58 replies to this topic

[WeatherRusty]

MN transplant, on 10 January 2010 - 08:15 AM, said:

Polar bear populations increased because there were increased hunting restrictions - the climate has not cooled over the last decade - it certainly hasn't cooled in the Arctic

"A lie oft repeated soon bears the guise of truth."

Repetition is the debate tactic most used by those who oppose AGW. No matter how many times they are corrected, they keep coming back with the same nonsense cloaked in the haze of obscure science...obscure to the general public that is...the intended target. Both sides in the public debate can claim this, but one side has the science on their side while the other obscures the science with empty rhetoric while claiming to science to be smoke, mirrors and lies.

[Steve Albers]

LetItSnowInPhilly, on 09 January 2010 - 10:01 PM, said:

Yeah. The heat down in Florida is killing the iguanas.

Give me a fookin' break.

Your reply makes no sense as you're trying to quote something I never said.

Also there is some documentation about species changing their ranges, migration patterns, and plant flowering dates in response to a warming climate. As these changes intensify more species will be at risk.

[Tiki Man]

WeatherRusty, on 10 January 2010 - 09:27 AM, said:

"A lie oft repeated soon bears the guise of truth."

Repetition is the debate tactic most used by those who oppose AGW. No matter how many times they are corrected, they keep coming back with the same nonsense cloaked in the haze of obscure science...obscure to the general public that is...the intended target. Both sides in the public debate can claim this, but one side has the science on their side while the other obscures the science with empty rhetoric while claiming to science to be smoke, mirrors and lies.

What I found interesting about the polar bear population is,,, the growth or decline of a population depends on which population you are talking about. There are more than a dozen. Hunting has been discontinued in Canada,and that is a population on the rise. Sadly the majority of populations are in decline. Also, the size of the skull has decreased in size from the past to present. So we have smaller bears which scientists who study bears believe is stress to environmental factors such as not being able to get out onto the ice early enough in the year to hunt. Also, this year the hudson bay bears, I think, resorted to canabalism of young by adult males. I don't think that was observed before.

[ElTacoman]

Steve Albers, on 09 January 2010 - 08:39 PM, said:

With (1) the synergy comes in when warming causes shift in ranges of species. The species then has trouble moving when alternative habitats and migration corridors are lacking.

With (2) I thought there are studies showing many polar bear populations declining. This has been discussed somewhere in this forum I think. And in the tropics we have things like coral bleaching.

And again ocean acidification is an important consideration.

Steve, various things throughout history have led to shifts in the ranges of species. Destruction of natural habitat is an undeniable problem that is causing species loss. As of yet, AGW has not been proven to pose nearly so serious a threat. Lumping AGW with habitat destruction is misleading and confuses the real issue.

[ElTacoman]

MN transplant, on 10 January 2010 - 08:15 AM, said:

Polar bear populations increased because there were increased hunting restrictions - the climate has not cooled over the last decade - it certainly hasn't cooled in the Arctic

That's beside the point. If AGW was causing serious damage to polar bear populations, they would be decreasing - less hunting or not.

[ElTacoman]

WeatherRusty, on 10 January 2010 - 09:27 AM, said:

"A lie oft repeated soon bears the guise of truth."

Repetition is the debate tactic most used by those who oppose AGW. No matter how many times they are corrected, they keep coming back with the same nonsense cloaked in the haze of obscure science...obscure to the general public that is...the intended target. Both sides in the public debate can claim this, but one side has the science on their side while the other obscures the science with empty rhetoric while claiming to science to be smoke, mirrors and lies.

Kinda like how repetition of how global warming was hurting polar bears eventually led our government to place them on the Endangered Species List...despite the fact that studies showed no real evidence of this?

[ElTacoman]

Tiki Man, on 10 January 2010 - 06:01 PM, said:

What I found interesting about the polar bear population is,,, the growth or decline of a population depends on which population you are talking about. There are more than a dozen. Hunting has been discontinued in Canada,and that is a population on the rise. Sadly the majority of populations are in decline. Also, the size of the skull has decreased in size from the past to present. So we have smaller bears which scientists who study bears believe is stress to environmental factors such as not being able to get out onto the ice early enough in the year to hunt. Also, this year the hudson bay bears, I think, resorted to canabalism of young by adult males. I don't think that was observed before.

Let's clear some things up.

1. I have not seen any study that claimed "the majority of populations are in decline". Just the opposite.

2. The size of many animals has decreased from the past to present. Not sure how this is relevant.

3. Hudson Bay had a very normal ice melt this past year. Nothing to indicate warming was forcing anything there.

4. Do a little research - male polar bears have long been known to occasionally cannabalize the young. This is actually common among quite a few different animal species. But by all means...let's blame unsavory aspects of the animal kingdom on human actions.

[Heidi the Horrible]

Quote

Perhaps we ought to pump as much CO2 as possible into our atmosphere to prevent the inevitable ice age that will eventually come back.

Time scales are totally different. AGW concerns are on a much shorter time scale.

[Tiki Man]

ElTacoman, on 10 January 2010 - 10:14 PM, said:

Let's clear some things up.

1. I have not seen any study that claimed "the majority of populations are in decline". Just the opposite.

2. The size of many animals has decreased from the past to present. Not sure how this is relevant.

3. Hudson Bay had a very normal ice melt this past year. Nothing to indicate warming was forcing anything there.

4. Do a little research - male polar bears have long been known to occasionally cannabalize the young. This is actually common among quite a few different animal species. But by all means...let's blame unsavory aspects of the animal kingdom on human actions.

The research is pretty much in dissagreement with what you say however.
At the 15th meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) hosted by the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources their data is available. The PBSG concluded that one of 19 subpopulations is currently increasing, three are stable and eight are declining. For the remaining seven subpopulations, available data was insufficient to provide an assessment of current trends. So, "just the opposite" as you stated is not the truth.
The Biologists, who are experts in their field of study, seem to contradict your claims of 2,3&4 at this site.
I think so, do a little research.

[cheetah440]

MN transplant, on 10 January 2010 - 08:15 AM, said:

Polar bear populations increased because there were increased hunting restrictions - the climate has not cooled over the last decade - it certainly hasn't cooled in the Arctic

So you agree that the decrease in population also had ZERO to do with climate. Cool.

[Feb678]

THE AGW crowd is so out of touch. I started this thread and have had fun reading the posts. But you have to admit....animals are dying now due to cold. I can not think of one example of heat related animal die off....polar bear thing is fake.

Secondly, a warming world is good for life. CO2 will help vegetative growth. Increased water vapor (the supposed feedback mechanism of the AGW models) will decrease desert coverage...in fact deserts increase in size during periods of cooling.

But none of the recent events were predicted by AGW. IT has been a couple of years now with more pronounced cold. Lets see where were are 10 years from now. Eventually, if the cooling trend continues the AGW crowd will need to quiet down.

You see, all the recent cold and dying Iguanas is just all weather. But those hurricanes, floods, droughts, heat waves (even cold snaps) the supposed loss of polar bears, the loss of coral reefs (another bogus finding)rising sea levels (which have been rising at the same rate for thousands of years and read an article back in the early 1990's that said I had better book a vacation to Venice soon as it would all be under water by now)....all these things are the fault of man and AGW.

What a complete farce and corruption of science.

[MN transplant]

Feb678, on 11 January 2010 - 11:53 AM, said:

THE AGW crowd is so out of touch. I started this thread and have had fun reading the posts. But you have to admit....animals are dying now due to cold. I can not think of one example of heat related animal die off....polar bear thing is fake.

Secondly, a warming world is good for life. CO2 will help vegetative growth. Increased water vapor (the supposed feedback mechanism of the AGW models) will decrease desert coverage...in fact deserts increase in size during periods of cooling.

But none of the recent events were predicted by AGW. IT has been a couple of years now with more pronounced cold. Lets see where were are 10 years from now. Eventually, if the cooling trend continues the AGW crowd will need to quiet down.

You see, all the recent cold and dying Iguanas is just all weather. But those hurricanes, floods, droughts, heat waves (even cold snaps) the supposed loss of polar bears, the loss of coral reefs (another bogus finding)rising sea levels (which have been rising at the same rate for thousands of years and read an article back in the early 1990's that said I had better book a vacation to Venice soon as it would all be under water by now)....all these things are the fault of man and AGW.

What a complete farce and corruption of science.

You are kidding, right? Animals die from the heat all of the time. Took three seconds to google.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31682728

Quote

updated 10:30 a.m. ET, Wed., July 1, 2009

OMAHA, Neb. - More than 2,000 Nebraska cattle died last week during an unexpected spike in temperatures and humidity levels, with one feedlot alone losing 250 cattle, officials estimated Monday.

Interesting thought though - as the world warms, and habitats encroach further northward, that might make them more susceptible to the periodic cold snaps that will absolutely still happen.

[MN transplant]

cheetah440, on 11 January 2010 - 11:17 AM, said:

So you agree that the decrease in population also had ZERO to do with climate. Cool.

From what I understand, hunting was certainly a bigger magnitude problem that overwhelmed any loss of habitat. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything though. To reach back into my dumb analogy pile - a smoker decides to quit his recently picked up meth habit. His health improves. Does that mean that smoking has no detrimental influence on his health?

[Feb678]

MN transplant, on 11 January 2010 - 02:38 PM, said:

You are kidding, right? Animals die from the heat all of the time. Took three seconds to google.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31682728


Interesting thought though - as the world warms, and habitats encroach further northward, that might make them more susceptible to the periodic cold snaps that will absolutely still happen.

No I was not kidding but in fairness to you my wording could have been better. All we read is of species extinction....not due to a sudden heat wave as you say....but changes in a warming climate. Yet who would think we would have dying Iguanas due to a severe cold snap. Neither prove anything one way or the other. It is the Irony of it all which was the point of the thread really.

The reality is alos that a colder climate present much greater hardships than a warming one....as history points out very clearly and within the past 1,000 years.....all pre-industrialization....a warmer and a colder climate has all happened without man in such a short time span...and duringwarm time civilization thrived. During cold time there was famine. We now have 6 billion mouths to feed and fortunately we are in a warm period....aoh and that extra CO2...helping the farmers a bit. Lets hope it does not cool down or we could be in for a big problem.

[ElTacoman]

MN transplant, on 11 January 2010 - 02:43 PM, said:

From what I understand, hunting was certainly a bigger magnitude problem that overwhelmed any loss of habitat. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything though. To reach back into my dumb analogy pile - a smoker decides to quit his recently picked up meth habit. His health improves. Does that mean that smoking has no detrimental influence on his health?

Ok, but look at the other side of the coin: sure, less hunting might be the main reason that some polar bear populations are increasing. But how does that prove anything one way or another that climate change is hurting their populations?

[ElTacoman]

Tiki Man, on 11 January 2010 - 10:34 AM, said:

The research is pretty much in dissagreement with what you say however.
At the 15th meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) hosted by the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources their data is available. The PBSG concluded that one of 19 subpopulations is currently increasing, three are stable and eight are declining. For the remaining seven subpopulations, available data was insufficient to provide an assessment of current trends. So, "just the opposite" as you stated is not the truth.
The Biologists, who are experts in their field of study, seem to contradict your claims of 2,3&4 at this site.
I think so, do a little research.

I have done the research, which is why I don't buy the hype.

http://www.scienceda...80508132549.htm

Since the 1970s — all while the world was warming – polar bear numbers increased dramatically from around 5,000 to as many as 25,000 today (higher than at anytime in the 20th century). And historically, polar bears have thrived in temperatures even warmer than at present – during the medieval warm period 1000 years ago and during the Holocene Climate Optimum between 5,000 and 9,000 years ago.

According to the February 7, 2005 Edinburgh Scotsman ( http://thescotsman.s...fm?id=143012005), “The world’s polar bear population is on the increase despite global warming.

“According to new research,” the Scotsman reports, “the numbers of the giant predator have grown by between 15 and 25 per cent over the last decade.

“We’re seeing an increase in bears that’s really unprecedented, and in places where we’re seeing a decrease in the population it’s from hunting, not from climate change,” Canadian polar bear expert Mitch Taylor told the Scotsman.

The March 9, 2007 London Telegraph confirmed the ongoing polar bear population explosion ( http://www.telegraph...09/wpolar09.xml). “A survey of the animals’ numbers in Canada’s eastern Arctic has revealed that they are thriving, not declining,” the Telegraph reports.

“In the Davis Strait area, a 140,000-square kilometre region, the polar bear population has grown from 850 in the mid-1980s to 2,100 today.

Dr. Mitchell Taylor, a biologist with the government of Nunavut, in Canada's Northwest Territory, says, "Polar bears are not going extinct" and do not even "appear to be affected." In fact, the Nunavut government continues to allow hunters to kill up to 500 polar bears a year to keep populations under control and preserve other wildlife species the bears feed on. According to Taylor, of the 13 separate polar bear populations in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number.

[ElTacoman]

Feb678, on 11 January 2010 - 03:13 PM, said:

No I was not kidding but in fairness to you my wording could have been better. All we read is of species extinction....not due to a sudden heat wave as you say....but changes in a warming climate. Yet who would think we would have dying Iguanas due to a severe cold snap. Neither prove anything one way or the other. It is the Irony of it all which was the point of the thread really.

The reality is alos that a colder climate present much greater hardships than a warming one....as history points out very clearly and within the past 1,000 years.....all pre-industrialization....a warmer and a colder climate has all happened without man in such a short time span...and duringwarm time civilization thrived. During cold time there was famine. We now have 6 billion mouths to feed and fortunately we are in a warm period....aoh and that extra CO2...helping the farmers a bit. Lets hope it does not cool down or we could be in for a big problem.

This is a point that people like Rusty and Steve never seem to acknowledge. History has shown us time and again that life/civilization thrives in a warmer climate, yet all we hear about is impending doom. And there is no doubt that a warmer world allows longer growing seasons and greater crop production. Another huge benefit usually ignored by the alarmists.

[WeatherRusty]

ElTacoman, on 12 January 2010 - 12:18 AM, said:

This is a point that people like Rusty and Steve never seem to acknowledge. History has shown us time and again that life/civilization thrives in a warmer climate, yet all we hear about is impending doom. And there is no doubt that a warmer world allows longer growing seasons and greater crop production. Another huge benefit usually ignored by the alarmists.

Civilization has never had to cope with a global climate 3-6C warmer than our proven "comfort zone". There have never been nearly 7,000,000,000 people living simultaneously on the planet, all striving for a better life style at the same time natural non-renewable resources are being rapidly depleted.

When climate zones move, so will the arable land. Sure there will be places capable of greater crop production with different crops grown or maybe genetically engineered ones in their current locations.

Something like 2,000,000,000 people are dependent on Himalayan glacial runoff for their fresh water supply. Coastal erosion and inundation from sea level rise threaten to dislocate millions and cause untold financial cost from property loss.

It's all happened before man was around and it will happen again with billions of people susceptible for the first time ever. We are poised to bring climate disruption on prematurely. Our decedents will just have to deal as best they can in a world left less rich in biodiversity and habitable land.

[ElTacoman]

WeatherRusty, on 12 January 2010 - 09:48 AM, said:

Civilization has never had to cope with a global climate 3-6C warmer than our proven "comfort zone". There have never been nearly 7,000,000,000 people living simultaneously on the planet, all striving for a better life style at the same time natural non-renewable resources are being rapidly depleted.

When climate zones move, so will the arable land. Sure there will be places capable of greater crop production with different crops grown or maybe genetically engineered ones in their current locations.

Something like 2,000,000,000 people are dependent on Himalayan glacial runoff for their fresh water supply. Coastal erosion and inundation from sea level rise threaten to dislocate millions and cause untold financial cost from property loss.

It's all happened before man was around and it will happen again with billions of people susceptible for the first time ever. We are poised to bring climate disruption on prematurely. Our decedents will just have to deal as best they can in a world left less rich in biodiversity and habitable land.

1. 3-6C warmer than our proven "comfort zone"? First of all, you are using the upper range of warming estimates. Second, the warmest parts of the world (the tropics) will warm the least, and the coldest parts will warm the most (according to theory). If that happens, the earth overall would likely be more "comfortable" than ever before for humans.

2. It's fact: a colder earth is able to sustain less life and less plant growth overall. Everything in history points to this. If the mid/upper latitudes warm more, there will be longer growing seasons and larger areas capable of growing crops: more food available.

3. Yes, I have already heard the arguments about the potential negative impacts of climate change. What I am trying to do is show you the potential positive impacts as well. For some reason, these are almost always overlooked by the alarmists...why would that be?

[LetItSnowInPhilly]

So...global warming creates massive flooding and hurricanes....but at the same time, China won't have water?