of nations that would have not been allowed to enjoy the same material progress we have enjoyed. Often it's difficult to miss in the rhetoric of population controllers like Professor Ehrlich a message that endorses a world in which there are more of us -- clean, earth-conscious First Worlders -- than them -- the rest of the world. It's tragic to think of a world in which a mother in Zaire is told what her family must look like, while Paul Ehrlich lives well in Palo Alto.
Mike Toth will make wagers with any member of the Stanford faculty.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 2:55 pm
28 May 2008
Yep. ;)
Hey, gotta give me some credit, at least I can write, some people here apparently don't know how to...all they can do is copy and paste articles. ;)
Wonder if that means they can't figure out how to say it themselves?
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 5:36 pm
28 May 2008
TP: I'm beginning to become a tad irritated by your silly obfuscations, together with having to translate from your unique Pidgin into English.
Some recommendations: Stop making yourself look very dumb by taking what is an obviously sarcastic statement from me, as if it were meant seriously! Stop posting references to irrelevant material! Answer some of the questions (ie a,b, & c above) that were seeking for the third time, clarification on what it was you were attempting to say....I cannot respond in a scientific manner until you do this.
BTW, you "shout" too much within the accepted blogosphere courtesy. Ha capito?
Unless you smarten-up, I may have to treat you like Peter Martin. (= ignore)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Meanwhile, until I get broadband again, I have this information from NSIDC for Arctic sea-ice cover:
Record low cover (since 1979?) on 16 Sep 07..........4,130,000 square kilometres
Recovery one month later (Oct 16).........................5,650,000 square kilometres
At the so-called record summertime low, and an estimate of up to 30,000 polar bears, they each have about 138 square kilometres per bear. They also have ice shelves and solid land, on which they are not shy. They amble at what? I guess say 2 Km/Hr?
Do you goodie goodie greenies know of a per capita survival area for polar bears?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
More recommended reading: CryoSat and CryoSat-2 and why it is considered to be important.
Permalink
Brute Posted 3:13 am
29 May 2008
Warmists in Frantic Effort to Save their Failing Theory
By Joseph D'Aleo, CCM
The global warmers are becoming increasingly desperate to prop up their failing prophesy in every way possible. Behaving just as Leon Festinger predicted in When Prophecies Fail. As the earth shows no net warming in a decade and cooling into its 7th year, as new models suggest cooling may continue because of natural ocean cycles, as the sun stays quiet now 12 years since the last solar minimum, usually a signal of cooling, as more and more peer review calls into question the importance of CO2 and of the the accuracy of the models and the entire greenhouse theory because of the failure of fingerprinting, the alarmists begin a frantic effort to save their failing theory. You see so many have won the lottery and want to ensure the annuity checks keep coming.
As we indicated in an earlier blog, they are now busy reinventing old data. NASA and NOAA continually revises old data and makes gross assumptions that always result in more warming. The old reliable radiosonde weather balloon data gets challenged because it (and the satellite derived data) do not show the warming the models and theory predict for the high tropical atmophere. A legitimate scientist would trust the data and assume the models are in error (as models so often are) but to these agenda driven alarmists, the models must be right and the data wrong. But because they can't challenge the satellite data which has been quality assured and passed the sniff test, they go after the weather balloon data. They use some of the same unsound tricks that get more warming in the global data and revise the old balloon data to get better agreement with the models. See the ludicrous adusted data (RAOB 1.4 in black) in the diagram below.
See larger image here
They don't stop there. They try a left end run by using winds as a proxy for temperatures to show the warming not shown by the balloon temperature measurements was really there (see May 26 Warm Winds Comfort Climate Models). In the same natural Geoscience Journal issue, coincidentally, Peter Thorne of Britain Met Office Hadley Centre in a commentary, also published in Nature Geoscience. The new study "provides ... long-awaited experimental verification of model predictions," Thorne wrote. All these efforts were "fast-tracked" through the Journal of Climate and Nature Geosciences in record time to show the complicity of the AMS and Nature in the whole scam.
Then there is that mid-century cold period, well-documented in many cold and snow records that were set in the 1960s into the 1970s but a thorn in the side of the alarmists as when combined with the apparent current cooling might imply cyclical behavior which would be hard to explain away without considering natural factors. So the solution - again find fault with the data. NASA and NOAA make adjustments to their "adjustments" to minimize the cooling then and now. Now they suddenly discover in a paper in the latest Nature that the ocean temperature measurement techniques did not change at once but gradually (something well known for years) and making that slower correction for the ocean changes results in at least part of the mid-century cold period become an artifact. This now will allow models to tweak back on the aerosol adjustment they had to use to explain the cooling (since they downplay the sun and don't handle ocean cycles well). Diminishing the cyclical look will allow them to argue this current cooling is a brief anomaly not totally inconsistent with their models, at least for a while longer. Unfortunately it may be a long enough period to allow congress and the new President to do something stupid. No on further reflection, that would be nothing unusual, I should have said REALLY stupid.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 12:32 pm
30 May 2008
For the month of April, Arctic sea ice extent stood at 14.49 million square kilometers (5.59 million square miles), which is 0.61 million square kilometers (0.24 million square miles) greater than April 2007, but is still 0.51 million square kilometers (0.20 million square miles) less than the 1979 to 2000 average for April."
Those poor polar bears! At ~500 square kilometres range per bear in April, (ignoring ice-shelves and a lot of land), how can they ever find any humpy? I bet they can't wait for August to come with a more sensible range!
Permalink
Brute Posted 1:11 am
01 Jun 2008
(Attack Of The Socialist-Luddites)
The right to have children should be a marketable commodity, bought and traded by individuals but absolutely limited by the state.
--Kenneth Boulding, originator of the "Spaceship Earth"
concept (as quoted by William Tucker in Progress and Privilege, 1982)
We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion--guilt-free at last!
--Stewart Brand (writing in the Whole Earth Catalogue).
Free Enterprise really means rich people get richer. They have the freedom to exploit and psychologically rape their fellow human beings in the process.... Capitalism is destroying the earth.
--Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists
We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects.... We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of presently settled land.
--David Foreman, Earth First!
Everything we have developed over the last 100 years should be destroyed.
--Pentti Linkola
If you ask me, it'd be a little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it. We ought to be looking for energy sources that are adequate for our needs, but that won't give us the excesses of concentrated energy with which we could do mischief to the earth or to each other.
--Amory Lovins in The Mother Earth-Plowboy Interview, Nov/Dec 1977, p.22
The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species (man) upon the rest of the natural world.
--John Shuttleworth
What we've got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.
--Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-Colorado)
I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.
--John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.
--John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing....This is not to say that the rise of human civilization is insignificant, but there is no way of showing that it will be much help to the world in the long run.
--Economist editorial
We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity's sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight.
--David Foreman, Earth First!
Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.
--Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!
If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS
--Earth First! Newsletter
Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, is not as important as a wild and healthy planets...Some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.
--David Graber, biologist, National Park Service
The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans.
--Dr. Reed F. Noss, The Wildlands Project
If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.
--Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund
Cannibalism is a "radical but realistic solution to the problem of overpopulation."
--Lyall Watson, The Financial Times, 15 July 1995
Poverty For "Those People"
We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels.
--Carl Amery
Every time you turn on an electric light, you are making another brainless baby.
--Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists
To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem.
--Lamont Cole
If there is going to be electricity, I would like it to be decentralized, small, solar-powered.
--Gar Smith, editor of the Earth Island Institute's online magazine The Edge
The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States: We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the U.S. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are. And it is important to the rest of the world to make sure that they don't suffer economically by virtue of our stopping them.
--Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund
The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population.
--Reid Bryson, "Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man", (1971)
The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer.
--Paul Ehrlich, in The Population Bomb (1968)
I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.
--Paul Ehrlich in (1969)
In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.
--Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)
Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity...in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion.
--Paul Ehrlich in (1976)
This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.
--Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976
There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production--with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon... The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologist are hard-pressed to keep up with it.
--Newsweek, April 28, (1975)
This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000.
--Lowell Ponte in "The Cooling", 1976
If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. ... This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.
--Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 2:05 am
01 Jun 2008
Ya know, that's what most people would do if they wanted to argue against a listing...they'd actually read the report released by the government agency and then take it up with 'em, rather than try and argue 'bout it on an environmental blog when they haven't even read the report.
Do ya need a link to the report so ya can read it when your broadband comes back? I can give ya the link.
In the meantime, here's a graphic summary of polar bear population predictions from the DOI:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Polar_ ...
Also, please at least go to the Wikipedia article on polar bears (which I have linked to multiple times in this article):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear
Apparently, ya have grave misconceptions 'bout the average range of a polar bear. 160 square kilometers is woefully inadequate.
Seriously, it doesn't take much, just go to the DOI report and read it. I don't why ya think that ya off-hand seem to know more 'bout polar bears than people who have spent years researchin' polar bears, but if ya truly wish to find out more 'bout 'em, the just read the DOI report, okay?
Otherwise, ya make yourself out to be the equivalent of a western theologist who's never even read the bible.
Permalink
Brute Posted 9:57 am
03 Jun 2008
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121236237789236363.html?m ...
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 5:34 pm
03 Jun 2008
I don't understand why you waste time on linking to "Wiki" entries, when I have previously cautioned you that on emotive issues such as these that you raise, I will NOT go there. For instance, it is a long time since I read the "Wiki" entry on "The hockey-stick controversy", but when I did so, my eyes rolled around so-much that they suffered capillary bleeding, and I had to rest in a darkened room for several hours. For, I had previously read all the relevant comments in the first and second order draft of IPCC WG1-AR4, and of course the various papers etc by M & M. Also, the shameful manipulation by the IPCC of Wahl & Amman's mystery unpublished 200X paper, and Nature journal's obstructions against M & M etc. And, of course that awful IPCC cover-up in the wrong chapter of AR4....groan. And....oh that will do!
You see, as an applied scientist, I am concerned about practicalities and realities, and if I were a polar bear, I would be really pissed-off having to range many hundreds of square kilometres at around say 2 Km/hr, looking for a bit of humpy. What sort of life is that? Maybe that is why they take-it-out so much on the other wildlife so cruelly...... when they could be more vegetarian like their cousin darkie bears! Have you seen film of them attacking large mature seals? Fun eh? Sets the heart pulse-rate going for you?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But anyway, I'm still unable to respond to your earlier nonsense, because I simply don't understand what it was you were attempting to say.
The severally repeated ask for clarifications are identified as: a), b) & c) above
If you would like a rational discussion, your first move should be to do something about a), b), & c)!
Permalink
Brute Posted 8:37 pm
03 Jun 2008
UAH: Global Temperature Dives in May
3 06 2008
Confirming what many of us have already noted from the anecdotal evidence coming in of a much cooler than normal May, such as late spring snows as far south as Arizona, extended skiing in Colorado, and delays in snow cover melting in many parts of the northern hemisphere, the University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH) published their satellite derived Advanced Microwave Sounder Unit data set of the Lower Troposphere for May 2008.
It is significantly colder globally, colder even than the significant drop to -0.046°C seen in January 2008.
The global ∆T from April to May 2008 was -.195°C
UAH
2008 1 -0.046
2008 2 0.020
2008 3 0.094
2008 4 0.015
2008 5 -0.180
Compared to the May 2007 value of 0.199°C we find a 12 month ∆T is -.379°C.
But even more impressive is the change since the last big peak in global temperature in January 2007 at 0.594°C, giving a 16 month ∆T of -0.774°C which is equal in magnitude to the generally agreed upon "global warming signal" of the last 100 years.
Click for a larger image
Reference: UAH lower troposphere data
I'm betting that RSS (expected soon) will also be below the zero anomaly line, since it tends to agree well with UAH. HadCRUT will likely show a significant drop, I'm going to make a SWAG and say it will end up around 0.05 to -0.15°C. GISS; I'm not going to try a SWAG, as it could be anything.
Mr. Partner,
Your theory is WRONG............
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 6:44 pm
09 Jun 2008
AKA Tasermons Partner,
Just a few points:
I think I can claim primacy with a fourth repeat of you to respond to a) b) & c)
What makes you think I did not read the DOI report, and that I should not consider other reports which may not agree with it or show a different situation elswhwere?
I'd still like to know if it makes your heart pulse-rate increase when you see a polar bear on film attacking a mature large seal
It's a bit like "If you show me yours, I'll show you mine"
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 7:08 pm
09 Jun 2008
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) today released the following statement in response to the Department of the Interior's decision to list polar bears as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act.
"I am disappointed and disturbed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's decision to weaken the Endangered Species Act by listing the polar bear as threatened despite the steady increase in the species' population. Scientists have observed that there are now three times as many polar bears in the Arctic than there were in the 1970s.
"Never before has a species been listed as endangered or threatened while occupying its entire geographic range.
"This decision was made without any research demonstrating dangerously low population levels in polar bears, but rather on speculation regarding how ice levels will affect Arctic wildlife. Worse yet, today's decision cannot and will not do anything to reverse sea ice decline.
"Instead, this action by the Fish and Wildlife Service sets a dangerous precedent with far-reaching social and economic ramifications. It opens the door for many other Arctic species to be listed, which would severely hamper Alaska's ability to tap its vast natural resources. Reinterpreting the Endangered Species Act in this way is an unequivocal victory for extreme environmentalists who want to block all development in our state.
"The manipulation of the Endangered Species Act was highlighted by Kassie Siegel, the lawyer who wrote the legal petition for the Center for Biological Diversity. Ms. Siegel made no attempt to disguise her group's intent when she said that the effort to list the polar bears was to `try to make the point that global warming is not some future threat'. This statement confirms that these fringe environmentalists are simply using the polar bears to advance their extreme agenda.
He goes on...
I only hope he has not ground-down his teeth in justifiable anger
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 4:04 pm
17 Jun 2008
I've just noticed your fingerprints on the recent comments list.
Did you have a nice holiday?
We missed you
Awaiting your wisdom
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 2:39 pm
18 Jun 2008
From another blog:
Biodiversivist said...
Wilson is just trying to make a case for saving biodiversity. Don't tell anyone I said this, but humanity would probably thrive even if we destroy every mamal and bird species save our own domesticated animals.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 7:02 pm
21 Jun 2008
Most of us have a deep yearning to go cuddle one of those cute soft furry polar bears! Oh what loss you would allow us to suffer!
Permalink
manacker Posted 1:20 pm
26 Jun 2008
Believe you posted this rubbish: "In the meantime, here's a graphic summary of polar bear population predictions from the DOI:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Polar_ ..."
Polar bear population "predictions"?
What a bunch of garbage.
Polar bear populations have increased over the past two decades.
Stck with facts, TP. Not some group of idiots' GIGO "predictions".
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 1:30 pm
26 Jun 2008
Nucbuddy's right. We don't need all those scaly, furry, feathery and six-legged critters around to survive.
But the main point is that they are not in any real danger whatsoever from our CO2 emissions.
Despite all the hype out there, they are doing jes' fine.
And the GIGO predictions of their future demise in the future because of our CO2 emissions are just that.
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:58 am
27 Jun 2008
This is 2.5% below the baseline level (1979-2000 mean May level of 13.6 million square kilometers) and around 4.5% above the record May low reached in May 2004
The linear average rate of decline is 3.0%/decade (over the 30-year period since measurements have started). If the decline continues at this rate, it will take 330 years for the entire Arctic sea ice to disappear.
The most recent decline has however not continued at the 3.0%/decade rate, since the May 2008 extent is back to the May 1989 extent (i.e. zero net decline in 19 years).
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.pn ...
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 7:21 pm
27 Jun 2008
Don't confuse us with inconvenient facts!
Who the hell wants to hear good news!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:20 am
28 Jun 2008
http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20071001_p ...
"If ship and aircraft records from before the satellite era are taken into account, sea ice may have fallen by as much as 50 percent from the 1950s. The September rate of sea ice decline since 1979 is now approximately 10 percent per decade, or 72,000 square kilometers (28,000 square miles) per year (see Figure 3)."
"We may well see an ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer within our lifetimes." The scientists agree that this could occur by 2030."
At that point, which could happen even sooner because of the exponential increase in GHG climate change, will the conveyor that powers the Gulf Stream stop?
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/20/14934/7219
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:34 pm
28 Jun 2008
The facts show that there has been no net decline in Arctic sea ice from May 1989 to May 2008 (19 years), due to the major increase this past year.
At the same time Antarctic sea ice is growing steadily.
But gristmill still "predicts" a sea ice disaster.
Get serious, amazingdrx, it's a hoax. Forget gristmill. Check the facts out there, not the alarmist sites.
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:37 am
30 Jun 2008
Your link to an 8-month old article about dwindling Arctic sea ice is out-of-date.
You really should keep up-to-date on what is going on out there.
The May 2008 link I cited shows no net reduction in Arctic sea ice from May 1989 to May 2008.
And your link to the gristmill projection for what "could happen in the future" is total conjecture (besides having nothing to do with AGW).
Max
Permalink