Global Warming, Where do you stand? Poll

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by DutchMuch, Jul 29, 2017.

?

Is Global Warming a real thing and happening? Is it Human Caused?

  1. Human Caused or influenced?

    71.4%
  2. Not Human Caused Or Influenced, But Happens Naturally

    28.6%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DutchMuch

    DutchMuch Lord Of The Aquascapes!

    Joined:
    May 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    577
    Location:
    Arkansas
    The Netflix documentary Chasing Coral, which you have probably heard about or already watched shows the effects of global warming and climate change on our planet. While many scientists and others are on board with this, there are still some Non believers. So, where do you stand on this topic? Is climate change/global warming real? Or simply a hoax? Or just a cycle that our planet is currently going through naturally? Vote and discuss!
     
    DutchMuch, Jul 29, 2017
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. DutchMuch

    DutchMuch Lord Of The Aquascapes!

    Joined:
    May 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    577
    Location:
    Arkansas
    Ill start as an example;
    By the standard of recent years, global cooling predictions and natural explanations for climate change are controversial, even outlandish. By the broader standard of the last century of science -- and the centuries that preceded it -- what's outlandish is attributing massive changes in climate to increases in carbon dioxide, a trace gas that represents so miniscule a fraction of our atmosphere that it must be measured in parts per million. Established science had historically held natural forces to drive climate.
    There is no way to know if temperatures are currently "rising", because natural year-to-year variability in global temperature is so large, with warming and cooling occurring all the time. What we can say is that surface and lower atmospheric temperature have risen in the last 30 to 50 years, with most of that warming in the Northern Hemisphere. Also, the magnitude of recent warming is somewhat uncertain, due to problems in making long-term temperature measurements with thermometers without those measurements being corrupted by a variety of non-climate effects. But there is no way to know if temperatures are continuing to rise now…we only see warming (or cooling) in the rearview mirror, when we look back in time.

    In conclusion; I don't think humans are having a significant impact on climate change.
     
    DutchMuch, Jul 29, 2017
    #2
    mgmine likes this.
    1. Advertisements

  3. DutchMuch

    Jared

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2016
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    Detroit, MI
    1.) Our planet experiences natural climactic changes.
    2.) We have exacerbated the current climate.
    3.) Climate Science, as with all disciplines, is never perfect but perfection can never be a prerequisite to action or understanding.
    4.) Skepticism is always healthy when it is driven by knowledge and supported by facts.
    5.) Skeptics within populations of trained scientists will always exist and will always be expected.
    6.) The existence of skeptical climatologists will never constitute an acceptable reason for denial of evidence.
    7.) The overwhelming consensus of publicly-funded research is well above any conceivable minimum needed to take major climate theories seriously.
    8) As with all fields of science notoriety, prestige and funding are constant motivating factors to prove current understandings wrong.
    9.) Current understandings continue to draw strong supporting evidence despite these motivations to prove them false.
    10.) As with all fields of science, any motivations to "hoax" a population are nonexistent within developed democratic societies with access to information and open communication.
    11.) A simple reference of "Occam's Razor" can show any proposed "hoax" to be unsustainably complicated and socially improbable.
    12.) Propensities and motivating factors behind accusations of "hoaxes" from within the lay population are typically associated with anxiety associated with feelings of societal inadequacy, embarrassment associated with a perceived lack of understanding of core issues, natural biases associated with lifestyle conveniences and/or financial/professional entanglements, or fear associated with the alteration of social norms and standards.

    My conclusion, given the above arguments, is that human-influenced climate change is the most sensible assumption. Unless an unthinkable amount of peer-reviewed data becomes available, I am forced to remain convinced by existing evidence.
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2017
    Jared, Jul 29, 2017
    #3
    Meyer Jordan likes this.
  4. DutchMuch

    Stephen T.

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2015
    Messages:
    300
    Likes Received:
    794
    Location:
    South Central Oregon
    When one person does something on the earth, the effect is tiny.
    When a million people do something on the earth, the effect is still tiny.
    When several billion people do something on the earth, the effect is huge, changing the balance of the entire organism called earth.
    Carbon dioxide and global warming are symptoms, too many people are the disease. Our mother earth is running a fever!
     
    Stephen T., Jul 29, 2017
    #4
    Meyer Jordan likes this.
  5. DutchMuch

    Jared

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2016
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    Detroit, MI
    To Dutch's comment about CO2, the explanation is contained here at the top of the article.
    Also, "outlandish" is relative. Averages may seem wobbly but they aren't falling down. The acceleration of averages over 120 years combined with chemical signatures is more than enough.
    To Stephen's point about population levels, it depends on the lifestyles of those individuals at any given moment. The earth can easily sustain, without damage, 20 billion Icelanders, Norwegians, Swedes, Costa Ricans, Singaporeans and Cubans. They lead the world in minimal impact-per-capita. It's not the number, it's how they live.
     
    Jared, Jul 29, 2017
    #5
    Meyer Jordan likes this.
  6. DutchMuch

    Stephen T.

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2015
    Messages:
    300
    Likes Received:
    794
    Location:
    South Central Oregon
    I agree, the problem is that too many people aren't in the minimal impact-per-capita group!
     
    Stephen T., Jul 29, 2017
    #6
  7. DutchMuch

    ZEROPILOT Faster than you are.

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2017
    Messages:
    357
    Likes Received:
    309
    Location:
    Sunrise Florida
    Where I stand will be in a foot or two of water.
    I live on a peninsula and between the ocean and the everglades.
     
    ZEROPILOT, Aug 3, 2017
    #7
    Meyer Jordan likes this.
  8. DutchMuch

    DutchMuch Lord Of The Aquascapes!

    Joined:
    May 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    577
    Location:
    Arkansas
    To bad we didn't get more responses! thought this would be a really fun thing to do :)
     
    DutchMuch, Aug 4, 2017
    #8
  9. DutchMuch

    MitchM

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2012
    Messages:
    6,314
    Likes Received:
    6,178
    Location:
    Water Valley, Alberta
    MitchM, Aug 4, 2017
    #9
    tbendl, MoonShadows and Meyer Jordan like this.
  10. DutchMuch

    Meyer Jordan Tadpole

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2014
    Messages:
    7,177
    Likes Received:
    5,623
    Location:
    Pensacola, Florida
    We have learned not to discuss any topic that may have religious or political facets. -
     
    Meyer Jordan, Aug 4, 2017
    #10
    ZEROPILOT and MoonShadows like this.
  11. DutchMuch

    DutchMuch Lord Of The Aquascapes!

    Joined:
    May 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    577
    Location:
    Arkansas
    oooooooh.
    hm.
    Well that's boring as poop but I guess I understand (not really) LOL.

    Global warming isn't political though? or religious?
    "Global warming is not political. It's being confused for politics because one side says it's man-made and the other refuses to agree with the opposing side. It's an unfortunate part of politics. If one side mentions something that they support, supporters of the other side will instantly push against it. It's one of the reasons I'm not on any side of politics." says JBtheExplorer.
    which I agree with.
     
    DutchMuch, Aug 4, 2017
    #11
    ZEROPILOT likes this.
  12. DutchMuch

    adavisus

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Messages:
    1,253
    Likes Received:
    754
    Location:
    carolinas
    Most recent tidbit of global warming factoid I came cross (avert your eyes if allergic to charts and facts)
     

    Attached Files:

    adavisus, Aug 4, 2017
    #12
  13. DutchMuch

    DutchMuch Lord Of The Aquascapes!

    Joined:
    May 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    577
    Location:
    Arkansas
    Wait I just saw, someone said "Greek" in the other old thread and becky shut the thread down asap..
    At least it made for a good read.
    Oh well freedom of speech :( bye bye.

    Anyway im going to add more logs to the fire ;)
    Climate change is real and has happened throughout history on local, regional, continent-wide, and global scales, driven by a variety of atmospheric, cosmic, geologic, and meteorological factors.
    Beginning in the latter half of the 20th century, some scientists—and later environmental lobbyists and politicians—began to worry Earth was changing in ways detrimental to humans and the environment. As Earth cooled modestly from the 1940s through the late 1970s, scientists began to warn of—and headlines began to trumpet—the coming of the next ice age.
    By the 1980s, however, the purported problem shifted, and scientists and environmentalists began to warn human-created greenhouse-gas emissions, primarily carbon dioxide resulting from burning fossil fuels, are warming the planet and that global warming would cause all manner of catastrophic climate changes—unless humans take extreme actions to stop it.
    What We Know
    Below, briefly, are the facts about greenhouse gasses and the purported human-caused global warming/climate change:

    • Greenhouse gasses trap heat, making Earth habitable.
    • Water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, making up 97–98 percent of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide and other trace greenhouse gases make up just 2–3 percent of all greenhouse gasses, and the share of carbon dioxide produced by humans is just a fraction of that.
    • Earth came out of what some scientists refer to as the “Little Ice Age” in the early- to mid-1800s, decades before there was a rise in carbon-dioxide emissions, a pattern that historical analyses show is normal.
    • Humanity’s share of carbon-dioxide emissions grew dramatically, beginning in the middle of the 20th century, with increasing industrialization.
    • Although there are concerns about the soundness and consistency of the global system for measuring temperatures and disputes over possible data manipulation by various governments (due to the differences between measured and reported temperatures), the global average temperature has risen modestly since the 1880s, by about 1.4 degrees F, with approximately 40–50 percent of that warming occurring before the growth in greenhouse gases from human sources began.
    Beyond these few statements, almost every other aspect of the climate change controversy is open to debate.
    Differences between the claims made by those who believe in the theory human greenhouse-gas emissions significantly affect the climate and the actual measured changes strongly indicate humans are not causing a climate Armageddon and that climate alarmists’ theory is incorrect. In fact, based on the evidence, at the worst, humans are having a modest effect on Earth’s climate, with the increase in carbon dioxide possibly having a net beneficial effect (due to the enhanced plant productivity resulting from higher carbon-dioxide levels.)

    Climate Models
    There is no question humans have changed the climate on a regional scale—and not always for the better. In some places, deforestation and slash-and-burn farming have resulted in shifting rainfall patterns, flooding, and desertification. And where megacities have developed, ecosystems that previously existed no longer do, changing the course of rivers, draining underground aquifers, causing land subsidence, and contributing to flooding.

    However, the evidence suggests human greenhouse-gas emission are having a limited impact on global climate, with virtually all the alarmists’ model predictions routinely failing to match reality. Anthropogenic warming theorists’ climate models assume temperatures should climb alongside rising carbon-dioxide levels, yet temperatures fell from the 1940s through the 1970s, even while emissions were rising dramatically. For the past two decades, carbon-dioxide levels have continued to increase, but global satellites have recorded no significant temperature increase for 18 years.

    According to the average of all climate models, Earth’s temperature should be one degree F warmer now than what is currently being measured. The gap between measured temperatures and predictions is most likely due to the fact Earth is less sensitive to additional molecules of greenhouse gases than calculated by most climate models.

    Climate models have assumptions built into their design concerning the secondary effects of carbon dioxide on Earth’s atmosphere, which they assume will enhance or amplify Earth’s warming. Simpler models that don’t build in these secondary effects track actual temperatures much more closely than the complex models do, and it’s the complex models upon which climate disaster projections are built.

    Failed Predictions

    Almost all the harmful impacts predicted by climate models are failing to materialize. For instance, climate models predicted more intense hurricanes, but for nearly a decade, the United States has experienced far fewer hurricanes making landfall than the historic average, and those hurricanes that have made landfall have been no more powerful than previously experienced.

    Additionally, while scientists have claimed anthropogenic warming should cause sea levels to rise at increasing rates—because of melting ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica and the thermal expansion of water molecules under warmer conditions—sea-level rise has slowed. Sea levels have always risen between ice ages or during interglacial periods. Indeed, sea levels have risen more than 400 feet since the end of the last interglacial period. However, the rate of sea-level rise since 1961 (approximately one-eighth of an inch per year) is far lower than the historic average (since the end of the previous ice age), and sea-level rise has not increased appreciably over the past century compared to previous centuries. Also, measured seal-level rise is well below the rise predicted by those climate models claiming sea levels would increase because of anthropogenic warming.

    While some locations have experienced dramatic sea-level rise and unexpected flooding, the reason is not anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions; it’s often because of other human causes. For instance, in many of these locations, land subsidence—due to increased withdrawals from shore adjacent to aquifers—is the problem.

    Further, many people are now building in locations prone to flooding—such as in areas near wetlands and in marshy areas, which historically mitigated or buffered mainland locations from flooding. There are a variety of reasons this is happening, but one of the most important is many government insurance programs (and other government programs, too) subsidize building in areas prone to flooding or hurricane damage.

    Based on climate models’ projections of land and ecosystem shifts and changes, biologists have predicted anthropogenic warming would cause numerous plant and wildlife extinctions, yet they have been unable to point to a single instance of a species going extinct due to human-caused climate change thus far.

    For instance, although sea ice in the Arctic has declined over the past 20 years, polar bears—which various scientists predicted would be driven to extinction due to declining sea-ice levels (shrinking sea ice limits their ability to capture seals)—have proven highly adaptable. Their populations have grown dramatically over the past 60 years, from approximately 5,000 bears in the 1950s to more than 25,000 today. In the few locations in which populations have declined, temperatures have been cooler, not warmer than average, during the past few decades.

    Scientists have also claimed anthropogenic climate change is causing the oceans to warm and become more acidic. They point to widespread coral bleaching and coral reef “deaths” as proof and as a warning of the worsening conditions that will come if the global warming problem isn’t solved immediately. However, as with the alleged polar-bear extinction crisis, the rumors of coral reefs’ deaths have been greatly exaggerated. Coral reefs evolved during and survived through several more-dramatic climate shifts than the one the world is currently undergoing, and they have proven much more resilient than climate alarmists have claimed.

    Pollution, not climate change, has harmed many reefs, but in those cases, as with other reefs that bleached in recent years for reasons that have yet to be explained, researchers have found many reefs are recovering and now have new corals forming. While newspapers are calling this recovery miraculous, I prefer to think of it as further evidence we know little about many features of the natural world. Anyone who thinks he or she can attribute the harm caused to ecosystems or their component species to the single factor of human-caused climate change is suffering from extreme hubris.

    Contradicting climate models once again, Antarctica is gaining tens of thousands of tons of ice each year, even as some ice-shelves collapse. In addition, in the past few years, despite a warmer world, sea-ice extent in Antarctica has repeatedly grown at a rapid pace, smashing previous records several times.

    And while some climate pessimists point to a few outlier research papers claiming climate change will lead to a decline—or even an outright collapse—of major agricultural crops, mainstream agronomists are optimistic about the agricultural outlook under altered climate conditions. After all, most of the world’s plants evolved during periods when global carbon-dioxide levels were much higher than they are today or are expected to be in the foreseeable future. As carbon dioxide has increased, plant life—both agricultural and non-agricultural plants—has become more fecund, with crop production regularly setting records year over year.

    The latter should not be a surprise, as agronomists have long recognized carbon dioxide acts as a plant fertilizer, which is why they artificially increase it in greenhouses. Under higher-carbon-dioxide conditions, plants grow faster, more abundantly, and use water more efficiently. Only climate pessimists firmly caught up in the grips of their flawed theory could fail to foresee this beneficial outcome of growing carbon-dioxide levels.

    An Always-Changing Climate

    In his brilliant book The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, Alex Epstein writes:

    “Climate is no longer a major cause of death, thanks in large part to fossil fuels. … Not only are we ignoring the big picture by making the fight against climate danger the fixation of our culture, we are “fighting” climate change by opposing the weapon that has made it dozens of times less dangerous. The popular climate discussion has the issue backward. It looks at man as a destructive force for climate livability, one who makes the climate dangerous because we use fossil fuels. In fact, the truth is the exact opposite; we don’t take a safe climate and make it dangerous; we take a dangerous climate and make it safe.”

    Earth’s climate is changing, as it always has, but humanity’s role in that change and whether it will produce great harms or, on balance, net benefits is very much open to debate. At the same time, there is no question fossil-fuel use makes us wealthier, and wealthier societies are better able to anticipate, mitigate, adapt, and respond to the vagaries of climate change, regardless of the cause or type of change.
    By. H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D
     
    DutchMuch, Aug 4, 2017
    #13
  14. DutchMuch

    DutchMuch Lord Of The Aquascapes!

    Joined:
    May 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    577
    Location:
    Arkansas
    The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC), a coalition of 140+ climate scientists, economists, and engineers, in the "Core Principles" section of its website (accessed May 17, 2017), wrote:

    "Global climate is always changing in accordance with natural causes and recent changes are not unusual...

    Science is rapidly evolving away from the view that humanity's emissions of carbon dioxide and other 'greenhouse gases' are a cause of dangerous climate change...

    Climate models used by the IPCC [United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] fail to reproduce known past climates without manipulation and therefore lack the scientific integrity needed for use in climate prediction and related policy decision-making...

    Claims that 'consensus' exists among climate experts regarding the causes of the modest warming of the past century are contradicted by thousands of independent scientists...

    Research that identifies the Sun as a major driver of global climate change must be taken more seriously...

    Carbon dioxide and other 'greenhouse gas' emissions from human activity - energy production, transportation, cement production, heating and cooling, etc.- appear to have only a very small impact on global climate."


    William Happer, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics at Princeton University and former Director of Energy Research at the US Department of Energy, in a Feb. 7, 2017 opinion piece for the Post Bulletin titled "William Happer: Climate Change Is Being Used as a Political Hobgoblin," wrote:

    "Climate has been changing since the Earth was formed - some 4.5 billion years ago. Climate changes on every time scale - whether decades, centuries or millennia.

    The climate of Greenland was warm enough for farming around the year 1100 A.D., but by 1500, the Little Ice Age drove Norse settlers out...

    But none of the climate change of the past was due to humans. The very minor warming in the past few centuries is mostly from non-human causes as well… Yes, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, but much less important than the major greenhouse gas, water vapor, H2O, and clouds.

    Observations, including the extended 'hiatus' in warming since about the year 2000 - which is poised to continue now that the El Nino warming of 2015-2016 is behind us - show that more atmospheric carbon dioxide will cause only modest warming of the Earth's surface.

    Many sincere people, without the time or training to dig into the facts, have been misled by the demonization of carbon dioxide.

    This seems to be a recurrent feature of human history. In past centuries, some of the most educated members of society wrote learned books on how to ferret out witches and presided in trials where witches were condemned to death.

    There never was a threat from witches, and there is no threat from increasing carbon dioxide."

    Feb. 7, 2017 - William Happer, PhD



    Patrick Moore, PhD, Chair and Chief Scientist of Greenspirit Strategies Ltd. and former Director of Greenpeace International, stated the following in his Feb. 25, 2014 Senate Environment and Public Works Committee testimony "Natural Resource Adaptation: Protecting Ecosystems and Economies," available at epw.senate.gov:

    "There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists...

    When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today. There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia. The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming."
    Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), stated the following in his article, "Climate of Fear: Global Warming Alarmists Intimidate Dissenting Scientists into Silence," Wall Street Journal, Apr. 12, 2006:

    "There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?...

    Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred... It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming."

    John R. Christy, PhD, M.Div, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, provided the following testimony on Aug. 1, 2012 before the US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, available at epw.senate.gov:

    "It is popular again to claim that extreme events, such as the current central US drought, are evidence of human-caused climate change. Actually, the Earth is very large, the weather is very dynamic, and extreme events will continue to occur somewhere, every year, naturally…

    New discoveries explain part of the warming found in traditional surface temperature datasets. This partial warming is unrelated to the accumulation of heat due to the extra greenhouse gases, but related to human development around the thermometer stations...

    Widely publicized consensus reports by 'thousands' of scientists are misrepresentative of climate science, containing overstated confidence in their assertions of high climate sensitivity...

    ...[C]limate models overestimate the response of temperature to greenhouse gas increases. Also shown was a lack of evidence to blame humans for an increase in extreme events. One cannot convict CO2 of causing any of these events, because they've happened in the past before CO2 levels rose...

    It is a simple fact that CO2 is plant food and the world around us evolved when levels of CO2 were five to ten times what they are today. Our green world is a consequence of atmospheric CO2. And, food for plants means food for people. The extra CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere not only invigorates the biosphere, but also enhances the yields of our food crops. This is a tremendous benefit to nature and us in my view..."

    Aug. 1, 2012 - John Christy, PhD, M.Div



    Willie Soon, PhD, Physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, stated the following in his Nov. 2007 article "Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future," published in Physical Geography:

    "There is no quantitative evidence that varying levels of minor greenhouse gases like CO2 and CH4 have accounted for even as much as half of the reconstructed glacial-interglacial temperature changes or, more importantly, for the large variations in global ice volume on both land and sea over the past 650kyr [650,000 years]. This paper shows that changes in solar insolation [amount of solar energy hitting the earth] at climatically sensitive latitudes and zones exceed the global radiative forcings [greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere traping solar heat] of CO2 and CH4 by severalfold...

    [T]he popular notion of CO2 and CH4 radiative forcing as the predominant amplifier of glacial-interglacial phase transitions cannot be confirmed…

    Our basic hypothesis is that long-term climate change is driven by insolation changes, from both orbital variations and intrinsic solar magnetic luminosity variations. This implies natural warming and cooling variations."

    Nov. 2007 - Willie Soon, PhD



    etc
    etc
    etc
     
    DutchMuch, Aug 4, 2017
    #14
  15. DutchMuch

    adavisus

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Messages:
    1,253
    Likes Received:
    754
    Location:
    carolinas
    adavisus, Aug 4, 2017
    #15
  16. DutchMuch

    adavisus

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Messages:
    1,253
    Likes Received:
    754
    Location:
    carolinas
    adavisus, Aug 4, 2017
    #16
  17. DutchMuch

    adavisus

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Messages:
    1,253
    Likes Received:
    754
    Location:
    carolinas
    Third example of despicable fossil fuel sponsored lies, polar bears. Forgetting to mention laws were passed 60 years ago to stop shooting polar bears. Currently polar bear populations are in dire shape with a rapidly declining North pole

    Now, these fossil fuel liars have seen their frauds, debunked, time and time again, but still assume, folk are too stupid to notice, what foul, despicable frauds, they peddle, to continue the dirty habit of gobbling and burning 30 barrels per year each, of crude oil poisons dragged out of the bowels of the planet. Poisons distilled, during the permian extinction event, the last time the planet was devastated by global warming

    Ironic, peddling for profit, poison from prior global warming extinction events....

    These fraudsters currently bicker, obfuscate, deny, threaten, intimidate, anything to 'debate' what was settled science, over 100 years ago....

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect
     
    adavisus, Aug 4, 2017
    #17
  18. DutchMuch

    adavisus

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Messages:
    1,253
    Likes Received:
    754
    Location:
    carolinas
    Willie Soon's credibility as a scientist is shall we say iffy, to say the least, but, the fossil fuel folk have no problem peddling his FRAUDS, a lot...

    In 2011, it was revealed that Soon received over $1 million from petroleum and coal interests since 2001. Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics documents obtained by Greenpeace under the US Freedom of Information Act show that the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation gave Soon two grants totaling $175,000 in 2005–06 and again in 2010. Multiple grants from the American Petroleum Institute between 2001 and 2007 totalled $274,000, and grants from Exxon Mobil totalled $335,000 between 2005 and 2010. Other coal and oil industry sources which funded him include the Mobil Foundation, the Texaco Foundation and the Electric Power Research Institute

    Despite these known crooks terrible history, folk still peddle their frauds. It's a toxic world, indeedy

    Funny in a way, what happens to such 'illustrious' academics...
    Putting forward health reasons, in 2011 Soon went from full-time employment by the Smithsonian at the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics to a part-time position. The Center's spokesman said "Willie’s opinions regarding climate change are his personal views not shared within our research organization". Its former director Irwin Shapiro said no attempt had been made to suppress Soon’s views, and there had been no complaints from other scientists there: "As far as I can tell, no one pays any attention to him."


    An odd rackateering antic, dirty fuel industries insert their flunkies into illustrious scientific places. The institute gets half the funds towards their self interest (bribe) the flunky gets half for their activities. What do Dirty fuel folk get? whatever their flunky is expected to provide. The extent to which crooks in the fuel industry fund fraud, is massive, extensive. Above are just a few examples of frauds peddled, to deliberately mislead, to maintain their slavery and dependance of captive markets
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2017
    adavisus, Aug 4, 2017
    #18
  19. DutchMuch

    DutchMuch Lord Of The Aquascapes!

    Joined:
    May 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    577
    Location:
    Arkansas
    This is true, Plants highly absorb and benefit from carbon dioxide. Idk exactly what you meant in your statement sorry.
     
    DutchMuch, Aug 4, 2017
    #19
  20. DutchMuch

    DutchMuch Lord Of The Aquascapes!

    Joined:
    May 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    577
    Location:
    Arkansas
    Polar bear numbers have risen since 2005, no matter how you look at it:

    [​IMG]

    USGS estimated 24,500 (average) polar bears in 2005.

    IUCN estimated 26,500 (average of 22,000-31,000) in 2015
    (assessment completed in July, released in November).

    Subpopulation surveys completed or reported after July 2015 (Baffin Bay, Kane Basin, Barents Sea) added ~2,000 bears.

    This brings the adjusted average total at 2015 to ~28,500.

    This may not be a statistically significant increase but it is also not the catastrophic decline that was predicted to occur in association with the abrupt drop of summer sea ice in 2007 to a new average of about 3-5 mkm2 [updated 1 June 2017].

    [​IMG]

    Explained in full in this published paper, pgs 20-21:

    Crockford, S.J. 2017 V3. Testing the hypothesis that routine sea ice coverage of 3-5 mkm2 results in a greater than 30% decline in population size of polar bears (Ursus maritimus). PeerJ Preprints 2 March 2017. Doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.2737v3 Open access. https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.2737v3



    Polar bear populations in most of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago (CAA) must be booming, as they are elsewhere. That’s because the ‘experts’ were even more wrong in their predictions of future sea ice conditions than most people realize: they expected the CAA would remain choked with ice during a ‘nearly ice-free’ summer driven by human-caused global warming.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
    Map presented by Wang and Overland (2012: Fig 3) shows what these experts thought a ‘nearly ice-free’ summer would look like, which they expected to occur by 2030 or so.

    Look at the map from Wang and Overland (2012) above, which is what they thought a ‘nearly ice-free’ summer would look like in the year 2030 or so.

    Wang and Overland used the same models used by USGS biologists to predict the future survival of polar bears based on habitat loss (Amstrup et al. 2007; Atwood et al. 2016; Durner et al. 2007, 2009). Note the thick ice in the CAA — what USGS experts call the ‘Archipelago’ sea ice ecoregion (denoted by white in the map), indicating ice about 1 metre thick (2-3 feet) — expected to remain at the height of summer in 2030.

    [Earlier renditions of sea ice projections (e.g. ACIA 2005) show something similar. The second update of the ACIA released just yesterday (AMAP 2017, described here by the CBC) has prudently included no such firm predictions in their Summary for Policy Makers, just dire warnings of future catastrophe. But see the 2012 update.]


    The problem is that ice in this region has been largely absent most summers since 2006, even though overall ice extent has been much more extensive than expected for a ‘nearly ice-free’ summer, as I show below.

    This is not another “worse than we thought” moment (Amstrup et al. 2007) — this is sea ice models so wrong as to be useless: failed models used to inform future polar bear survival models that got the bears declared ‘threatened’ with extinction in the US in 2008 (Crockford 2017).

    It also means polar bears are almost certainly doing much better than recent population counts indicate, since only one subpopulation out of the six in the CAA has recently been assessed. But since polar bear specialists have consistently underestimated the adaptability of this species and the resilience of the Arctic ecosystem to respond to changing conditions, it’s hard to take any of their hyperbole about the future of polar bears seriously. Continue reading →

    Comments Off on Experts’ vision of an ice-free summer is already wrong & benefitting polar bears

    Posted in Conservation Status, Population, Sea ice habitat

    Tagged Canadian Arctic Archipelago, Crockford, first year ice, Gulf of Boothia, ice-free, IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group, IUCN Red List, Kane Basin, Lancaster Sound, multiyear ice, Northwest Passage, PBSG, predictions, sea ice, wrong

    Sea ice off Newfoundland thickest ever yet another polar bear comes ashore
    Posted on April 22, 2017 | Comments Off on Sea ice off Newfoundland thickest ever yet another polar bear comes ashore
    Amid reports that ice conditions between Newfoundland and southern Labrador are the worst in living memory, another polar bear was reported ashore in the area — just after biologist Andrew Derocher explained to the CBC that bears only come on land when sea ice conditions “fail.”

    [​IMG]

    “Ice too thick for coast guard’s heavy icebreaker” said a 20 April 2017 CBC report on the state of ice in the Strait of Belle Isle. The pack is thick first year ice (four feet thick or more in places) and embedded with icebergs of much older, thicker ice. The ice packed along the northern shore of Newfoundland is hampering fishermen from getting out to sea and is not expected to clear until mid-May.

    NASA Worldview shows the extent of the pack ice over northwest Newfoundland and southern Labrador on 19 April 2017 (the Strait of Belle Isle is the bit between the two):

    [​IMG]

    The same day that the above satellite image was taken (19 April), at the north end of the Strait on the Newfoundland side, a polar bear was spotted in a small community northwest of St. Anthony (marked below, “Wildberry Country Lodge” at Parker’s Brook). It’s on the shore of north-facing Pistolet Bay on the Great Northern Peninsula, near the 1000 year old Viking occupation site of L’Anse aux Meadows.

    [​IMG]

    There were no photos of the Parker’s Brook bear but lots of others have been taken this year of almost a dozen seen along Newfoundland shorelines since early March: see my recently updated post, with an updated map of reported sightings. Harp seals are now abundant in the pack ice of southern Davis Strait, providing polar bears with an ample source of food when they need it most and therefore, a strong attractant to the area.

    [​IMG]

    Yet, as I reported yesterday, polar bear specialist Andrew Derocher told the CBC this week that polar bears are almost always “forced” ashore by poor ice conditions. The CBC report included his tweet from 10 April, where he suggested “failed” Newfoundland ice conditions were the cause of multiple bears onshore in Newfoundland this year.



    Similar thick ice conditions off northern Newfoundland (perhaps even worse) occurred in 2007, see Twillingate in the spring of 2007 below:

    [​IMG]

    Yet, in 2007 there was not a single polar bear reported onshore in Newfoundland (as far as I am aware) but this year there were almost a dozen. And the photos taken this year show fat, healthy bears – not animals struggling to survive.

    Continue reading

    Comments Off on Sea ice off Newfoundland thickest ever yet another polar bear comes ashore

    Posted in Polar bear attacks, Sea ice habitat

    Tagged Davis Strait, expert, harp seals, Labrador, Newfoundland, onshore, polar bears, population increase, sea ice, sightings

    Still lots of East Coast sea ice but prof tells CBC it doesn’t bode well for polar bears
    Posted on April 21, 2017 | Comments Off on Still lots of East Coast sea ice but prof tells CBC it doesn’t bode well for polar bears
    Davis Strait polar bears around Newfoundland and Labrador are currently experiencing what one polar bear specialist refers to as “failed” sea ice conditions, causing bears to come ashore in droves. I’m not making this up.

    [​IMG]

    The ice was so thick in the Strait of Belle Isle between Newfoundland and southern Labrador last week that a ferry was stuck for 24 hours and had to be rescued by an icebreaker.

    The boats of fisherman on the north shore of Newfoundland are stuck in thick ice that’s not expected to clear until mid-May at the earliest and they can’t get out to fish.

    [​IMG]

    See this video posted on Twitter two days ago.



    The same thing (perhaps even worse) happened in 2007, see Twillingate in the spring of 2007 below:

    [​IMG]

    Yet, in 2007 there was not a single polar bear reported onshore in Newfoundland (as far as I am aware) but this year there were almost a dozen. And the photos show fat, healthy bears – not animals struggling to survive.

    [​IMG]

    According to Andrew Derocher, that’s proof “failed” sea ice is the reason that polar bears came ashore this year but not last year (when there was also lots of ice in late March/early April, see additional maps and graphs below). Last year there were sightings in the middle of winter (January/February) in Labrador and Newfoundland (which I reported here) and one bear was shot in Newfoundland in early May when he advanced on local RCMP officers.



    I think Derocher believes he’s set the record straight by offering an interview of his own to refute the things I said to the CBC last week (I talked on two Newfoundland radio stations, which generated a print CBC article). But Newfoundlanders have to deal with used car salesmen just like the everyone else, so I expect they are having a good laugh right now at the expert who’s blaming their polar bear troubles on a lack of sea ice.
    Continue reading

    Comments Off on Still lots of East Coast sea ice but prof tells CBC it doesn’t bode well for polar bears

    Posted in Advocacy, Polar bear attacks, Sea ice habitat

    Tagged attacks, CBC, Derocher, Newfoundland, polar bear, sea ice, sightings, Twillingate

    New genetics paper is not about whether climate change causes polar bear hybrids
    Posted on April 20, 2017 | Comments Off on New genetics paper is not about whether climate change causes polar bear hybrids
    A new paper on the evolutionary history of bears (Bears breed across species borders: Kumar et al. 2017) has concluded that hybridization is common and natural among all species of ursids. And while some media outlets (e.g. DailyMail) have framed this as surprisingly convincing proof that experts were wrong to claim that climate change is the cause of recent polar bear X grizzly hybrids, definitive evidence against that interpretation has been available for years to anyone who bothered to look: see my recent “Five facts that challenge hybridization nonsense.”

    This genetic evidence is just a cherry on top of the rest but will help get the paper the media attention the authors crave.

    Polar bear X grizzly hybrids were known long before climate change and sea ice decline became an issue. See also previous posts here, here, and here. In fact, as I’ve pointed out, “most polar bear hybrids said to exist have not been confirmed by DNA testing” (including virtually all of the bears specialist Andrew Derocher claimed were hybrids, including the latest one from 2016 that prompted such gems as “Love in the time of climate change”).

    [​IMG]
    A polar bear X grizzly hybrid, see Kumar et al. 2017. Photo by A. Derocher.

    In my opinion, the most important conclusion of this paper is that occasional but widespread hybridization among bears is why it has been so hard to say with confidence when polar bears arose (which I addressed years ago, in my Polar bear evolution series: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3). You cannot use traditional methods of pinpointing the timing of speciation events from genetic data if one or more of the species have hybridized (traded genes). See the long, fuzzy “divergence times” for bears in the image below from the Kumar paper.

    [​IMG]
    From Kumar et al. 2017, Fig. 5: “The scale bar shows divergence times in million years and 95% confidence intervals for divergence times [speciation events] are shown as shadings.”

    Continue reading →


    Comments Off on New genetics paper is not about whether climate change causes polar bear hybrids

    Posted in Evolution, Hybridization

    Tagged bears, climate change, evolution, global warming, grolar bear, hybridization, media hype, pizzly, species, ursids

    Global polar bear population size is about 28,500 when updates are included
    Posted on April 12, 2017 | Comments Off on Global polar bear population size is about 28,500 when updates are included
    Polar bear numbers have risen since 2005, no matter how you look at it:

    [​IMG]

    USGS estimated 24,500 (average) polar bears in 2005.

    IUCN estimated 26,500 (average of 22,000-31,000) in 2015
    (assessment completed in July, released in November).

    Subpopulation surveys completed or reported after July 2015 (Baffin Bay, Kane Basin, Barents Sea) added ~2,000 bears.

    This brings the adjusted average total at 2015 to ~28,500.

    This may not be a statistically significant increase but it is also not the catastrophic decline that was predicted to occur in association with the abrupt drop of summer sea ice in 2007 to a new average of about 3-5 mkm2 [updated 1 June 2017].

    [​IMG]

    Explained in full in this published paper, pgs 20-21:

    Crockford, S.J. 2017 V3. Testing the hypothesis that routine sea ice coverage of 3-5 mkm2 results in a greater than 30% decline in population size of polar bears (Ursus maritimus). PeerJ Preprints 2 March 2017. Doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.2737v3 Open access. https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.2737v3



    Comments Off on Global polar bear population size is about 28,500 when updates are included

    Posted in Conservation Status, Population, Sea ice habitat

    Tagged endangered, IUCN, polar bear, population size, Red list, threatened, trend, USGS

    Newfoundland conservation officers right to kill polar bear in hunting mode
    Posted on April 10, 2017 | Comments Off on Newfoundland conservation officers right to kill polar bear in hunting mode
    Apparently, some locals were upset that a polar bear that refused to be scared away from a Newfoundland community over the weekend was shot as it advanced on conservation officers and a crowd of onlookers who refused to disperse (see updated report here on recent Newfoundland polar bear sightings, with annotated map).

    [​IMG]

    Polar bear shot by wildlife officers near Catalina after being deemed public safety risk” (CBC 10 April 2017)

    What these animal lovers may not realize is that Newfoundland in March and April is not a Churchill-like situation: polar bears are in strong hunting mode right now.

    Polar bears in late winter and spring have an immense drive to kill and eat as much as possible. Even bears that look well fed will continue to kill and eat. Enticing smells attract them onshore as they investigate any food possibility (see list below).

    Seriously, you don’t want that food possibility to be you.

    Polar bears can go from watching to charging, in the blink of an eye. You can’t outrun one. Killing quickly is what they do and they are immensely strong. Polar bears generally go for a killing bite to the head. Things to think about when a polar bear is prowling your community…
    Continue reading

    Comments Off on Newfoundland conservation officers right to kill polar bear in hunting mode

    Posted in Advocacy, Polar bear attacks, Uncategorized

    Tagged attacks, attractants, defense kills, hunting, Newfoundland, onshore, polar bear, sightings, spring, winter

    Maclean’s blames global warming for polar bear visits to Newfoundland
    Posted on April 9, 2017 | Comments Off on Maclean’s blames global warming for polar bear visits to Newfoundland
    Without a shred of evidence, Canada’s Maclean’s magazine claims recent polar bear sightings in Newfoundland and Labrador are due to global warming — and concludes that such incidents are bound to get worse.

    [​IMG]

    But since it’s likely that polar bear populations in Davis Strait are still increasing (as they were in 2007), Maclean’s might be correct in their prophesy that bear visitations are bound to get worse — just not for the reason they think.

    Without any justification or even a quote from an expert, the author of this piece (Meagan Campbell) blames man-made global warming for recent polar bear visits to Labrador and Newfoundland:

    “Since bear sightings in the early winter have been linked to climate change, some parents are more concerned for their future grandchildren.”

    That’s just bad logic. Actually, the fact that global warming has not killed off polar bears as predicted means there are lots of bears to come ashore causing problems in late winter (while they wait for Arctic seal pups to be born, so they can eat them).
    Continue reading

    Comments Off on Maclean’s blames global warming for polar bear visits to Newfoundland

    Posted in Advocacy, Polar bear attacks

    Tagged attacks, climate change, fearmongering, global warming, polar bear, sea ice, sightings, winter

    ← Older posts









    East Coast crawling with polar bears since early March thanks to the pack ice
    Posted on April 3, 2017 | Comments Off on East Coast crawling with polar bears since early March thanks to the pack ice
    The hot polar bear news right now is the large number of sightings of bears onshore in Newfoundland and Labrador – even the CBC is impressed.

    [​IMG]
    Photo taken by Brandon Collins in Melrose (on the Trinity Bay side of the peninsula) Monday 3 April 2017

    All the bears have been brought to land by the abundant pack ice that’s been present off Labrador and northern Newfoundland (the territory of Davis Strait polar bears), which also killed a humpback whale that got trapped against the north shore (a not unusual event, apparently).

    Mapping the reports of polar bear sightings since early March helped me get a handle on the total number of encounters: more than a dozen, it turns out. There have been a few bear sightings in this region every year recently but such high numbers are remarkable, especially so early in the season. When will it end?

    Increased numbers of bears in the population is one explanation for increased numbers of encounters onshore at this time of year, although recent storms may have encouraged more bears than usual to come ashore in Newfoundland.

    My picture annotated map and a list of sighting reports, with links, is below but stay tuned: this story may not be over yet.

    UPDATE 4 April: more photos and sea ice maps added below.

    UPDATE 5 April: another sighting, in St. Brendan’s (west of Bonavista), added to the map below and quotes from one witness. The map is now Version 2. A sea ice map for 5 April has also been added at the end of the post.

    UPDATE 9 April: another sighting and a bear casualty, see below. Map revised again.

    UPDATE 14 April: CBC Newfoundland article (12 April: Highway of ice: Easy route for polar bears chasing food, prof says) based on my radio interview that aired 11 April.

    UPDATE 22 April: Another sighting west of St. Anthony on Wednesday, 19 April has been added to the map (now Version 4) and an alert that I’ve added a new post (21 April) about the claim by one vocal polar bear specialist that all of these sightings are the result of “failed” sea ice conditions off Newfoundland and Labrador this year (seriously, I’m not making this up). I’ve added the most recent ice map at the end of this post. https://polarbearscience.com/2017/04/page/2/
     
    DutchMuch, Aug 4, 2017
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.