Global warming nuts will go to astonishing lengths to dupe the public. Hysteria over endangered polar bears appears to be based on junk science, so the hysterics are now touting... filial polar bear cannibalism...
At long last, do these frauds have no shame?
As one great US President said: ...you cannot fool all the people all the time!
ReplyDeleteWe can kill 2 birds with one stone and bury Darwinism's RM+NS side by side with AGW and then start doing some real and useful science.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteDo you have no shame? Quoting as your reference a denialist website?
The abstract in the journal "Arctic" (no pdf is available) reads:
Observations of cannibalism by polar bears (Ursus maritimus) on summer and autumn sea ice at Svalbard, Norway / Stirling, I. Ross, J.E.
Arctic, v. 64, no. 4, Dec. 2011, p. 478-482, ill.
ASTIS record 75088
We report three instances of intraspecific killing and cannibalism of young polar bears by adult males on the sea ice in Svalbard in summer and autumn. During breakup and melting in summer, the area of sea ice around the Svalbard Archipelago declines to a fraction of the winter total, and in many areas it disappears completely. As the area of sea ice that polar bears can use for hunting declines, progressively fewer seals are accessible to the bears, and therefore the bears' hunting success likely declines as well. Thus, at this time of year, young polar bears may represent a possible food source for adult males. As the climate continues to warm in the Arctic and the sea ice melts earlier in the summer, the frequency of such intraspecific predation may increase.
Hardly a controversial summary of the actual situation. 'Likely', 'possible' and 'may' are hardly alarmist statements.
Polar bears are an increasing subject of research. We've known that they engage in cannibalism. The authors note that there are increasing observations of cannibalism. Whether that is real or just a result of increased numbers of observers is uncertain.
But anyway, the truth of anthropogenic global warming doesn't depend on anecdotal accounts of polar bear behaviour.
The science of AGW is settled. We know the physics of greenhouse gases. We know how greenhouse gases absorb certain frequencies of infrared radiation and retain heat and hence cause global warming.
We know that humans are dumping 8.5 billion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere each year from the burning of fossil fuels, and causing the CO2 levels to increase each year by at least 2 ppmv.
We know that increasing the level of greenhouse gases will cause increased retention of heat and hence cause increased global warming.
Therefore, humans are causing global warming over the temperature the Earth would otherwise have.
That's not to say that global temperatures have to increase year in year out, otherwise AGW is falsified. There's other factors driving climate, such as solar output, volcanic eruptions and sulphur aerosols from burning 'dirty' coal.
The great fear with AGW is that there are many positive feedbacks amplifying a warming effect, and few negative feedbacks. Positive feedbacks such as loss of Arctic sea ice, decreasing albedo, and melting of Arctic permafrost, liberating methane (an even more potent greenhouse gas than CO2) from the bacterial decomposition of frozen buried plant material.
The ball's in your court ...
Bach,
ReplyDeleteYou describe a lot of pollution, then note the climate is shifting. You indicate some models point to a connection.
Is your argument that these are chemicals that accelerate or induce a natural cycle? Or are you, as the AGW people do, inferring that climate change is THE RESULT of man made changes?
If it is the latter, how do you explain previous cycles and shifts?
Understand I am not denying a change - I have seen some of it with my own eyes. I am simply suggesting that the changes I have seen have happened before.
On the Polar Bears!
ReplyDeleteI would suggest anyone who is truly interested in the cycles and behaviours of these magnificent beasts to go and SEE them and speak to the experts. One such place you can do that relatively easy (and sneak in an amazing trip) is to come to Ontario and take a fantastic ride on the rail to a tiny community that is the gateway to our arctic: Cochrane, Ontario.
In that town is a truly amazing interactive exhibit with REAL bears and the pro's who work with them further north. If you have children there is even a 'swim with the Polar Bears' area with a huge plexiglass wall between the two pools - so you can swim down and make faces at each other (the bears act quite friendly when not threatened territorially and the promise of some tasty fish/venison at hand).
From there you can also take the 'Polar Bear Express' (an observation style cabin through some TRULY wild areas) to one of the oldest settlements in North America on James Bay (Hudson s Bay) and see the critters at their summer home - ON THE TUNDRA. Oops... Did I just write 'Tundra'? Yep I did.
They will also educate you on how these extremely adaptive and intelligent creatures are ADAPTING to ice free areas, as well as the impact that adaptation is having on those areas and mankind.
Fascinating stuff, but hardly the hysteria we read in the media.
For lovers of bears, the Arctic, or those interested of the effects of climate change - I HIGHLY recommend this trip.
You can easily get there/transfer from Toronto by train on the Ontario Northland Line via NorthBay.
Now the bears are dealt with, I must pose this question:
ReplyDeleteWhat about the HUMANS in the Arctic? What about the Innu, Inuit in the High Arctic and the various tribes that live in the circle?
Nobody seems very interested in the effect these shifts have on them.
Birds, rodents, fish, and the tree-line (taiga) also seem to have been 'forgotten' in much of the AGW lit that I have read.
The habitat
ReplyDeletehttp://www.polarbearhabitat.ca/
CrusadeRex,
ReplyDeleteYou really do need to read a book on climate science. Climate change in the past has been well explained. For example, the Milankovich cycles (resulting from minor changes in the Earth's orbit and tilt). Or volcanic eruptions such as Tambora in 1815, which resulted in 'the year without a Summer' in 1816.
Polar bears in captivity aren't the same as polar bears in the wild. Polar bears do most of their hunting on sea ice in Winter. The bears on land waiting for the sea ice to return at the end of Summer are doing it tough. They do adapt. Eating more berries. Raiding rubbish bins in settlements.
Michael's thread was solely, although only tangentially, concerned with polar bears, so I confined my comments to polar bears.
Of course, global warming is having an effect on the Inuit. The sea ice is less predictable and passable for travel. Loss of coastal sea ice means that Summer storms are causing increased erosion, resulting in the need to move settlements inland. A very expensive procedure.
@Bach,
ReplyDelete"You really do need to read a book on climate science."
I have read many books on subjects that include climate change, usually in relation to Earth Changes. I have not ready any volumes directed at that specific subject in a modern context.
"Climate change in the past has been well explained. For example, the Milankovich cycles (resulting from minor changes in the Earth's orbit and tilt)."
None of which are anthropomorphic (the A in AGW)
"Or volcanic eruptions such as Tambora in 1815, which resulted in 'the year without a Summer' in 1816."
So volcanic ash and emission is responsible for ALL cooling?
I would suggest oceanic currents, Earth's relative position to the sun, the output of the Sun, the afore mentioned tilt, location of magnetic poles etc are ALL factors much more potent than man's feeble influence.
"Polar bears in captivity aren't the same as polar bears in the wild. "
Sure. I have had the privilege of seeing both. Cochrane was my suggestion for civilians who do not have the means or connections (or inclination) to find themselves in the High Arctic. Incidentally your axiom holds true for academics. Those 'in the wild' tend to see things very differently from those in captivity ('civilization'). My suggestion was to talk to the experts on the animals, and SEE the animals in a viable habitat.
"Polar bears do most of their hunting on sea ice in Winter. "
The migrate north/south across the pack, or along the coasts and islands seasonally.
"The bears on land waiting for the sea ice to return at the end of Summer are doing it tough."
All bears are 'doing it tough', unless they are in captivity and being looked after by people who give a damn. These ones are adapting to survive.
"They do adapt. Eating more berries. Raiding rubbish bins in settlements."
They also eat game, fish, and even tundra grasses. They can only raid the trash in areas where there are people (still not THAT many). Near the large settlements they have ALWAYS foraged and scavenged. Again, ALL bears do.
"Michael's thread was solely, although only tangentially, concerned with polar bears, so I confined my comments to polar bears."
I understand that. I was not referencing your comment, but rather to the common literature (papers etc) on the subject.
"Of course, global warming is having an effect on the Inuit. "
Climate change is/has ALWAYS been forcing the Inuit and the Innu to adapt. Ask one. Their mythology is replete with 'warm times' and the like.
"The sea ice is less predictable and passable for travel."
Which makes it a lot easier to move by boat or kayak.
"Loss of coastal sea ice means that Summer storms are causing increased erosion, resulting in the need to move settlements inland."
Well, let's be frank here - modern INFRASTRUCTURE requires these traditionally semi-NOMADIC people to move inland (often uphill) to deal with many problems, including the erosion you mention. You cannot build an airstrip or hospital on a flood plain. You can, however, live there in a dry season.
Diamond mines have also been a HUGE incentive to move close to airstrips and settlements.
"A very expensive procedure."
Any sort of permanent present above the circle costs a lot to maintain.
But here is the big issue facing that region: Shipping and resource development. 'Progress' is the biggest threat to the Human's way of life, not a warming trend.