So you keep saying. To bad reality isn't on your side here. Unless you just simply didn't understand what I said.
69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research
- Thread starter petros
- Start date
It is a non-sequitur. The scientists aren't saying the end of the world is coming first of all. They are saying that future sea ice conditions will place large stresses on polar bears. The fact that polar bear populations have recovered from excessive harvest numbers due to restrictions in the harvest does not falsify the warnings that scientists are raising. In fact there's evidence already that the polar bears are facing stresses, body condition has been going down.
That makes the claim that polar bears are more abundant now than 40 years ago, therefore the scientists are wrong, a non-sequitur. It does not follow logically.
Did you kow that chickens screw, shyte, piss and lay eggs....all out of the same hole????
Think of that when you eat your eggs in the morning;-)
Oh for **** sakes Tonnington. The bears are fine except the ones killed to start the polar bear drowning myth by a Conservation Officer in Alaska. It took 500 years to fish all the cod out of the western Atlantic. It wasn't a myth that caused the cod demise was it? Nobody was overhunting the polar bears
Try comparing the human population of the Arctic in the 1950's to today.
Today it's more bears and more people, it should be more people and far far less bears. Why is it opposite?
Don't give me the conservation bull**** either. The bears survived 4500 years ago when there was less ice than now. Why didn't the Arctic population of people deplete them during that period?
Try comparing the human population of the Arctic in the 1950's to today.
Today it's more bears and more people, it should be more people and far far less bears. Why is it opposite?
Don't give me the conservation bull**** either. The bears survived 4500 years ago when there was less ice than now. Why didn't the Arctic population of people deplete them during that period?
Yes. So do fish. Good thing they don't originate in the same tubes...
Yes, why let facts get in the way when rhetoric sounds so good...
I'll defer to the experts studying arctic climate and ecology thanks.
Already you have proven that you cannot identify the experts. You will defer to office as usual.
And the "experts" will tell you it was hotter 4500 years ago and there was less arctic pack ice than today.
How did the poor bears manage to make it through worse than today?
Can you spot the Whooping Crane?
You see, you employ the same tactics as the scientists in the articles.
The population is growing, with or without harvest limitations, by the material published, it shouldn't be.
I never said climate wasn't changing.
How ironic that you say that.
Did you kow that chickens screw, shyte, piss and lay eggs....all out of the same hole????
Think of that when you eat your eggs in the morning;-)
All I'm going to say to that is "Glad I've already had my breakfast this morning".
Therein lies the problem, since news reports are where people generally get their information from.
Now I'm no Einstein but I'm not an idiot either. It is incredibly difficult to discern the pertinent truths from the raw data when one does not have the skills and training to fully understand the raw data. And everyone around this issue seems to have an agenda, from my point of view, which only further confounds the issue.
Is it true, is it false? Is it man-made or natural? There is so much material out there on the subject, how does one even know where to start?
The conditions didn't persist...they can come back. Without any population data it's all stabs in the dark.
Fact: Polar bear body condition is declining. This is seen in nearly every collapse of a species. Healthy animals don't just suddenly die, save for massive extinction events.
Fact: Polar bear numbers are greater now than they were 40 years ago. That's exactly what one would expect when the harvest numbers are reduced.
But to take only one of the many facts that are available, and claim that future stresses and endangerment due to contemporary habitat loss are unfounded, is simply stupid.
That's not true. There's no reason to think that the population can't grow under stressors. Over harvest was simply a larger stressor on the bears. With it gone or greatly reduced, the population can rebound. But that doesn't mean the population is suddenly healthy...or that it's not under stress right now.
What published material are you having issues with anyways. I'd like to see that.
75 MAJOR temperature swing in 4500 years need some explaining first before blaming man for his/her activities. We still haven't ccome close to the last " heat age".
What makes lynx birth rates vary wildly?
Well, I'll give you some basic facts that I give to others who ask these sorts of questions. A greenhouse gas heats our atmosphere by preventing radiation from the planet bouncing back into space. The molecule will bend or vibrate, and then release that energy in the form of heat, in any direction. As you put more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the atmosphere becomes more dense, and less radiation escapes to space.
This is plainly visible in two such findings. First, the upper atmosphere is cooling. The troposphere where we live, where clouds form, where planes fly, is getting warmer, and the layer of atmosphere above it (stratosphere) is getting cooler. That's because, less radiation is escaping the troposphere on it's return to space.
They have also measured this at the top of our atmosphere, the very top, with satellites. They can get measurements of how much radiation the planet receives from the sun, and measure how much is escaping. What they find is an imbalance at the top of our atmosphere. Again, less radiation is escaping to space. So the planet must warm.
Natural causes of climate change do not produce these kinds of findings, save for heavy volcanism, but that itself is known to be currently just a fraction of our emissions. Big volcanoes also produce the opposite effects in the upper atmosphere. When the aerosols reach the upper atmosphere, the stratosphere, our troposphere cools, and the stratosphere warms. This is because the incoming solar radiation is being bounced back towards space.
Other natural causes, like the sun, would not result in the differences between the troposphere and stratosphere. Both layers would warm if solar radiation was increasing. But we know that solar radiation is not increasing. It was early in the 20th century, but in the last 40 years or so the contribution has been minimal from the sun, at least to the long term trends in temperature.
That's the basics of it. It's largely man-made.
Tonnington. Was it or was it not warmer on Earth 4500 years ago? Did man do that? Have we surpassed the Holocene Opitmum or the Roman Optimum? Nope!
Are ya gettin enough to eat Petros?
Today it's blueberry pie charts, the other day it was cheese from the moon.
I'm seeing a pattern to your posts.
