The future for polar bears looks grim, according to a new scientific study projecting that two-thirds of the polar bear population could vanish by 2050 if global warming trends continue to shrink Arctic sea ice.
“Our results have demonstrated that as the sea ice goes, so goes the polar bear,” said Steven Amstrup, a wildlife biologist who led the polar bear studies for the U.S. Geological Survey.
More evidence that warming is having real and serious consequences.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
87 Comments
As the hunter goes, so does the Polar Bear.
The main threat to polar bears in recent decades has been from hunting, with estimates as low as 5,000 to 10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s. But thanks to conservation efforts, and some cross-border cooperation among the U.S., Canada and Russia, the best estimate today is that the polar bear population is 20,000 to 25,000.
There are in fact more polar bears in the world now than there were 40 years ago.
Animals are tougher than folks think. The bears will adapt and survive. In fact they might even find a warm up to their liking!
Think about the upside to the loss of artic ice. Ships would have a much shorter travel time if they could travel across the north pole. What about all the oil that could now be drilled that lies under they ocean. Its much easier to drill when its not through a hundred feet of ice. There is always an upside to every downside.
That’s right, we don’t need to worry about some stupid white bears. Continuing to burn fossil fuels at a breakneck pace to CEOs can line their pockets without having to ninvest in alternative energies is really much more imporatant.
They’re just bears. I mean, we are the rulers of the universe, so why should we care?
Maybe we can smoke out Osama bin Laden while we’re getting rid of the polar bears.
If a Polar bear dies in the Arctic, does it make a sound?
Kevin Costner’s Sea World, here we come!
I personally like polar bears.
With a little brown gravy and some mashed taters, they are very tasty.
OMG, Is cosmos dead?????
“As the hunter goes, so does the Polar Bear. ”
Posted by: the troll Kansas | September 13, 2007 at 01:43 AM
The IGNORANT troll Kansas believes that op-eds have more credibility than wildlife biologists such as,
Dr Steven C. Amstrup,http://alaska.usgs.gov/staff/staffbio.php?employeeid=113Dr. Andrew E Derocherhttp://www.biology.ualberta.ca/faculty/andrew_derocher/
‘Will polar bears go extinct by 2030? Part IOn the myth that polar bear populations are flourishing’http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/9/10/10141/7952
“First off, if the Bush Administration’s USGS says the polar bear is facing devastation from global warming, you can safely say the claim has more credibility than anything Lomborg or Crichton write.
Second, global warming can temporarily boost polar bear populations. The 2004 study, “Polar Bears in a Warming Climate” in Integrative and Comparative Biology, explains:http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/44/2/163?eaf
—-In the short term, climatic warming may improve bear and seal habitats in higher latitudes over continental shelves if currently thick multiyear ice is replaced by annual ice with more leads, making it more suitable for seals.—-
Third, global warming can temporarily make it APPEAR as if polar bear populations have increased.
“Possible Effects of Climate Warming on Selected Populations of Polar Bears (Ursus maritimus) in the Canadian Arctic,”http://neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov/publications/pdf/pubs2006/Stirling%20-%20Possible%20Effects%20of%20Climate%20Warming.pdf
Fourth, some polar bear populations are clearly declining or on the verge of declining — not just in the Western Hudson Bay case noted above, but also in the Southern Beaufort Sea. A 2006 USGS study http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1337/ found an apparent decline in polar bears. The study also saw “declines in cub survival and physical stature” — the same trend that preceded “a significant decline in population size” in western Hudson Bay, Canada.
But what about the claim that “polar bear populations have actually increased five fold since the 1960s” and perhaps even risen slightly over the past two decades? This claim is well debunked by Dr. Andrew Derocher, …
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/ask-the-experts/population/
“The early estimates of polar bear abundance are a GUESS. There is no data at all for the 1950-60s. Nothing but GUESSES.”
Dr. Derocher ends bluntly:
“… no habitat, no seals; no seals, no bears. This never was an issue of polar bears alone. The only effective conservation approach is to protect the habitat and this is an issue of climate change. You can distort the issue any way you so desire. At the end of the day, the sea ice is disappearing. Take away the habitat and the species follows shortly thereafter (or before).
Comparing declines caused by harvest followed by recovery from harvest controls to declines from loss of habitat and climate warming are apples and oranges. Ignorant people write ignorant things.”
Why is Arctic sea ice so IMPORTANT?http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20070810_faq.html
“Arctic sea ice keeps the polar regions cool and helps moderate global climate. Sea ice has a bright surface, so 80 percent of the sunlight that strikes it is reflected back into space.
As sea ice melts in the summer, it exposes the dark ocean surface. Instead of reflecting 80 percent of the sunlight, the ocean absorbs 90 percent of the sunlight. The oceans heat up, and Arctic temperatures rise further.
A small temperature increase at the poles leads to still greater warming over time, making the poles the most sensitive regions to climate change on Earth.
According to scientific measurements, both the thickness and summer sea ice extent in the Arctic have shown a dramatic decline over the past thirty years. This is consisistent with observations of a warming Arctic.
The loss of sea ice also has the potential to accelerate global warming trends and to change climate patterns.”
For more information about the importance of sea ice, including its importance for global ocean circulation, people, and animals, see All About Sea Ice: Environment.” http://nsidc.org/seaice/environment/index.html
Canadians are so concerned about the Polar Bear decline, that they have increased the amount of Polar Bears to be harvested this year by hunters and Native peoples.
Yeah, declining Polar Bear populations…
Troll Kansas,
Thank you for again proving your ignorance. It’s not about hunting.
Dr. Andrew E Derocherhttp://www.biology.ualberta.ca/faculty/andrew_derocher/
Dr. Derocher ends bluntly:”… no habitat, no seals; no seals, no bears. This never was an issue of polar bears alone. The only effective conservation approach is to protect the habitat and this is an issue of climate change. You can distort the issue any way you so desire. At the end of the day, the sea ice is disappearing. Take away the habitat and the species follows shortly thereafter (or before).
Comparing declines caused by harvest followed by recovery from harvest controls to declines from loss of habitat and climate warming are apples and oranges. Ignorant people write ignorant things.”
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/hunting/
‘Will polar bears go extinct by 2030? Part II’http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/9/11/12513/3266“We’ve seen the USGS predict that two-thirds of the polar bear population will be wiped out by 2050.But that analysis assumes the Arctic will still have summer ice then. The USGS acknowledges http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special/polar_bears/docs/executive_summary.pdf (PDF) their projection is “conservative” since it is based upon an average of existing climate models and “the observed trajectory of Arctic sea ice decline appears to be underestimated by currently available models.”
In fact, the Arctic now is poised to lose all its ice by 2030 — and possibly by 2020, as I discuss below.”
More at link.
And if we all drive SUV’s, fly around in private jets, and don’t build wind farms in our backyards, live in 28,000 sq/ft homes we can stop global warming!
Oh yeah… don’t eat imported tangerines either :)
Can you spell a n a l r e t e n t i v e, Nathan?
I think cosmos watched the “Day After Tomorrow” movie one too many times.
So, when the polar bears do go extinct, whatever and its minions will be saying polar bears never existed in the first place.
Ignorant troll Kansas,
Don’t you that was science FICTION.
Dr. Stefan Rahmstorf,THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW – some comments on the moviehttp://www.ozean-klima.de/
The troll Kansas needs to do a REALITY check,http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20070810_index.html
Don’t you KNOW that was science FICTION?
Did everyone know that the conclusion of the melting sea ice and polar bear extinction was made in computer models?
The surveys also admitted they did not have telemetry data in the areas affected.
Which means is they are plugging in data with incomplete information and make a guess. Pseudo scientists call it inferences.
Real scientists call it criminal negligence of actual data examination and scare tactics.
They don’t want to get their feet cold or wet, so they plug it into a computer with incomplete data sets and come up with some sort of answer they like.
This is like only taking temperatures on the north side of building and plugging those temperatures into a computer model , then predicting temperature for the next 50 years.
This is just bad science folks, nothing more.
Maybe we can move the bears to Antarctica.
If polar bears do go extinct, they’ll join the 99% of all the other species that ever lived. Doesn’t say too much for our chances though. We’d better figure out how to adapt ourselves to global warming in case our efforts at changing the world don’t work.
The issue is, what are we supposed to do about the Polar Bears when we are not the ones causing Global Warming and anything we do is only a drop in the bucket to stop it?
“Did everyone know that the conclusion of the melting sea ice and polar bear extinction was made in computer models?”
Posted by the ignorant, lying, troll Kansas.
Anyone who can READ knows that the computer models have UNDERESTIMATED the rate of Arctic sea ice decline.
Posted upthread, (emphasis added)http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/09/polar-bears-fac.html#comment-82597461“The USGS acknowledges http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special/polar_bears/docs/executive_summary.pdf (PDF) their projection is “conservative” since it is based upon an average of existing climate models and “the observed trajectory of Arctic sea ice decline appears to be UNDERESTIMATED by currently available models.”
“Did everyone know that the conclusion of the melting sea ice and polar bear extinction was made in computer models?”
And the conclusion that all the industrial pollution in history and the next 100 years will have no effect on climate, that conclusion is based on what, exactly?
Pollution and climate are two different subjects and disciplines leftcoaster.
So cosmos is saying that the computer models are inaccurate because they underestimate the arctic sea ice decline.
What a muddled mess that is. Say that computer models are the predictors of the future, then in the next sentence saying that they under estimate the data fed into them. hahahaha!
As I said, real scientists rely on actual data collection, go into the field, compile the data, extrapolate the data and interpret the data.
Scientists playing politics take data that’s all over the board, plug it into a computer and hope it comes out like they wish.
If it doesn’t, they just say the computer models underestimate the data. hahahahahaha!
rofl!
Who cares? Evolution will just grow back more polar bears out of mice. Survival of the fittest. Worry instead about the illegally butchered viable babies in abortionist quack George Tiller’s unlicensed incinerator.
Ignorant troll Kansas,
I’m saying that the Arctic sea ice is declining faster than models projected.
Perhaps you can be a “real scientist”, do some “actual data collection”, and explain why?
See the graph at,’Arctic Ice Retreating More Quickly Than Computer Models Project’April 30, 2007http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2007/seaice.shtml
“Thirty years ahead of schedule”
Still pointing to op ed pieces eh cosmos?
There are pdf’s online that have the actual science methods and data in them and in specific regards to the issue.
Perhaps you should read them cosmos?
Oh wait, you can’t understand them because you are not a scientist.
My bad!
Well, Kansas, how do you understand them since you’re not a scientist either?
Troll Kansas,
Back to the false person attacks at me?
You cannot even understand the huge difference between habitat loss and hunting.
You can get the “op ed”(sic) ‘Arctic sea ice decline: Faster than forecast’ from here,http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL029703.shtml
You cannot even understand the huge difference between habitat loss and hunting.
This is why I stop writing to cosmos the last time.
He makes up these statements on what I know and don’t know.
Yes Capn, I do know more Science than cosmos as I had to take many science courses. My degrees are engineering, but with physical and natural sciences as a minor.
I do know how to read and understand technical information when presented.
“You cannot even understand the huge difference between habitat loss and hunting.
This is why I stop writing to cosmos the last time.
He makes up these statements on what I know and don’t know.”
Posted by the troll Kansas,
See the troll’s post at top,
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/09/polar-bears-fac.html#comment-82532285
which seems to be a copy/paste from a WSJ “op ed”,http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmMzOGE5MjgyMmNhZDE4YjZlM2I1ODY3Mjc1NzViNWM=
And the troll’s post re hunting again,http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/09/polar-bears-fac.html#comment-82595793
Ignore button pushed again, cosmos can’t behave.
“I do know how to read and understand technical information when presented.”
Posted by: the troll Kansas | September 13, 2007 at 04:13 PM
So WHY does the troll believe this person?’Gerhard Gerlich’http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Gerhard_Gerlich
“… CO2-greenhouse effect of the earth atmosphere is pure fiction …”
And why does the troll insist that because climate change happened naturally in the past, humans cannot be causing significant climate change now?
We’re getting colder… No, we’re getting hotter… No, colder…. No, hotter….
I have a hunch it is a little bit of BOTH…. And I also have a hunch that those who object to man made global warming (environmental collapse) wouldnt take the test that has been posted here before…
IF you dont think man made pollutions have any environmental effects, then go into your garage, and close the doors and windows…. and turn on the car, and put a good CD on the stereo for about an hour or so….
Then come back and tell us if there is any man made environmental effects from burning fossil fuels… :-)
My, my…fighting over the decline of a fabulous creature! Why can’t you put good use of your arguing in to protecting what we do have left? Polar Bears are beautiful animals and they have a right to be on this earth as we all do.Don’t you realize that IF the ice keeps melting and IF it doesn’t freeze like it normally does that Kansas will have ocean front property one day? All of that melted ice has to go somewhere and I don’t think the ocean floors are deep enough to contain any more water. It will start coming on up right over populated areas. New York City – gone. New Orleans – gone. The coasts on either side of the continent – gone. You think we have population problems now, just wait till everyone has to move inland for where they no longer have land to live on!Anyway, there are so many species of animals, birds, reptiles and insects that are no more or, almost gone. We have killed off one way or another all of these species with hunting or other ways by clearing the habitat that these species live in for “our progression”. It is a sad state of affairs.
Ice floes melting do not equate to rising seas.
Want to test it yourself?
Get a glass of water, plop some ice cubes in and check the level.
Step away for an hour and check the level of the water after the ice has melted.
Well, dud, whatever knows some basic science. The problem is, most of the ice melt in connected to land, which wasn’t in the water. Gee, it doesn’t take rocket science to figure out what happens to water levels when the melted ice reaches water.
Want to test it yourself?
Get a glass and fill it almost to the top with water. Got that?
Now add water to the glass already filled with water. Don’t bother waiting an hour.
What happens to the water level in the glass?
Gee, I must be at least as smart as whatever.
That’s a possible scenario J M Walker.
But until the scientists take into account the warm flow of water or lack thereof, into the polar regions, they are just into self flagellation.
It’s kind of like the joke about hurricanes. They never were a problem until humans started building population centers right in their paths.
Now all of a sudden it becomes a problem.
Coastal erosion is already happening. Anyone that owns beach front property has to sign a waiver if they are with “xx” feet of the coast line. Because 5-10 years from now, that sandy land will probably not existed due to erosion.
Earth’s axis rotation and solar activity has more to do with the arctic melting than co2. The albedo of poles are more susceptible to axis shift, thus more melting.
The is more to it than that, but that’s it in a nutshell. Magnetic variance in sub mantle structures can wreak havoc on pole shifts, including climate cycles.
“Ice floes melting do not equate to rising seas.”
Posted by the troll Kansas.
But less Arctic sea ice causes a warmer Arctic region, and possibly accelerates the global warming trend.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/09/polar-bears-fac.html#comment-82594907
That could accelerate melting of Greenland, the Antarctic, and glaciers worldwide, and = faster rising sea levels.
“Earth’s axis rotation and solar activity has more to do with the arctic melting than co2. The albedo of poles are more susceptible to axis shift, thus more melting.
The is more to it than that, but that’s it in a nutshell.”
Posted by the troll Kansas.
You have to be nuttier than a squirrel, and/or ignore science to believe that.
There’s been no recent “axis shift”, and there’s no correlation between rising temperatures the last 3 decades, and (dropping) solar activity.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=18
GROUNDHOG DAY?
I guess nobody tried my environmental experiment… But thats OK… I just had a few good laughs anyway… And the White House Comdy Review is on TV now as well…
cosmos is stating that the science of Milankovitch cycles is “nuttier than a squirrel” and deserves no scientific merit, even though it was proven to be the prime event indicator for the beginning and ending of the last ice age.
I doubt many have even heard of the Milankovitch cycles… except for on the Blog here… might help if we get that down to plain English… ???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
NO, troll Kansas… I’m saying that anyone who believes a “Milankovitch cycle” is causing the rapid warming during the last 3 decades is “nuttier than a squirrel”.
The current warming is mostly anthropogenic caused.
From your above link >>>>
“Since orbital variations are predictable[6], if one has a model that relates orbital variations to climate, it is possible to run such a model forward to “predict” future climate. Two caveats are necessary: that anthropogenic effects (global warming) are likely to exert a larger influence over the short term, and that the mechanism by which orbital forcing influences climate is not well understood.”
“Three astronomical cycles combine to alter the angles and distance at which sunlight strikes the far northern latitudes of Earth, triggering the ice ages. This explanation was fully developed by Milutin Milankovitch from 1920 to 1941, so the astronomical cycles are now sometimes called the Milankovitch cycles. They involve periodic wobbles in the Earth’s rotation and changes in the tilt of its axis and the shape of its orbit, occurring over tens of thousands of years (Fig.8.27).
Cores extracted from the glacial ice in Greenland and Antarctica provide the longest natural archive of the Earth’s past climate. They strongly support the idea that changes in the Earth’s orbit and spin axis cause variations in the intensity and distribution of sunlight arriving at Earth, which in turn initiate natural climate changes and trigger the ebb and flow of glacial ice.”
“They involve periodic wobbles in the Earth’s rotation and changes in the tilt of its axis and the shape of its orbit, occurring over tens of thousands of years (Fig.8.27).”
Posted by the troll Kansas.
And what does “occurring over tens of thousands of years” have to do with global warming the last 3 DECADES, while solar activity dropped???
The stupid troll Kansas cannot defend his incorrect opinions, so he posts irrelevant items.
That’s right Chas, not well understood. That statement is attributed to Dr. John Imbrie one of the Climatologists who studied the Milankovitch cycle with colleagues. He made a similar statement back in the 1980s that has been misquoted several times by the Alarmists.
Imbrie was merely giving a hypothetical scenario. There was no science backing up his statement nor did Dr. Imbrie intend for the statement to be misquoted by Alarmists.
cosmos the non-scientist does not understand that we are still in the Interglacial and thinks that three decades of measurements trump core samples that have been proven in ice and geological digs all over the world proving the theories by Imbrie et al, which are accepted by climate scientists all over the world.
In other words, the non-scientist cosmos has no op-ed articles to quote to save his non-scientific arse so he calls me “stupid troll.”
Without fail, when he can’t find any layman text to read cosmos goes for the ad hominem because he doesn’t understand the science.
Troll Kansas,
EXACTLY WHAT does “occurring over TENS of THOUSANDS of years” have to do with global warming the last 3 DECADES, while solar activity dropped???
I did NOT say that “three decades of measurements trump core samples” and the Milankovitch cycle theory.
I said it was IRRELEVANT to what is happening now.
The change in Earths “axis tilt” since 1900, and since 1975 is insignificant, and is NOT causing the recent warming.
And the troll Kansas cannot refute the solar measurements, and scientific studies listed here,http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=18
So instead the troll Kansas misquotes me, and makes false personal attacks on me.
Kansas is a very pathetic loser.
Let the polar bear survive in the zoo’s of the world. It’s time for evolution to take the next step.
The sooner they depart the artic, the sooner we can start drilling some of that good north American oil. Less money going to arabs, more oil coming to America from America. Decrease imports.
Most people do not care about the polar bear. Only the media and a few PETA people.
Palm Tree,
Ignore this,http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/09/polar-bears-fac.html#comment-82594907
I did ignore it. I never click any of your links anymore. They are all rehashing old points. Additionally, many of your links are to liberal think tanks, left funded, and are distorting the view.
I am looking forward to growing and selling Palm Trees in Kansas. The sooner things start heating up, the better.
There are many positive results of GW, which you have seen posted and chosen to ignore. It is all part of the natural cycle of life and climate on this little blue planet (red at heart).
Climate Extremism: the Real Threat to CivilizationBy Dr. Timothy Ball and Tom HarrisFriday, July 20, 2007
There is nothing particularly unusual about current weather and climate change – it is generally well within long-term normal patterns. However, the public believes otherwise due to a combination of the way in which people have been taught to view nature, political exploitation of science and the hidden motives of environmental extremists. How did this happen and where are we headed if climate change hysteria continues unchecked?Skewed View of NatureWestern education automatically assumes a ‘uniformitarian’ view of the World, a concept that change is gradual over long periods of time. As a consequence, sudden or extreme changes are considered abnormal by most of society. Yet even a cursory examination of climate records reveals variations in centuries past that are far faster and more severe than anything we are experiencing today.
Humans are naturally selective in what we notice. For instance, selectivity occurs when, after being introduced to someone, you seem to meet them frequently. They were always there, but just not part of your “noticing.” Similarly, the media and the public have started to “notice” extreme weather, glacier melting, sea level rise, etc. more because alarmists tell us that an increase in such events is a precursor to the coming ‘climate crisis’. Since people are on the lookout for such trends they seem to be accelerating even though recent quantitative studies demonstrate they are not (NRSP ‘allied scientist’ Dr. Madhav Khandekar has shown this clearly in his studies for the Alberta government, for example).
Phenomena such as severe weather events are now often presented as unusual or unique: it was the highest or lowest temperature, rainfall, etc., ‘ever.’ What is referred to is the barely century-old instrumental data-based official weather record, an inadequate sample of the Earth’s five billion year history. Long term geologic records indicate much greater and more rapid changes occurred long before civilizations started.
Besides the public’s lack of awareness of our planet’s dynamic climate history, a difficulty in comprehending long time frames has made them susceptible to the propaganda of Al Gore and David Suzuki. Echoing Suzuki’s myth of nature’s “gentle rhythms”, then Canadian environment minister Stéphane Dion told the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development on October 4, 2005, “Climate change is a new phenomenon, a very worrying one, but a new phenomenon.” Dion’s total ignorance of the issue is revealed by simply noting one historical fact – half of North America was under a vast ice sheet just 22,000 years ago.
Political Exploitation of ScienceThe exploitation of climate science for purely political goals is occurring throughout the developed world. For example, politicians inCanada have started to ban inexpensive and convenient technologies such as light bulbs, coal fired electricity generation and used oil heating to “stop climate change.” They can’t show how the alternatives being promoted will actually help the environment – we are expected to simply believe that such sacrifices for the climate will benefit us all, even if real pollution levels rise, food prices increase as agricultural land is converted to biofuels production and millions of birds are cut to pieces by wind turbines. ‘Believe’ is the key word here, not ‘think’.
Even the United States, previously one of the last bastions of common sense in climate wars, is being swept up in this dangerous movement. Besides the rise of ex-Vice President Al Gore to the status of climate change ’superstar’, rhetoric has reached a fever pitch in the U.S. Senate now that an environmental extremist, Senator Barbara Boxer of California, has taken over as Chair of the powerful Committee on Environment and Public Works. Exposing her extraordinary naiveté Boxer maintains, “The American people have the will to slow, stop, and reverse global warming, and they sent a new cast of characters to Washington, and people are really hopeful that this new Congress will be able to do it.” Claiming Gore as her hero, Boxer has even initiated an “online thank you card to Al Gore… — thanking him for everything he has done to stop global warming!” To date, it has attracted over 77,000 endorsers.
Along with Vermont Senator Bernard Sanders and a handful of other Democrats, Boxer is promoting the ludicrously titled “Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act”, also referred to as the” Sanders/Boxer bill, S.309″. The phrase ‘global warming pollution’ is wildly inappropriate but is used repeatedly by Gore, Boxer and others in the hopes that the public will look upon their actions as honest attempts to help the environment by reducing pollution. In reality, the major target of the act, Gore’s crusade and other futile attempts to ’stop climate change’ (e.g. the Kyoto Protocol) is carbon dioxide (CO2), a gas essential to life and in no way a pollutant. Using the sweeping and more threatening sounding term “greenhouse gases” (of which CO2 is only one), environmental alarmists clearly hope the public don’t wake up to the fact that they are really speaking mostly about the benign gas CO2. While many politicians know very well that CO2 emission reduction is pointless and will have little if any impact on climate, some truly don’t know the difference between CO2 and pollution – witness the Boxer-like statement of Canadian Liberal MP Joe Volpe before entering the House of Commons to vote in favour of Canada’s ratification of Kyoto in 2002, “For all intents and purposes, there isn’t anybody that I know that doesn’t want cleaner air and a cleaner environment, so why would you vote no?”
Divorcing themselves entirely from science, political opportunists proceed to claim the moral high ground by appealing to our natural instinct to protect children. Combining such sentiments with religiosity and an adolescent ‘we can do anything’ approach, they end up with assertions so removed from the real world as to be laughable, were the consequences not so serious.
“Just as we lift our children up to feed them, and we hold them close to comfort them, and to protect them from any manner of harm, just as we would never, ever leave them trapped in a locked car in the hot sun, we must protect them from global warming.” Boxer told an April 14, 2007 National Press Club audience. “The ancient religious writings say, “See to it that you do not destroy my world for there is no one to repair it after you.” Today for us, it should be simple. Working Together we can reverse Global Warming! We must lead on this issue, not follow; its our job. I truly believe when we do our job, our country and our families will be better and stronger and the world will be safer.”
Of course we have no chance of “reversing global warming” (and why would we want to? Global cooling is far more dangerous and climate is never constant). Boxer’s rhetoric is simply an appeal to emotion over rational thought. Such an unscientific stance is bad for society and, ultimately, bad for the environment as well, but political spin doctors seem to have concluded that it still attracts many voters. As the public learn more about the issue, this will eventually backfire politically. This is why groups like the Natural Resources Stewardship Project focus so strongly on public education. Once a majority of the public recognize that many of the assertions of Boxer, Gore, Dion and Volpe have no basis in reality, politicians will have little choice but to radically alter their approach – either that or be voted out of office in disgrace.
Besides ignorance and political opportunism, what is driving this movement?The principle target in all this is fossil-fueled based energy sources. Boxer summed it up neatly in her introduction to the June 28 Senate committee hearing, “reducing emissions from powerplants is a fundamental part of any solution to global warming.”
Besides vote-seeking politicians, who else would want to dismantle our fossil fuel-based economy? Some beneficiaries of such an agenda are obvious – alternative energy providers are already reaping financial windfalls from the scare. Nuclear power companies stand to make significant gains as well, provided they are not shut down entirely by environmentalists who oppose them even more fiercely than they do fossil fuel corporations. Many scientists and engineers who support nuclear power for its real benefits understand how today’s climate scare is largely groundless and so do not boost nuclear power as a means to avert a climate crisis.
However, some spokespeople are not so careful. John Ritch, Director General of the London-based World Nuclear Association, uses language even more extreme than Gore and Suzuki. At the October 2006 Pacific Basin Nuclear Conference in Sydney, Australia, Ritch said,
“The fact of this planetary crisis should no longer be a matter of psychological or political denial. For our best Earth-system scientists now warn, with ever increasing certainty, that greenhouse gas emissions, if continued at the present massive scale, will yield consequences that are – quite literally – apocalyptic: increasingly radical temperature changes, a worldwide upsurge in violent weather events, widespread drought, flooding, wildfires, famine, species extinction, rising sea levels, mass migration and epidemic disease that will leave no country untouched.
If these predictions hold true, the combined effect would be the death of not just millions but of billions of people – and the destruction of much of civilization on all continents.”NRSP scientists immediately sent Ritch solid evidence that his assertions were out of touch with modern climate science and expressed the hope that his “remarks are greatly tuned to a more realistic stance if the topic is brought up again in the future.” NRSP continued, “Nuclear power clearly has important benefits to mankind but “stopping global climate catastrophe” is surely not one of them. [We] fear we undermine the whole effort when such extreme arguments are presented.”
Ritch did not respond. Instead NRSP was answered by Jonathan Cobb, the association’s “climate change advisor”, who dismissed our concerns saying, “I can assure you that Mr Ritch pays close attention to the scientific discussion on climate change and he will continue to accurately report the overwhelming scientific consensus.” That a climate change advisor would simply brush aside evidence that his employer had little need of his services is perhaps not surprising. However, that Ritch continues to use precisely the same language as above in his most recent speeches (June 2007) is inexcusable.
The specter of industry-caused “climate chaos” – a ridiculous term used by Canadian Green Party Leader Elizabeth May – ultimately leading to the ‘destruction of the planet’ is a perfect vehicle for people who want to radically alter, or even dismantle, western civilization. Chief among these is Canadian Maurice Strong, head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and until recently, Executive Officer for Reform in the U.N. Secretary General’s office. His comment, “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized nations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” speaks volumes about what is really going on in the minds of some environmentalists.
Industry runs on energy, but you cannot directly attack the energy source because this would alienate the vast majority of the public who benefit from industrialization. The easiest way is to show that the byproducts of industrial activity are causing a planetary collapse. Even though untrue, this claim provides another popular moral high ground for activists. Demanding carbon dioxide reductions provided the vehicle and the United Nations supposedly provided the science for the theory that human addition of CO2 would lead to uncontrolled global warming. The theory quickly became fact, and the scientific method of testing, and accepting or rejecting, was effectively thwarted. Scientists who tried to pursue a normal scientific approach to the issue were quickly branded as pawns of the energy sector.
There are negative side-effects of industrialization of course, but eliminating industry also eliminates its exceptionally beneficial impacts on quality of life. Besides ignoring the natural evolution of the human species, in the extreme, today’s climate alarmism is decidedly anti-human. Human progress is seen, not as a natural evolution, but an unnatural aberration.
The following quotes illustrate the dangerous anti-human nature of cells within the environmental movement, many of whom have adopted today’s climate crusade as their primary raison d’être:
Biologist David Graber (U.S. National Park Service): “They [natural things] have intrinsic value, more value – to me – than another human body, or a billion of them. Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. Somewhere along the line – about a billion years ago – we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”
Philosophy Professor Paul Taylor, City University of New York in “Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics”, p. 115): “Given the total, absolute, and final disappearance of Homo Sapiens, not only would the Earth’s community of life continue to exist, but in all probability, its well-being would be enhanced. Our presence, in short, is not needed. And if we were to take the standpoint of that Life Community and give voice to its true interests, the ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted with a hearty “Good riddance!”
Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!: “Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.”
Earth First! Journal editor John Daily: “Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.”
An equally extreme case is Peter Singer, a ‘bioethicist’ at Princeton University. He maintains that the suffering of a crippled ant deserves equal consideration to that of a crippled human child. If we could only save one, he says, we should decide by the flip a coin or else we would be “speciests”.
And of course the macabre “ Voluntary Human Extinction Movement ” is apparently alive and well with its “volunteer” class members agreeing that, “All of us should voluntarily refrain from reproducing further, bringing about the eventual extinction of Homo sapiens.” Asserting that “Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth’s biosphere to return to good health”, the group’s motto is “May we live long and die out.”
In the extraordinary book “Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds” written 150 years ago by Charles Mackay, is written, “Men … think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”
Let’s hope that Mackay’s pessimism is no longer quite so applicable in a world where instantaneous and inexpensive mass communications is a fact of life – certainly society cannot afford to continue to sleep at the switch while eco-activists rapidly come to dominate governments. Environmental extremism is the real threat to society, not the miniscule contribution human-emitted carbon dioxide might make to global climate. It will take time for the general public to finally recognize this but, when they do, expect the whole environmental movement, its good aspects included, to be set back at least a generation. That will be the sad legacy of Al Gore, Barbara Boxer and David Suzuki.
Climate Extremism: the Real Threat to CivilizationBy Dr. Timothy Ball and Tom HarrisFriday, July 20, 2007
There is nothing particularly unusual about current weather and climate change – it is generally well within long-term normal patterns. However, the public believes otherwise due to a combination of the way in which people have been taught to view nature, political exploitation of science and the hidden motives of environmental extremists. How did this happen and where are we headed if climate change hysteria continues unchecked?Skewed View of NatureWestern education automatically assumes a ‘uniformitarian’ view of the World, a concept that change is gradual over long periods of time. As a consequence, sudden or extreme changes are considered abnormal by most of society. Yet even a cursory examination of climate records reveals variations in centuries past that are far faster and more severe than anything we are experiencing today.
Humans are naturally selective in what we notice. For instance, selectivity occurs when, after being introduced to someone, you seem to meet them frequently. They were always there, but just not part of your “noticing.” Similarly, the media and the public have started to “notice” extreme weather, glacier melting, sea level rise, etc. more because alarmists tell us that an increase in such events is a precursor to the coming ‘climate crisis’. Since people are on the lookout for such trends they seem to be accelerating even though recent quantitative studies demonstrate they are not (NRSP ‘allied scientist’ Dr. Madhav Khandekar has shown this clearly in his studies for the Alberta government, for example).
Phenomena such as severe weather events are now often presented as unusual or unique: it was the highest or lowest temperature, rainfall, etc., ‘ever.’ What is referred to is the barely century-old instrumental data-based official weather record, an inadequate sample of the Earth’s five billion year history. Long term geologic records indicate much greater and more rapid changes occurred long before civilizations started.
Besides the public’s lack of awareness of our planet’s dynamic climate history, a difficulty in comprehending long time frames has made them susceptible to the propaganda of Al Gore and David Suzuki. Echoing Suzuki’s myth of nature’s “gentle rhythms”, then Canadian environment minister Stéphane Dion told the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development on October 4, 2005, “Climate change is a new phenomenon, a very worrying one, but a new phenomenon.” Dion’s total ignorance of the issue is revealed by simply noting one historical fact – half of North America was under a vast ice sheet just 22,000 years ago.
Political Exploitation of ScienceThe exploitation of climate science for purely political goals is occurring throughout the developed world. For example, politicians inCanada have started to ban inexpensive and convenient technologies such as light bulbs, coal fired electricity generation and used oil heating to “stop climate change.” They can’t show how the alternatives being promoted will actually help the environment – we are expected to simply believe that such sacrifices for the climate will benefit us all, even if real pollution levels rise, food prices increase as agricultural land is converted to biofuels production and millions of birds are cut to pieces by wind turbines. ‘Believe’ is the key word here, not ‘think’.
Even the United States, previously one of the last bastions of common sense in climate wars, is being swept up in this dangerous movement. Besides the rise of ex-Vice President Al Gore to the status of climate change ’superstar’, rhetoric has reached a fever pitch in the U.S. Senate now that an environmental extremist, Senator Barbara Boxer of California, has taken over as Chair of the powerful Committee on Environment and Public Works. Exposing her extraordinary naiveté Boxer maintains, “The American people have the will to slow, stop, and reverse global warming, and they sent a new cast of characters to Washington, and people are really hopeful that this new Congress will be able to do it.” Claiming Gore as her hero, Boxer has even initiated an “online thank you card to Al Gore… — thanking him for everything he has done to stop global warming!” To date, it has attracted over 77,000 endorsers.
Along with Vermont Senator Bernard Sanders and a handful of other Democrats, Boxer is promoting the ludicrously titled “Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act”, also referred to as the” Sanders/Boxer bill, S.309″. The phrase ‘global warming pollution’ is wildly inappropriate but is used repeatedly by Gore, Boxer and others in the hopes that the public will look upon their actions as honest attempts to help the environment by reducing pollution. In reality, the major target of the act, Gore’s crusade and other futile attempts to ’stop climate change’ (e.g. the Kyoto Protocol) is carbon dioxide (CO2), a gas essential to life and in no way a pollutant. Using the sweeping and more threatening sounding term “greenhouse gases” (of which CO2 is only one), environmental alarmists clearly hope the public don’t wake up to the fact that they are really speaking mostly about the benign gas CO2. While many politicians know very well that CO2 emission reduction is pointless and will have little if any impact on climate, some truly don’t know the difference between CO2 and pollution – witness the Boxer-like statement of Canadian Liberal MP Joe Volpe before entering the House of Commons to vote in favour of Canada’s ratification of Kyoto in 2002, “For all intents and purposes, there isn’t anybody that I know that doesn’t want cleaner air and a cleaner environment, so why would you vote no?”
Divorcing themselves entirely from science, political opportunists proceed to claim the moral high ground by appealing to our natural instinct to protect children. Combining such sentiments with religiosity and an adolescent ‘we can do anything’ approach, they end up with assertions so removed from the real world as to be laughable, were the consequences not so serious.
“Just as we lift our children up to feed them, and we hold them close to comfort them, and to protect them from any manner of harm, just as we would never, ever leave them trapped in a locked car in the hot sun, we must protect them from global warming.” Boxer told an April 14, 2007 National Press Club audience. “The ancient religious writings say, “See to it that you do not destroy my world for there is no one to repair it after you.” Today for us, it should be simple. Working Together we can reverse Global Warming! We must lead on this issue, not follow; its our job. I truly believe when we do our job, our country and our families will be better and stronger and the world will be safer.”
Of course we have no chance of “reversing global warming” (and why would we want to? Global cooling is far more dangerous and climate is never constant). Boxer’s rhetoric is simply an appeal to emotion over rational thought. Such an unscientific stance is bad for society and, ultimately, bad for the environment as well, but political spin doctors seem to have concluded that it still attracts many voters. As the public learn more about the issue, this will eventually backfire politically. This is why groups like the Natural Resources Stewardship Project focus so strongly on public education. Once a majority of the public recognize that many of the assertions of Boxer, Gore, Dion and Volpe have no basis in reality, politicians will have little choice but to radically alter their approach – either that or be voted out of office in disgrace.
Besides ignorance and political opportunism, what is driving this movement?The principle target in all this is fossil-fueled based energy sources. Boxer summed it up neatly in her introduction to the June 28 Senate committee hearing, “reducing emissions from powerplants is a fundamental part of any solution to global warming.”
Besides vote-seeking politicians, who else would want to dismantle our fossil fuel-based economy? Some beneficiaries of such an agenda are obvious – alternative energy providers are already reaping financial windfalls from the scare. Nuclear power companies stand to make significant gains as well, provided they are not shut down entirely by environmentalists who oppose them even more fiercely than they do fossil fuel corporations. Many scientists and engineers who support nuclear power for its real benefits understand how today’s climate scare is largely groundless and so do not boost nuclear power as a means to avert a climate crisis.
However, some spokespeople are not so careful. John Ritch, Director General of the London-based World Nuclear Association, uses language even more extreme than Gore and Suzuki. At the October 2006 Pacific Basin Nuclear Conference in Sydney, Australia, Ritch said,
“The fact of this planetary crisis should no longer be a matter of psychological or political denial. For our best Earth-system scientists now warn, with ever increasing certainty, that greenhouse gas emissions, if continued at the present massive scale, will yield consequences that are – quite literally – apocalyptic: increasingly radical temperature changes, a worldwide upsurge in violent weather events, widespread drought, flooding, wildfires, famine, species extinction, rising sea levels, mass migration and epidemic disease that will leave no country untouched.
If these predictions hold true, the combined effect would be the death of not just millions but of billions of people – and the destruction of much of civilization on all continents.”NRSP scientists immediately sent Ritch solid evidence that his assertions were out of touch with modern climate science and expressed the hope that his “remarks are greatly tuned to a more realistic stance if the topic is brought up again in the future.” NRSP continued, “Nuclear power clearly has important benefits to mankind but “stopping global climate catastrophe” is surely not one of them. [We] fear we undermine the whole effort when such extreme arguments are presented.”
Ritch did not respond. Instead NRSP was answered by Jonathan Cobb, the association’s “climate change advisor”, who dismissed our concerns saying, “I can assure you that Mr Ritch pays close attention to the scientific discussion on climate change and he will continue to accurately report the overwhelming scientific consensus.” That a climate change advisor would simply brush aside evidence that his employer had little need of his services is perhaps not surprising. However, that Ritch continues to use precisely the same language as above in his most recent speeches (June 2007) is inexcusable.
The specter of industry-caused “climate chaos” – a ridiculous term used by Canadian Green Party Leader Elizabeth May – ultimately leading to the ‘destruction of the planet’ is a perfect vehicle for people who want to radically alter, or even dismantle, western civilization. Chief among these is Canadian Maurice Strong, head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and until recently, Executive Officer for Reform in the U.N. Secretary General’s office. His comment, “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized nations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” speaks volumes about what is really going on in the minds of some environmentalists.
Industry runs on energy, but you cannot directly attack the energy source because this would alienate the vast majority of the public who benefit from industrialization. The easiest way is to show that the byproducts of industrial activity are causing a planetary collapse. Even though untrue, this claim provides another popular moral high ground for activists. Demanding carbon dioxide reductions provided the vehicle and the United Nations supposedly provided the science for the theory that human addition of CO2 would lead to uncontrolled global warming. The theory quickly became fact, and the scientific method of testing, and accepting or rejecting, was effectively thwarted. Scientists who tried to pursue a normal scientific approach to the issue were quickly branded as pawns of the energy sector.
There are negative side-effects of industrialization of course, but eliminating industry also eliminates its exceptionally beneficial impacts on quality of life. Besides ignoring the natural evolution of the human species, in the extreme, today’s climate alarmism is decidedly anti-human. Human progress is seen, not as a natural evolution, but an unnatural aberration.
The following quotes illustrate the dangerous anti-human nature of cells within the environmental movement, many of whom have adopted today’s climate crusade as their primary raison d’être:
Biologist David Graber (U.S. National Park Service): “They [natural things] have intrinsic value, more value – to me – than another human body, or a billion of them. Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. Somewhere along the line – about a billion years ago – we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”
Philosophy Professor Paul Taylor, City University of New York in “Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics”, p. 115): “Given the total, absolute, and final disappearance of Homo Sapiens, not only would the Earth’s community of life continue to exist, but in all probability, its well-being would be enhanced. Our presence, in short, is not needed. And if we were to take the standpoint of that Life Community and give voice to its true interests, the ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted with a hearty “Good riddance!”
Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!: “Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.”
Earth First! Journal editor John Daily: “Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.”
An equally extreme case is Peter Singer, a ‘bioethicist’ at Princeton University. He maintains that the suffering of a crippled ant deserves equal consideration to that of a crippled human child. If we could only save one, he says, we should decide by the flip a coin or else we would be “speciests”.
And of course the macabre “ Voluntary Human Extinction Movement ” is apparently alive and well with its “volunteer” class members agreeing that, “All of us should voluntarily refrain from reproducing further, bringing about the eventual extinction of Homo sapiens.” Asserting that “Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth’s biosphere to return to good health”, the group’s motto is “May we live long and die out.”
In the extraordinary book “Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds” written 150 years ago by Charles Mackay, is written, “Men … think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”
Let’s hope that Mackay’s pessimism is no longer quite so applicable in a world where instantaneous and inexpensive mass communications is a fact of life – certainly society cannot afford to continue to sleep at the switch while eco-activists rapidly come to dominate governments. Environmental extremism is the real threat to society, not the miniscule contribution human-emitted carbon dioxide might make to global climate. It will take time for the general public to finally recognize this but, when they do, expect the whole environmental movement, its good aspects included, to be set back at least a generation. That will be the sad legacy of Al Gore, Barbara Boxer and David Suzuki.
That link went to my post upthread, which had part of,’Frequently Asked Questions about Sea Ice’http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20070810_faq.html
and the link to,http://nsidc.org/seaice/environment/index.html
“This section explores the role of sea ice in our global climate, human activities, and in the life cycles of wildlife.”
Your taxes fund them,http://nsidc.org/about/sponsors.html
Updates re Arctic sea ice decline,http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20070810_index.html
GW Fool was in the woods one day when an acorn fell on her head. It scared her so much she trembled all over. She shook so hard, half her feathers fell out.GW Fool: “Help! Help! The sky is falling! I have to go tell the king!”
Narrator: So she ran in great fright to tell the king. Along the way she met Henny Penny.Henny Penny: “Where are you going, GW Fool?”GW Fool: “Oh, help! The sky is falling!”Henny Penny: “How do you know?”GW Fool: “I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and part of it fell on my head!”Henny Penny: “This is terrible, just terrible! We’d better hurry up.”Narrator: So they both ran away as fast as they could. Soon they met Ducky Lucky.Ducky Lucky: “Where are you going, GW Fool and Henny Penny?”GW Fool & Henny Penny: “The sky is falling! The sky is falling! We’re going to tell the king!”Ducky Lucky: “How do you know?”GW Fool: “I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and part of it fell on my head.”Ducky Lucky: “Oh dear, oh dear! We’d better run!”Narrator: So they all ran down the road as fast as they could. Soon they met Goosey Loosey walking down the roadside.Goosey Loosey “Hello there. Where are you all going in such a hurry?”GW Fool: “We’re running for our lives!”Henny Penny: “The sky is falling!”Ducky Lucky: “And we’re running to tell the king!”Goosey Loosey: “How do you know the sky is falling?”GW Fool: “I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and part of it fell on my head!”Goosey Loosey: “Goodness! Then I’d better run with you.”Narrator: And they all ran in great fright across a field. Before long they met Turkey Lurkey strutting back and forth..Turkey Lurkey: “Hello there, GW Fool, Henny Penny, Ducky Lucky, and Goosey Loosey. Where are you all going in such a hurry?”GW Fool: “Help! Help!”Henny Penny: “We’re running for our lives!”Ducky Lucky: “The sky is falling!”Goosey Loosey: “And we’re running to tell the king!”Turkey Lurkey: “How do you know the sky is falling?”GW Fool: “I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and part of it fell on my head!”Turkey Lurkey: “Oh dear! I always suspected the sky would fall someday. I’d better run with you.”Narrator: So they ran with all their might, until they met Foxy Loxy.Foxy Loxy: “Well, well. Where are you rushing on such a fine day?”GW Fool, Henny Penny, Ducky Lucky, Goosey Loosey, Turkey Lurkey (together) “Help! Help!” It’s not a fine day at all. The sky is falling, and we’re running to tell the king!”Foxy Loxy: “How do you know the sky is falling?”GW Fool: “I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and part of it fell on my head!”Foxy Loxy: “I see. Well then, follow me, and I’ll show you the way to the king.”Narrator: So Foxy Loxy led GW Fool, Henny Penny, Ducky Lucky, Goosey Loosey, and Turkey Lurkey across a field and through the woods. He led them straight to his den, and they never saw the king to tell him that the sky is falling….
Cosmos I have no problem with my tax dollars paying for scientific studies. I like wasting money going to the moon and mars too. Better spent there than building a historical site at Woodstock (thanks Hillary).
Now when those making conclusions from the studies are wrong – then we need to fire anyone using the results for political purposes.
Keep gathering the data, monitor, and report. But don’t jump to any conclusions prematurely. Further, I have no problem with GW in my life time nor my childrens.
Someday someone will find or invent something new to resolve any lasting impact on mankind. Science is growing at an amazing pace. One hundred years ago they could not have imagined rockets to the moon. 75 years ago computers, 50 years ago IPOD’s, and cell phones with GPS!
No need to stop industry or economic growth in our immediate future. Particularly without and factual information (smoking gun) which confirms man’s contribution and the effect.
Bear
Think Cliff Notes
Well, the earth does have changes in its tilt over tens of thousands of years. However, how can this possibly have anything to do with changes observed in the arctic over the last 30 years? Maybe the real factor is that so much carbon that has been sequestered during the last 300 to 100 million years in the form of coal, petroleum, and natural gas is now being extracted and released. The trend is only toward more of this finite amount of sequestered carbon being extracted.
Don’t listen to anything an engineer (as “Kansas” says he is) has to say on these issues. An engineer with a BS or MS is not a scientist. One becomes a scientist when one publishes in top peer reviewed journals. Let “Kansas” produce a paper in a top tier peer reviewed science journal that is concerned with climate changes. It isn’t going to happen. I can only speculate that he/she would just state that the journals have liberals as editors.
Grizzly Bear,
Thank you very much for your (double) copy/paste of Tim Ball’s and Tom Harris’ column.
Those two have zero credibility on climate issues. Thank you for proving that you are very gullible, and prefer to be deceived.
“Keep gathering the data, monitor, and report.”
Posted by Palm Trees.
That is what they ARE doing. There is a record minimum of Arctic sea ice — and much of the ice is thinner, so it can melt faster in the future.
http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20070810_index.html
“No need to stop industry or economic growth in our immediate future. Particularly without and factual information (smoking gun) which confirms man’s contribution and the effect.”
Posted by Palm Tree.
Increasing energy efficiency and switching to non-fossil sources will NOT “stop industry or economic growth”.
And your “smoking gun” is here,http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
WSU Professor,
Quickly, tell me what percent of the anthropometric greenhouse gases are of the total greenhouse gas inventory.
Explain why current Climate Modelers exclude so many variables such as water vapor, black body factors and the fact that 3 percent CO2 in the atmosphere even if doubled would only desorb at 9.5u/m.
Extrapolated out, the doubling of CO2 would only shorten the distance of radiation by 3 percent before absorption it meets it optimum achievement.
Since the climate modelers can’t explain the excess heat produced by the anthropomorphic CO2, they make stuff up and assign it to other chemical constituents, except for the right one, water vapor.
Under high cloud cover water vapor depletes solar radiation 30 Wm^-2. Why is this not considered in Climate Models? Are all days sun shine in Climate Models?
The asymmetrical water molecule is not totally understood in cloud vapor. High order water clusters, trimers, tetramers, and pentamers present in the atmosphere are significant entities and not even considered.
It is an established that 60 percent of Greenhouse gas warming accounted for is caused by water vapor.
Yet, all these Global Warming Alarmists don’t understand it fully, so they just plug in “something” into their Climate Models and come out with a number they like?
Please Professor, that is pure junk science to come to a conclusion if you don’t have all the constituents and known processes to formulate both theory and a public policy.
And we are supposed to believe Mr. Kansas, because he has degrees in what kind of science?
And in what kind of engineering?
And when was he last published in a peer reviewed journal?
And how does Mr. Kansas know that Mr/Ms Cosmos is Not a scientisst?
Mr. Kansas knows this how?
Let’s have some degree of proof here Mr. Kansas, since I see you still profess to be the Blog expert on everything… from Polar Bears, to Polar Ice; from the tragic War in Iraq, to the female biofunction of breast feeding?
Since you know it all, Mr. Kansas, suppose you start showing proof of what you claim to know, and how you know it?
After all, Mr. Kansas, that is what you incessantly demand of all others, so it should be good for you as well.
I believe your countrymen say it like this: Put up, or shut up, Mr. Kansas.
I have a lecture early tomorrow, so good evening to you.
‘Next Ice Age delayed by rising CO2 levels’http://www.noc.soton.ac.uk/nocs/news.php?action=display_news&idx=394
“Future ice ages may be delayed by up to half a million years by our burning of fossil fuels, according to work by Dr Toby Tyrrell of the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton.”
More at link.
Human additions of CO2? It’s a small marginal contribution compared to the total. That doesn’t mean that our CO2 (and other emissions) and its side effects are not significant.
I’m not interested in any bloviating, emotional or politial right or left perspectives on this issue. Just submit a rigorous paper to a top journal in the field with your theoretical model of greenhouse gasses and climate effects and let’s see what happens. Also, submit your paper(s) to the top academic conferences in the field. That’s all I’m asking. I’ve published in 3 of the top 4 journals in my field. All three of the papers were considered (and still are by many) controversial. However, that’s how science moves forward.
The infamous Tom Harris,http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tom_Harris_%28Canadian_engineer/technology_specialist%29
and the infamous Tim Ball,http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball
See also the links to NRSP, etc…
So Professor, have you submitted any peer reviewed papers in Climate Science?
This is a blog, you know like realclimate.org. There they discuss the issues, people disagree, but I have yet to read anywhere on realclimate.org where they asked an individual to write a peer reviewed paper so they can participate in the blog discussion.
Science also moves forward by discussion. Since you appear to be out of your “element” tell me what you think about GCR not being considered in Climate Models.
Also explain the lack of cloud albedo variability over regions and why low forming clouds occur over the arctic even at night. Assuming you understand the effects of low cloud cover caused by natural events, why do you think that is significant especially over the polar regions.
Or you can submit a peer reviewed paper and get back to me. :)
What is your field of expertise Das?
I’m guessing it’s not in the Liberal Arts program as your sentence structure is quite lacking.
Exactly what is your discipline Das?
And we are supposed to believe Mr. Kansas, because he has degrees in what kind of science?
And in what kind of engineering?
Posted by: Das | September 14, 2007 at 12:06 AM
No science degree(s), but possibly an Industrial Hygiene engineering degree, DECADES ago???
‘7.2.1.1 Water vapour feedback’http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/268.htm
‘Water vapour: feedback or forcing?’http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11652
Thank you Mr. Kansas, for showing me once again, that you presume to be expert in all subjects on the Blog. My sentence structure is a bit difficult, since I am useing your native language here, and not mine. I suspect your sentence structure would look like mine does, if you were trying to use my native language. You really are quite boorish in your comments.
I also notice that rather than answer any of my inquiries, you chose to attack my written form. I have noticed that this is your accustomed pattern of response when you choose to not want to respond to inquiry.
So, are you going to inlighten all of us who read/post here? What exactly are your degrees of expertise, that give you the distinction of being able to determine if Mr/Ms Cosmos is, or is not a real scientist?
And I see you also attack another Professor? If that one is real professor?
My fields of expertise are PhD’s in History, Theoretical Physics, and Metaphysical Studies. Also, I have an honorary LLD from Rotterdam.
Does this satisfy your curious mentality?
Now, are you planning to inlighten the Blog as to your supposed expertise in every field posted on the blog? Or is that to remain a mystery, along with your attitude of superiority, and ferociously egotistical attitude?
Quite a mixture of disciplines there Das.
Physics, History and Metaphysical Studies?
Was that accomplished at “Big Bang” University or “Particle” College?========================
I read all your links cosmos and they are somewhat lacking in coming to a consensus or a fore drawn conclusion on just about anything.
One Website argues the unimportance of Water Vapor as a contributor greenhouse gas because of the longevity status of forcing values. Then in the next paragraph it states that if temperature increases, so does water vapor at higher altitude, and the ability to restrict heat from escaping resulting in higher temperatures.
You can’t have it both ways, saying that it is unimportant, then stating in the next paragraph it results in higher temperatures.
If little weight is given to the Milankovitch Cycle as realclimate states, then why do they keep referring to it as the best explanation for the pre and post ice age periods? Oh, didn’t I say before we are still in the Inter-Glacial period?
Even your esteemed scientist Gavin Schmidt can’t appear to get a handle on the effects of water vapor cosmos. On the one hand he states that climate variability states is relatively unaffected by clouds or water vapor and in the next statement he states little is known how it actually affects climate. Can’t have it both ways!
Gavin Schmidt then does some chest beats on how significant the satellite data is for GCM’s, then admits only a few GCM actually account water vapor as even a factor!
Doesn’t Gavin Schmidt realize that satellites have no look down and through capability to see through upper level clouds to define low level clouds? Is he secretly synchronizing ground radar and doppling the lower atmosphere to get continuous loop feedback? I doubt it.
Did you ever wonder why cosmos why they don’t take short interval readings of CO2? It’s because of the wide variability. Hourly co2 readings can vary as much as 300 PPM in an hour!
So what do they do? They take monthly or weekly readings which are averages, not dynamic data models. Heaven forbid if they would actually use realistic data to show that co2 wildly varies over short periods of time. It’s much easier to give an average and say, see there it’s climbing!
So cosmos, you can take your 2 percent effective rate of man made global warming and hang your hat on that it is responsible for all of Climate Change.
Me? I’m going with the 98 percent variable of natural climate change as the cause.
I don’t have any carbon credits to panhandle or any cheesy Climate horror movies to sell to the naive public.=================
Oh and Das, for someone who is new to the Blog, welcome.
I do find it quite curious Das, that someone new to the blog knows so much about me and can form such a quick opinion. That is of course, they really aren’t new to the blog and have a hidden agenda.
You know Das, the last fake scientist with a nic switch we had here, left with his head hanging in shame as he turned out to be a flaming, anal-biting, full fledged liberal in disguise.
I do hope you don’t succumb to that Das. Let us hope you can discuss Climate Science with me with your theoretical Physics PhD and we can talk about black bodies, GCR’s, LW and SW inferences and how they effect chemical constituents in our atmosphere.
That is, I hope we can discuss it, or is your PhD too theoretical or perhaps too metaphysical in nature? :)
Das, this is going to sound strange, and absolutely no offense intended, but your style of writing (your sentence structure is FINE!) somehow suggested a native Dutch speaker to me.
I can’t really say why. Maybe because it reminded me a bit of Franz de Waal’s style.
Just a fairly trivial observation.
Carry on!
We have polar bears in zoos all over the southern USA which is quite warm so apparently the bears cab live just fine in warmer climates.
“We have polar bears in zoos all over the southern USA which is quite warm so apparently the bears cab live just fine in warmer climates.”
That’s great, Kev! You gonna pay to have them shipped down here when they starve to death, due to their inability to hunt on the ice floes?
Please tell me you were being sarcastic. . .
Thank you for proving that you are very gullible, and prefer to be deceived.
Posted by: cosmos
You have me confused with someone else. The above statement does not apply to me.
I just don’t care. Let the temperature rise. No skin off my back. My fur is just fine, and I have been relocated to a number of places in the lower 48. I will survive.
“Hourly co2 readings can vary as much as 300 PPM in an hour!”
Posted by the foolish Kansas.
Yeah… if you’re STUPID enough to measure them in cities, etc.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/10/more_nonsense_about_co2.php
http://timlambert.org/2005/01/hissink3/
“”The measurements for 1865, for example, vary from 290 to 550 parts per million.It just isn’t possible for the CO2 concentration to change by that much in one year — the difference corresponds to about 500 billion tons of carbon which is about the same amount of carbon in all plants in the entire world.”
Intelligent people make measurements at remote sites.http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm
Troll Kansas: “Me? I’m going with the 98 percent variable of natural climate change as the cause.”
Based on what scientific data, and facts???
How much of that “98%” is due to solar activity, which has DROPPED during the last 3 decades?
How much is due to “Milankovitch Cycle”, orbit, axis tilt, etc changes?
Come on Kansas… be a “real scientist”, and provide the “actual data” to support your claim.
Troll Kansas: “As I said, real scientists rely on actual data collection, go into the field, compile the data, extrapolate the data and interpret the data.”
Actually “WSU Professor” said that.
So cosmos is admitting to being a troll.
It is now officially Troll cosmos as he has been caught.
The troll Kansas has no science to support his incorrect opinions, so he again makes false personal attacks.
“As I said, real scientists rely on actual data collection, go into the field, compile the data, extrapolate the data and interpret the data.”
Posted by: the TROLL Kansas | September 13, 2007 at 03:20 PM
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/09/polar-bears-fac.html#comment-82614265
“Me? I’m going with the 98 percent variable of natural climate change as the cause.”
Posted by the troll Kansas.
Based on what scientific data, and facts???
How much of that “98%” is due to solar activity, which has DROPPED during the last 3 decades?
How much is due to “Milankovitch Cycle”, orbit, axis tilt, etc changes?
And due to other natural factors?
Troll cosmos does not deny being a troll.
Look it up the 98 percent figure on realclimate.org cosmos, they talk about it there. Gavin Schmidt said it was a reasonable assumption, but disagreed with the premise it which it was used.
I disagree with 2 percent of man-made GHG’s “wagging the dog.”
It’s that simple, really it is.
Troll Kansas,
I denied being “WSU Professor”
“The troll Kansas has no science to support his incorrect opinions, so he again makes false personal attacks.”
Troll Kansas cannot support his 98% claim, so he LIES about Gavin Schmidt.
Rage,
I don’t think Kev was being sarcastic. See his “The bears will adapt and survive” post, 2nd on this thread.
Kev does not seem to understand the situation. No Arctic ice, no seals; no seals, no Polar bears.
Not to mention ALL of the other problems the loss of Arctic sea ice will cause.http://nsidc.org/seaice/environment/global_climate.html