Socialists in a Panic

[Extrafire]

That's an old story. This might help you catch up on what's going on with the bears lately.

BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | 'Stress' is shrinking polar bears

Here's another bit of news.

NERI/AU - Polar bears have become smaller - new AU research in international media

Besides, this patch of warming is happening quicker than the others. That's a new variable. We don't know what will happen to specific species because of it. On the cold scale it appears that rapid cooling killed off an awful lot of critters back about 65 million years ago, or else it might have been the pollution that did.

NERI/AU - Polar bears have become smaller - new AU research in international media

So the bears are becoming smaller. Yes I heard those stories. Why are they becoming smaller? Speculate, blame it on the effects of global warming. Everthing gets blamed on global warming these days. You still take that seriously?

Are their populations shrinking? No. Some are shrinking and some are increasing, with the net effect being an increase. Generally predator populations increase when their food availability increases. I've heard there's been a considerable increase in seal populations too, so that might be the reason for so many bears. And body size generally decreases when food isn't as available. It seems most likely that they've bred themselves out of a place at the table, they've outgrown their food supply and there's an adjustment happening. Also, it's likely that they were larger before for the same reason their populations were increasing, abundant food. THis shrinkage may just be them reverting to pre-population explosion sizes.

Actually this patch of warming isn't quicker than others. Some have been slower and some have been faster. And you're correct about cold killing off critters. Somewhere I read that cooling is the main culprit of all mass extinctions. Warming, to the contrary, results in an expansion of both diversity and quantity of life.

 

[AnnaG]

Oh indeed there are people who live WITH nature, but at the same time, they're fighting it.

No moree than any other animal fights it. Which is the point.

And the more successfully we fight it, the better we live.

Really? We've been fighting it with pollution for how long? Are we really living better for it? Or is it more likely we are slowly killing other species off and causing ourselves lots of grief? Is that better? I don't think so.

I go to the dentist to fight what nature is doing to my tooth. Much better than just living with it. Ancient people died from abcessed teeth.

Yup. Some things are better. It used to be, though, that dentists used mercury in the amalgam. Was that better than just getting fed up and yanking the offending tooth?

I insulate my home with fibreglass and heat it with a natural gas furnace that centrally heats the house with an electric fan. Much better than living with whatever nature throws at me.

Wood has a pretty good R factor. It can provide structure as well as insulation. wood R-value One can coax nature into throwing heat into your home in winter as well as cooling in the summer. Geothermal heating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia But you keep burning stuff if it makes you happy.

My ancestors managed for thousands of years as well, but not nearly as well or as comfortably as I do. My father lived to the ripe old age of 102. He couldn't have done that in those old days.

Comfort is relative. And there are quite a few other people that have anecdotes about how miserable old people can be when they can't handle their ailments and yet aren't allowed to die. Big deal.

 

[AnnaG]

So the bears are becoming smaller. Yes I heard those stories. Why are they becoming smaller? Speculate, blame it on the effects of global warming. Everthing gets blamed on global warming these days. You still take that seriously?

I do. Have you an alternative idea on how polar bears get their food other than using the ice? How comfortable would your life be if something took away a major portion of your normal environment; something that inhibited your usual manner of acquiring food, for instance?

Are their populations shrinking? No. Some are shrinking and some are increasing, with the net effect being an increase. Generally predator populations increase when their food availability increases. I've heard there's been a considerable increase in seal populations too, so that might be the reason for so many bears. And body size generally decreases when food isn't as available. It seems most likely that they've bred themselves out of a place at the table, they've outgrown their food supply and there's an adjustment happening. Also, it's likely that they were larger before for the same reason their populations were increasing, abundant food. THis shrinkage may just be them reverting to pre-population explosion sizes.

Lots of possibilities, but it looks more like the possibility that their food supply is dwindling or else they can't hunt as well.

Actually this patch of warming isn't quicker than others. Some have been slower and some have been faster.

Really?

Notice the steepness of the last couple rises in the graph? That indicates faster rises in temperature.

And you're correct about cold killing off critters. Somewhere I read that cooling is the main culprit of all mass extinctions.

Well, that was flawed. Human activity can also accomplish mass extinctions. Threats To Global Biodiversity

Warming, to the contrary, results in an expansion of both diversity and quantity of life.

Except in 71% of the Earth's surface. The warmer it gets, the less water is able to retain oxygen.

 

[Cliffy]

Extrafire,
your criteria for living a better life through fighting nature is full of holes that comes from not being old. Being comfortable makes people fat and lazy, dulls their minds and leaves them open to heart and other organ failures, worn out joints, senility, and any host of maladies. There may not have been another generation that has lived as long as the present one, but there has not been a generation that has lived long enough to suffer the types of ailments we have prevalent today. What percentage of todays seniors have had open heart surgery, hip replacements, suffer from diabetes, Alzheimer and senility?

Longevity does not equate to quality of life and if we have to prolong life by artificial means, what have we gained besides more time to suffer? This might clue you in.
YouTube - Born to be Mild

 

[Extrafire]

If a scientist wants to disprove an hypothesis, why would he not resort to fraud.

Because he's honest? Because he's concerned with real science, not ideology?

You've dodged the question. The scientist in question has all the evidence necessary to prove his hypothesis. Would he discard said evidence and resort to fraud?

Some tried to disprove global warming. It didn't work because the facts came to light. The globe is warming.

Actually it is quite easy to prove the globe is either warming or cooling. It just depends where you put your start points and your end points. For example, over the last 10,000 years to now, the trend is cooling, no question. The same for the last 5,000 years, the last 2,000 years and the last 1,000 years. It's cooler now than it was then. However, if your start point is 300 years ago in the depths of the Little Ice Age, then the trend is definitely warming. 200 years ago, warming. 100 years ago, warming. If you start with the new century, back to cooling.

This bit about the emails does not change much except people's opinion. The facts will show what the facts will.

And the facts clearly showed that the only way to show an anthropological cause to dangerous global warming was by the use of fraud. Here's a recent debunking:
Quote of the week #20 – ding dong the stick is dead « Watts Up With That?

It's been demonstrated on numerous occasions that the alarmists need fraud to make their case but when confronted, they accused their accusers of being in the pay of big oil. What the emails does is put it in their own words. What are they going to do, accuse themselves of being in the pay of big oil?

Really? Do you have anything besides your opinion that says he is opposed to capitalism?

He's been quite clear on that numerous times.

That's one opinion. Is there anything that says both sides haven't used fraud? What would you say if the other side got caught? "They were justified." ?

I would say they were stupid. You use fraud in this conflict you're going to get caught, and with the vast majority of the media on the side of the alarmists, they'd be totally pilloried in the press.

Heating can come from fuel-fired heaters. They would use a lot less fuel than the entire vehicle would. Besides, one could always tote around a couple portable solar panels to assist. But I think you are more concerned with being right than accepting new ideas and looking ahead.

State-Of-The-Art Electric Vehicle Cold Weather Range

Actually I'm a big fan of technology and would welcome any advance in transportation, including an electric vehicle. But the Chevy Volt (due out soon) has a backup generator because even with the newest tech in batteries, it isn't enough. The Caddy version is a real sharp looking car, but it isn't known yet if they'll build it. I'd be willing to have one of them.

And I'd really like a Volkswagen L1, due out in a year or so.
Volkswagen L1 Concept on Yahoo! Autos – Pictures, News

L1 stands for it's mileage - 100km on 1 litre of fuel. The original version got that mileage and better, but the one going into production doesn't quite make it.

But with all that fancy technology it's going to be priced out of my range.

Pictures at the gallery:
Volkswagen L1 Concept - Gallery

 

[AnnaG]

Because he's honest? Because he's concerned with real science, not ideology?

You've dodged the question. The scientist in question has all the evidence necessary to prove his hypothesis. Would he discard said evidence and resort to fraud?

I doubt it, but I also doubt that fraud is limited to the side you are opposed to.

Actually it is quite easy to prove the globe is either warming or cooling. It just depends where you put your start points and your end points. For example, over the last 10,000 years to now, the trend is cooling, no question. The same for the last 5,000 years, the last 2,000 years and the last 1,000 years. It's cooler now than it was then. However, if your start point is 300 years ago in the depths of the Little Ice Age, then the trend is definitely warming. 200 years ago, warming. 100 years ago, warming. If you start with the new century, back to cooling.

So you say. Got a graph? Got ANY evidence?

And the facts clearly showed that the only way to show an anthropological cause to dangerous global warming was by the use of fraud. Here's a recent debunking:
Quote of the week #20 – ding dong the stick is dead « Watts Up With That?

I have a graph, too:

It's been demonstrated on numerous occasions that the alarmists need fraud to make their case but when confronted, they accused their accusers of being in the pay of big oil. What the emails does is put it in their own words. What are they going to do, accuse themselves of being in the pay of big oil?

Well, I don't particularly care about what alarmists and deniers do.

He's been quite clear on that numerous times.

Show me, please.

I would say they were stupid. You use fraud in this conflict you're going to get caught, and with the vast majority of the media on the side of the alarmists, they'd be totally pilloried in the press.

Good. Me, too. The best offense or defense is the truth.

Actually I'm a big fan of technology and would welcome any advance in transportation, including an electric vehicle. But the Chevy Volt (due out soon) has a backup generator because even with the newest tech in batteries, it isn't enough. The Caddy version is a real sharp looking car, but it isn't known yet if they'll build it. I'd be willing to have one of them.

And I'd really like a Volkswagen L1, due out in a year or so.
Volkswagen L1 Concept on Yahoo! Autos – Pictures, News

L1 stands for it's mileage - 100km on 1 litre of fuel. The original version got that mileage and better, but the one going into production doesn't quite make it.

But with all that fancy technology it's going to be priced out of my range.

Pictures at the gallery:
Volkswagen L1 Concept - Gallery

Cool. I could go for a hybrid like that even if it does still burn a little bit.

 

[JLM]

Extrafire,
your criteria for living a better life through fighting nature is full of holes that comes from not being old. Being comfortable makes people fat and lazy, dulls their minds and leaves them open to heart and other organ failures, worn out joints, senility, and any host of maladies. There may not have been another generation that has lived as long as the present one, but there has not been a generation that has lived long enough to suffer the types of ailments we have prevalent today. What percentage of todays seniors have had open heart surgery, hip replacements, suffer from diabetes, Alzheimer and senility?

Longevity does not equate to quality of life and if we have to prolong life by artificial means, what have we gained besides more time to suffer? This might clue you in.
YouTube - Born to be Mild

That's half the story Cliff, there are natural ways to obtain longevity in a healthy as you can observe by taking a look at some of the older Aboriginals who lived sensibly and remained active. Like you say white man (and others) bring on decay of health by too many comforts and too much laziness. When I'm walking down I encounter a lot of young people like in their 40s who have a hard time even walking on the sidewalk. Sad.

 

[countryboy]

That's half the story Cliff, there are natural ways to obtain longevity in a healthy as you can observe by taking a look at some of the older Aboriginals who lived sensibly and remained active. Like you say white man (and others) bring on decay of health by too many comforts and too much laziness. When I'm walking down I encounter a lot of young people like in their 40s who have a hard time even walking on the sidewalk. Sad.

The other day, I saw a guy I know to be in his mid-40s hobbling along with a cane. I asked him if he had been in an accident but he told me had undergone surgery because of some degenerative bone problem in both knees. He looked like crap run over twice, and was obviously in a lot of pain. I wished him well and left him as he was his way to meet a buddy for lunch...at the local KFC. Is there a clue there? I think so.

I agree with the total lifestyle concept for sure (exercise, etc.) as that is pretty much common sense, but I have a feeling that the other part of the equation, food - the processed stuff - we're eating these days has a lot to do with it. It's not the "good old days" anymore when you chow down a simple peanut butter and jelly sandwich (as one example). Hell, we used to get real sugar in these things, but now you get "fructose/glucose" showing up as one of the top one or two ingredients in a typical jar of jelly or jam. Still lots of icing sugar in regular peanut butter, but check out the other fats in there..."hydrogenated vegetable oil" means trans-fats.

So what's wrong with fructose/glucose and trans-fats (to name just a couple of additives that didn't used to be in the "food"?) Well, we all seem to have time to be on the computer, so it might be worth a Google visit to find out.

Simply put, fructose will kill you if you eat enough of it. If it doesn't kill you, it'll make you sick. Not enough room here to go into detail, but I urge you to check it out. You might soon figure out why diabetes is on the upswing in a big way. And why everyone has to panic and get flu shots...fructose/glucose/lotsa' sugar will pretty much destroy an immune system.

We already know about trans-fats (don't we?)...they kill you too.

And so do the hundreds of other food additives developed by food scientists, none of which have a thing to do with nutrition, other than pretty much negating most of it. It has to do with marketing - lower costs, better storage and handling characteristics, nicer appearance, and it goes on and on.

If Granny was right ("You are what you eat"), then it ain't much wonder we're falling apart...we're eating a lot of junk, whether we know it or not.

My brother - a pure food nut supremo - always tells me to read labels and don't buy anything that contains names of things you either don't understand or can't pronounce...'cause it ain't food!

And get some exercise!

 

[JLM]

That poor guy you mention may have bigger problems than merely poor eating habits- some people are just inherantly weak, they are always sick with something or accident prone (which is possibly a lot to do with slow reaction time) I believe also that there is a connection between the body and the mind. 99% of the time when I make up my mind about something it gets done. I don't scrutinize peanut butter quite like you do, I just think it's something a guy could eat a bit of for the protein, but in moderation because of all the other crap (I can pronounce it, spell it and understand it, if it has more than six or eight letters then it's probably "crap".

 

[countryboy]

That poor guy you mention may have bigger problems than merely poor eating habits- some people are just inherantly weak, they are always sick with something or accident prone (which is possibly a lot to do with slow reaction time) I believe also that there is a connection between the body and the mind. 99% of the time when I make up my mind about something it gets done. I don't scrutinize peanut butter quite like you do, I just think it's something a guy could eat a bit of for the protein, but in moderation because of all the other crap (I can pronounce it, spell it and understand it, if it has more than six or eight letters then it's probably "crap".

Jeez, JLM, you continue to amaze me. And here I thought us old farts were all a bunch of one-dimensional neanderthals. My better half is from Japan and happens to be something called a Reiki Master. Reiki is nothing mysterious...just means healing energy. For us old guys, we might even call it "mind over matter" just so we can relate to it. Anyhoo, it works for me...I get free Reiki treatments whenever I want.

The ancient Chinese and Indian medicines sort of all come together on this stuff...they claim there are 3 main pieces of your health you should pay attention to...the body, the "energy" part, and the spirit. It all gets pretty involved, but I have a feeling they were on to something there a long, long time ago.

Like I said, much of this stuff sounds pretty mysterious but to many others out there in the world, it's just...here we go again...common sense. I figure they have a lot of years on us in terms of just being around, so it's possible they might understand the big picture just a wee bit better than us.

 

[Avro]

Smacking the Hack Attack

YouTube - Smacking the Hack Attack

 

[Extrafire]

No moree than any other animal fights it. Which is the point. Really? We've been fighting it with pollution for how long? Are we really living better for it? Or is it more likely we are slowly killing other species off and causing ourselves lots of grief? Is that better? I don't think so.

All animals fight nature. We're just more successful because we use technology to do it.

You fight nature with pollution? I don't. Pollution is a by-product of my fight, one that I try to limit. If you don't think our current ways of fighting nature are better, what is stopping you from living the way your ancestors did?

Yup. Some things are better. It used to be, though, that dentists used mercury in the amalgam. Was that better than just getting fed up and yanking the offending tooth?

Absolutely! If I had all my teeth pulled when they had cavities I'd hardly have any left. I still have my mercury amalgam fillings.

Wood has a pretty good R factor. It can provide structure as well as insulation. wood R-value One can coax nature into throwing heat into your home in winter as well as cooling in the summer. Geothermal heating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia But you keep burning stuff if it makes you happy.

Wood or fibreglass, zonolite or recycled newspaper, whatever you use, you're fighting nature. Goethermal is one of the better inventions we've come up with. Too bad it's so expensive. When my son and his wife built their new home they wanted it but it was just too much for their budget.

Comfort is relative. And there are quite a few other people that have anecdotes about how miserable old people can be when they can't handle their ailments and yet aren't allowed to die. Big deal.

True to a point, but consider average life expectancy 100 years ago. Somewhere in the 40's I believe. People were quite capable of living to their 80's and beyond back then, but disease and infection (afflictions of nature) cut too many lives short. The population explosion wasn't due primarily to the fact that we were breeding like rabbits, but rather that we stopped dying like flies. Fighting nature is good for us.

 

[Extrafire]

How comfortable would your life be if something took away a major portion of your normal environment; something that inhibited your usual manner of acquiring food, for instance?

I expect I would adapt. ;-)

Really?

Notice the steepness of the last couple rises in the graph? That indicates faster rises in temperature.

Please note that this graph doesn't show the amount of change, but rather the RATE of change.

Well, that was flawed. Human activity can also accomplish mass extinctions. Threats To Global Biodiversity

No it wasn't. I didn't say we couldn't accomplish mass extinctions. The passenger pidgeon, for example. I said the MAIN cause was cooling. And, by the way, those extinctions were far more deadly than what we can do. More than 99% of all animals that have ever existed are extinct, and it wasn't our doing.

Except in 71% of the Earth's surface. The warmer it gets, the less water is able to retain oxygen.

Yet, when warmer life has flourished

 

[Extrafire]

Longevity does not equate to quality of life and if we have to prolong life by artificial means, what have we gained besides more time to suffer?

A friend of mine went to Tanzenia for 5 weeks and immersed himself in their culture. One of the women he got to know had a father that was in constant agony from a bad hip. His daughter said all he wants is to die. Here he would have had his hip replaced and his quality of life would have been great. My bro-in-law had both knees replaced in his 50's. He could hardly hobble before that. Certainly there are examples of life not worth living, but that is true in either situation.

 

[Extrafire]

I doubt it, but I also doubt that fraud is limited to the side you are opposed to.

I expect mistakes are evident on both sides, but as yet I've seen no fraud on the skeptic side. Got ANY evidence?

So you say. Got a graph? Got ANY evidence?

Here's one for the last 1000 years. I don't have time to dig up one for the last 10,000 right now, I'll get back to you on that.

I have a graph, too:

Seems those temps have been inflated due to faulty measuring station placement. There is an increase, but not that steep, and the last few years have declined, despite CO2 levels increasing.

Well, I don't particularly care about what alarmists and deniers

You certainly don't give that impression

Show me, please.

That would be difficult right now as I'm short of time and I've never kept any records of his utterances. I'm only speaking from memory. When I get back I'll try and look some up.

Cool. I could go for a hybrid like that even if it does still burn a little bit.

It's not a hybrid, it runs entirely on a little diesel engine.

 

[Tonington]

Please note that this graph doesn't show the amount of change, but rather the RATE of change.

Hmm, in light of the calls for open access to data, how about you find the raw data that figure was based on. I'm disinclined to believe that graph. Everyone wants to see CRU and NASA data, well lets see from where and how they constructed that integral. Was it ice cores? Tree cores? Sediment cores? The time resolution very much matters here. Upwards of fifteen degrees? That's not evident in ice cores from those dates.

Yet, when warmer life has flourished

Many species North and South of their respective tropics would not agree. The isotherms are moving in the Northern hemisphere at about 60 km per decade. The PETM was coincident with a marine extinction event. Warming seems to be felt hardest in the oceans, where species are typically adapted to more stable conditions.

 

[Tonington]

Seems those temps have been inflated due to faulty measuring station placement. There is an increase, but not that steep, and the last few years have declined, despite CO2 levels increasing.

Umm, not even close. Hadley and NASA both make adjustments to their station data, RSS and UAH make adjustments to their satellite data. Now before you say AHA! consider that NASA has released it's data, and it resulted in insignificant changes, (not statistically significant), CRU has released what they can. Now you might say, but they haven't released it all. Well, there's no reason to believe there's anything wrong with it. Here is a graph I plotted, of the two satellite products, and CRU and GISTemp.

What you will notice is:

• UAH is the outlier. The trends measured by the other three (RSS, HADcrut, GIStemp) are identical. UAH is lower. UAH and RSS both use the same raw satellite data.
• The satellite anomalies are lower than the surface station anomalies, different base periods. But also, the lowest channel in those satellites measures the temperature of the bottom slab of troposphere, including a lot of airspace where we don't live. If you remember any physics at all, as you rise in the atmosphere you lose heat (1°C in the dry adiabat and 0.55°C in the moist adiabat) due to falling pressure and expansion of the gases to fill a greater volume.

 

[AnnaG]

YouTube - Smacking the Hack Attack

Jeeez, deniers taking comments in the emails out of context? Nooooo it can't happen!
Using, as of yet, missing information to spin a "fraud" conspiracy? Nooooooo, can't happen.:roll:

 

[TenPenny]

Anybody who accepts all of these lovely graphs as having any meaning would do well to look at the charts and graphs that stock analysts produce.

 

[AnnaG]

All animals fight nature. We're just more successful because we use technology to do it.

And most of the time end up screwing things up right well. Why? Because we do stuff before figuring out the possible consequences.
Nature is bigger than us. It's like a blind boxer leaping into the ring expecting to fight another boxer but he has to combat a gorilla.

You fight nature with pollution? I don't. Pollution is a by-product of my fight, one that I try to limit.

I am happy for you, but a lot of people don't.

If you don't think our current ways of fighting nature are better, what is stopping you from living the way your ancestors did?

Discretion. We don't just spring some surprise on the landscape. We do things gradually to let our environment adjust to it. Most of humanity doesn't wait. Nature takes time to do stuff. Humans are impatient.

Absolutely! If I had all my teeth pulled when they had cavities I'd hardly have any left. I still have my mercury amalgam fillings.

You're braver and stupider than I am then. I had my two mercury fillings replaced. Do you like playing chicken in your Volkswagen against semis, too? lol

Mercury fillings ARE dangerous say regulators - but British health bosses still refuse to take action | Mail Online

Wood or fibreglass, zonolite or recycled newspaper, whatever you use, you're fighting nature. Goethermal is one of the better inventions we've come up with. Too bad it's so expensive. When my son and his wife built their new home they wanted it but it was just too much for their budget.

There are home improvement grants around. We got one to set up our waterwheel.

True to a point, but consider average life expectancy 100 years ago. Somewhere in the 40's I believe. People were quite capable of living to their 80's and beyond back then, but disease and infection (afflictions of nature) cut too many lives short. The population explosion wasn't due primarily to the fact that we were breeding like rabbits, but rather that we stopped dying like flies. Fighting nature is good for us.

That's a matter of opinion. Consider the baby boomers. Canada needed to repopulate so it started curing diseases and stuff? I doubt it. I think it coaxed people into making whoopee more. We have friends who have a dozen to 15 siblings. They are people in their 50s and 60s. Did their parents pop out these kids because healthcare cured them? lmao