Al Gore wins Nobel

[fundingfather]

<p>"Tell that to the polar bears…</p>

<p>Hey, guys, you big fierce specialized mammals! Yes, you over there.</p>

<p>Go build a reservoir instead!"</p>

<p>This is yet more of the myth that Al Gore is promulagating and why it is hard to take the alarmists seriously. The polar bears are doing just fine:</p>

<p>

The world’s polar bear population is on the increase despite global warming, which scientists had believed was pushing the animal towards extinction. </p>

<p>According to new research, the numbers of the giant predator have grown by between 15 and 25 per cent over the last decade. </p>

<p>Some authorities on Arctic wildlife even claim that hunting, and not global warming, has been the real cause of the decrease in polar bear numbers in areas where the species is in decline. </p>

<p>A leading Canadian authority on polar bears, Mitch Taylor, said: “We’re seeing an increase in bears that’s really unprecedented, and in places where we’re seeing a decrease in the population it’s from hunting, not from climate change.”

<a href=“http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=143012005[/url]”>http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=143012005&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[simba]

<p>Polar Bear Status Report
Polar bears are a potentially threatened species living in the circumpolar north. They are animals which know no boundaries. They pad across the ice from Russia to Alaska, from Canada to Greenland and onto Norway’s Svalbard archipelago. No adequate census exists on which to base a worldwide population estimate, but biologists use a working figure of 20,000 to 25,000 bears with about sixty percent of those living in Canada.</p>

<p>In areas where long-term studies are available, populations are showing signs of stress. Canada’s Western Hudson Bay population has dropped 22% since the early 1980s. The declines have been directly linked to an earlier ice break-up on Hudson Bay. A long-term study of the Southern Beaufort Sea population, which spans the northern coast of Alaska and western Canada, has revealed a decline in cub survival rates and in the weight and skull size of adult males. Such declines were observed in Western Hudson Bay bears prior to the population drop there. Another population listed as declining is Baffin Bay. According to the most recent report from the Polar Bear Specialist Group, the harvest levels from Nunavut when combined with those from Greenland (which were thought to be much lower than they actually are) has resulted in this shared population being in a non-sustainable harvest situation, meaning the population is at great risk of a serious decline. The harvest is thought to be several times above what is sustainable.</p>

<p>Some Native communities in Canada have been reporting increasing numbers of polar bears on land. Traditional hunters believe this indicates an increased population, although the increased presence on land may, in fact, be related to shrinking sea ice and changes in the bears’ distribution patterns. Data is needed to understand the change. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service states, “In the declining polar bear population of Canada’s Western Hudson Bay, extensive scientific studies have indicated that the increased observation of bears on land is a result of changing distribution patterns and a result of changes in the accessibility of sea ice habitat.”</p>

<p>Climate change is the main threat to polar bears today. A diminishing ice pack directly affects polar bears, as sea ice is the platform from which they hunt seals. Although the Arctic has experienced warm periods before, the present shrinking of the Arctic’s sea ice is rapid and unprecedented.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/[/url]”>http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Polar bears are the world’s largest land predators and the largest of the eight bear species. They are the only bears that eat mostly meat. Polar bears are under pressure of becoming an endangered species due to the impact of global warming on their Arctic habitat. Why are polar bears endangered? As the polar ice caps melt, they have less time to fatten up each summer, and so more cubs do not survive.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.nwf.org/polarbear/[/url]”>http://www.nwf.org/polarbear/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>It may be the latest evidence of global warming: Polar bears are drowning.</p>

<p>Scientists for the first time have documented multiple deaths of polar bears off Alaska, where they likely drowned after swimming long distances in the ocean amid the melting of the Arctic ice shelf. The bears spend most of their time hunting and raising their young on ice floes.</p>

<p><a href=“http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB113452435089621905-vnekw47PQGtDyf3iv5XEN71_o5I_20061214.html[/url]”>http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB113452435089621905-vnekw47PQGtDyf3iv5XEN71_o5I_20061214.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[lealdragon]

<p>ff, the key word here is ‘over the last decade.’</p>

<p>The increase in drowning has been recent.</p>

<p>Figures can’t lie, but liars can figure.</p>

[scansmom]

<p>From a more recent article that mentions the same polar bear biologist FF quoted (although he is not the biologist quoted below):</p>

<p>

Polar bear experts said that numbers had increased not because of climate change but due to the efforts of conservationists.
The battle to ban the hunting of Harp seal pups has meant the seal population has soared - boosting the bears’ food supply.
At the same time, fewer seal hunters are around to hunt bears.
“I don’t think there is any question polar bears are in danger from global warming,” said Andrew Derocher of the World Conservation Union, and a professor of biological sciences at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. “People who deny that have a clear interest in hunting bears.”
Bear numbers on the west coast of Hudson’s Bay had shrunk by 22 per cent over the past decade, he said.
“They are declining due to global warming and changes in when the ice freezes and melts in Hudson’s Bay,” he added. He and other scientists in his group are concerned that the retreating ice in the Arctic may pose a danger to future generations of polar bears because of ‘habitat loss’. "The critical problem is the sea ice is changing. "We’re looking ahead three generations, 30 to 50 years.
“To say that bear populations are growing in one area now is irrelevant.”

</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/09/wpolar09.xml[/url]”>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/09/wpolar09.xml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[mini]

<p>You think polar bear numbers are increasing 'cause they’re having more sex? (i.e. there are more of them in a smaller area, and hence more likely to find each other?)</p>

<p>Just a thot.</p>

[garland]

<p>

So, let them build a reservoir instead. A glacier is nothing other than a natural reservoir - like a lake. If the area of the glacier is in a warming cycle there’ll be more water available from it until it’s virtually gone - the opposite for a cooling cycle. The earth is always in one or the other.

</p>

<p>a) um, evaporation?</p>

<p>and</p>

<p>b) we cause it, but these much less affluent folks should “build a reservoir?”</p>

<p>nice, ugly American attitude…</p>

[simba]

<p>“A proper analogy would be to pay $10,000 for your car insurance policy”</p>

<p>How did you make up that number?</p>

<p>FYI in 1999 there were total of about 208 million cars, SUV and light trucks in US x $10,000 would make about $2 trillion.</p>

[ucsd_ucla_dad]

<p>

nice, ugly American attitude…

You can think I’m ugly all you want but at least I’m realistic. I, and many scientists, haven’t reached the conlusion that “we cause it (the melting of the glaciers)” significantly even if we are contibuting somewhat but if that’s your conclusion - fine for you. The fact is that the earth’s climate has always changed and always will change and life needs to adapt to it or perish. It always has and always will - regardless of how ‘ugly’ that sounds to you.</p>

[Christcorp]

<p>quote: we cause it, but these much less affluent folks should “build a reservoir?”</p>

<p>nice, ugly American attitude…</p>

<p>Sorry, but I haven’t seen enough proof that mankind has caused it, let alone Americans. Nice try though</p>

[garland]

<p>We know we have raised the level of CO2 in the atmosphere; we know that is a greenhouse gas. The consensus is here; choosing the one or two dissidents (go ahead, time to quote Lindzen) instead of looking at what is clear to the vast, vast majority of climate experts is a political choice–so we don’t have to feel responsible, and thus change.</p>

<p>It’s definitely a more comfortable position, go for it.</p>

[ucsd_ucla_dad]

<p>garland:</p>

<p>What do you propose as the solutions to what you believe the problem is and how do you think those solutions will affect the problem? And, have you given up your car and disconnected from the grid yet?</p>

[simba]

<p>garland drives a Prius (I think her second).</p>

<p>I think this is a standard stock attack from the deniers. No one is saying that get rid of all your energy consuming stuff.</p>

[1of42]

<p>ucsd<em>ucla</em>dad: You’re aware that, as fun as it is to argue that way, attacking a person’s personal environmental habits is a perfect example of an ad hominem attack, right?</p>

[garland]

<p>Simba, it’s a Civic Hybrid.:)</p>

<p>But most days it sits in the driveway, cuz my H and I walk to work, or bike. And keep the heat down (not that we need it this year) and don’t use AC, and are looking into solar, etc etc.</p>

<p>I recommend we stop using we-can’t-fix-it-so-let’s-deny-it-exists tactics, first off.</p>

<p>Put the kind of ingenuity we are known for into solar, wind, and mostly, conservation. Stop building/living in big houses, promote public transportation, mandate more fuel efficiency at every level.</p>

<p>You don’t think we’re capable, if we, and the world, put our minds, hearts, and wallets toward it? I got more faith, friend.</p>

[ucsd_ucla_dad]

<p>

attacking a person’s personal environmental habits is a perfect example of an ad hominem attack

I wasn’t really attacking - it’s just nice to see people put their money where their mouth is every now and then and sometimes people do. But even if garland gave up her car (a Prius still uses fuel - much more than a bicycle or legs) I don’t think it would have much of an effect but it would at least show her real conviction. </p>

<p>The real point I was trying to make is what do all the gloom-sayers propose as the solution and when will they themselves be the first to become part of that solution? What I and a few others on this thread and a number of scientists are saying is that we don’t know the extent that humans are affecting global warming. Even those scientists who staunchly believe that humans are affecting global warming don’t actually know the extent. Will you concede this? Given this, we don’t know the extent that our actions will have on any global warming. If we outlawed the use of the internal combustion engine in the USA and outlawed carbon-fired power plants in the USA what effect will it actually have on GW? To be sure it would have a large negative impact on the economy. Whatever we do it’d likely be supplanted anyway with the growth in auto and energy usage in Asia shortly so our calculations should include eliminating carbon usage from those countries as well - of course we don’t actually have any control over them.</p>

<p>So it’s interesting to see what the gloom-sayers propose as the solution. What would you propose and to what extent do you think it would affect the problem as you see it?</p>

[ucsd_ucla_dad]

<p>

…cuz my H and I walk to work, or bike…

Now that’s putting your money where your mouth is - good for you.</p>

[ucsd_ucla_dad]

<p>

I recommend we stop using we-can’t-fix-it-so-let’s-deny-it-exists tactics, first off

Before you can fix something you have to know what’s broken. All I’m saying is that we first of all don’t know IF it’s broken (global warming or global cooling in and of itself isn’t something broken - it’ll always be one or the other - it’s cyclical), and if it is, due to a radical impact by humans, what exactly we can do about it. If humans are affecting it radically then we can try to come up with a plan to change it but it’ll take a huge sacrifice and economic toll and can’t be accomplished just in the USA. </p>

<p>We need to get the political rhetoric out of the equation since it taints the evidence, we need to quit paying so much attention to the likes of Gore who isn’t even a scientist but is making millions of dollars off of the selected works of others and even has the nerve to charge our colleges about $100K to promote his book/movie - whoops, his cause, and study the issue from a more unbiased scientific perspective.</p>

[simba]

<p>ucsd<em>ucla</em>dad: where have you put your money? or are you just using your mouth?</p>

[Christcorp]

<p>Garland. I guess you didn’t read my post on page 3. Here is a link or two for you to look at.</p>

<p><a href=“http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html[/url]”>http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html&lt;/a&gt;
<a href=“http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html#anchor2108263[/url]”>http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html#anchor2108263&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Man is creating about 0.28% of the greenhouse gas affect. 99.7% of the greenhouse affect are caused by natural causes. Mostly water vapor. Also, atmospheric CO2 and temperature are directly proportionate with Sun activity. I guess, we are causing the Sun to do what it’s doing also.</p>

<p>If you ever decide to read the link, make sure you check out the references at the bottom. Especially the EPA, CO2 Information Analysis Center, Cambridge, and a host of others.</p>

<p>When you can start showing where a significant amount of CO2, greenhouse gases, and global warming is created by mankind, I’ll be happy to listen. Unfortunately, you have done what so many others have, and hooked on to one or two sources because you happen to like their position.</p>

<p>While I am not a climatologist, I have spent years trying to improve fuel efficiency. Mainly to improve economics. But all of that research has exposed me to both sides of the argument. Here’s my references. When you’ve got some, come back and we can chat.</p>

<p>references:

1. Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations (updated October, 2000)
   Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
   (the primary global-change data and information analysis center of the U.S. Department of Energy)
   Oak Ridge, Tennessee</p>

<p>Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change (data now available only to “members”)
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme,
Stoke Orchard, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, GL52 7RZ, United Kingdom.</p>

<p>2) Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming Potentials (updated April, 2002)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency</p>

<p>3) Warming Potentials of Halocarbons and Greenhouses Gases
Chemical formulae and global warming potentials from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 119 and 121. Production and sales of CFC’s and other chemicals from International Trade Commission, Synthetic Organic Chemicals: United States Production and Sales, 1994 (Washington, DC, 1995). TRI emissions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994 Toxics Release Inventory: Public Data Release, EPA-745-R-94-001 (Washington, DC, June 1996), p. 73. Estimated 1994 U.S. emissions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 1990-1994, EPA-230-R-96-006 (Washington, DC, November 1995), pp. 37-40.</p>

<p>4) References to 95% contribution of water vapor:</p>

<p>a. S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264</p>

<p>b. Global Deception: The Exaggeration of the Global Warming Threat
by Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, June 1998
Virginia State Climatologist and Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia</p>

<p>c. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Appendix D, Greenhouse Gas Spectral Overlaps and Their Significance
Energy Information Administration; Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government</p>

<p>d. Personal Communication-- Dr. Richard S. Lindzen
Alfred P. Slone Professor of Meteorology, MIT</p>

<p>e. The Geologic Record and Climate Change
by Dr. Tim Patterson, January 2005
Professor of Geology-- Carleton University
Ottawa, Canada
Alternate link:
f. EPA Seeks To Have Water Vapor Classified As A Pollutant
by the ecoEnquirer, 2006
Alternate link:</p>

<p>g. Air and Water Issues
by Freedom 21.org, 2005
Citation: Bjorn Lomborg, p. 259. Also: Patrick Michaels and Robert Balling, Jr. The Satanic Gases, Clearing the Air About Global Warming (Washington, DC: CATO Institute, 2000), p. 25.</p>

<p>h. Does CO2 Really Drive Global Warming?
by Dr. Robert Essenhigh, May 2001
Alternate link:</p>

<p>i. Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climate
by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., 21st Century Science and Technology, Winter 2003-2004, pp. 52-65
Link:</p>

<p>5) Global Climate Change Student Guide
Department of Environmental and Geographical Sciences
Manchester Metropolitan University
Chester Street
Manchester
M1 5GD
United Kingdom</p>

<p>6) Global Budgets for Atmospheric Nitrous Oxide - Anthropogenic Contributions
William C. Trogler, Eric Bruner, Glenn Westwood, Barbara Sawrey, and Patrick Neill
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California</p>

<p>7) Methane record and budget
Robert Grumbine
(1) A scientific Discussion of Climate Change, Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D., Harvard- Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and Willie Soon, Ph.D., Harvard- Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.</p>

<p>(2) The Effects of Proposals for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction; Testimony of Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the Committee on Science, United States House of Representatives</p>

<p>(3) Statement Concerning Global Warming-- Presented to the Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works, June 10, 1997, by Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology</p>

<p>(4) Excerpts from,“Our Global Future: Climate Change”, Remarks by Under Secretary for Global affairs, T. Wirth, 15 September 1997. Site maintained by The Globe - Climate Change Campaign</p>

<p>(5) Testimony of John R. Christy to the Committee on Environmental and Public Works, Department of Atmospheric Science and Earth System Science Laboratory, University of Alabama in Huntsville, July 10, 1997.</p>

<p>(6) The Carbon Dioxide Thermometer and the Cause of Global Warming; Nigel Calder,-- Presented at a seminar SPRU (Science and Technology Policy Research), University of Sussex, Brighton, England, October 6, 1998.</p>

<p>(7) Variation in cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage: a missing link in solar-climate relationships; H. Svensmark and E. Friis-Christiansen, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar- Terrestrial Physics, vol. 59, pp. 1225 - 1232 (1997).</p>

<p>(8) First International Conference on Global Warming and the Next Ice Age; Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, sponsored by the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society and the American Meteorological Society, August 21-24, 2001.</p>

[ucsd_ucla_dad]

<p>simba:</p>

<p>I’m not the one crying doom and gloom.</p>