Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 13   Go Down

Author Topic: Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?  (Read 53981 times)

DeanChriss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 592
    • http://www.dmcphoto.com
Re: Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?
« Reply #20 on: January 22, 2017, 06:59:59 am »

Warming frigid land areas will mean more livable area for brown bears and grizzlies, birds, trees and all sorts of plants and animals as they expand their populations and ranges.    Unfortunately, politics only presents the negatives.  More balanced research is required to show just what real effect these climate changes will do.  It's not only about polar bears.  As an aside, we don't know if polar bears will drift back to land to hunt prey changing their food mainly from seal to other animals that inhabit land areas.  I suspect that is happening already if not yet discovered.

Animals can't adapt as fast as we're changing things, there are not many places they can go, and it's nearly everything, not just polar bears. Recent studies have found that 58 percent of the global wildlife population vanished in the last 50 years. In the last 20 years we have converted 10% of the world’s wilderness to our own use, with only 23% of the world’s land area remaining as wilderness today. In my lifetime many common and widespread American songbird populations have declined by 50 to 80 percent while numerous woodlands and rural areas, including the one I grew up in, became nothing but housing developments and shopping malls. I don't think any of this will stop and most species that aren't useful to humans (we'll save cows and chickens) end up extinct. Even so, we ought to at least realize the consequences of what we're doing.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2017, 07:05:13 am by DeanChriss »
Logged
- Dean

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2511
Re: Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?
« Reply #21 on: January 22, 2017, 07:35:17 am »

Thanks for your post, DeanChriss - I was getting depressed by the level of ignorance demonstrated here.
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?
« Reply #22 on: January 22, 2017, 10:03:38 am »

Animals can't adapt as fast as we're changing things, there are not many places they can go, and it's nearly everything, not just polar bears. Recent studies have found that 58 percent of the global wildlife population vanished in the last 50 years. In the last 20 years we have converted 10% of the world’s wilderness to our own use, with only 23% of the world’s land area remaining as wilderness today. In my lifetime many common and widespread American songbird populations have declined by 50 to 80 percent while numerous woodlands and rural areas, including the one I grew up in, became nothing but housing developments and shopping malls. I don't think any of this will stop and most species that aren't useful to humans (we'll save cows and chickens) end up extinct. Even so, we ought to at least realize the consequences of what we're doing.

You're blaming human population expansion causing changes in wildlife population to effects of climate change.  What are the statistics directly effected by climate change?  Who determined that the climate of the 1800's was the perfect situation?  Maybe if it is a little bit warmer that it could be better for populations of animals and plants in general?  While the poplar bear may decline, other animals may expand.  Look at the tropics where there are more species than anywhere else.  Mainly due to higher temperatures year around.  I'm not arguing if it's getting warmer.  I'm asking for the research that shows how the diversity and quantity of species are effected.  We really don't get much on that except some general comments how it's going to be bad.  But no real proof that I can find on population changes that will occur or are occurring due to climate change.  The charts just support that climate change is happening.   

HSakols

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1239
    • Hugh Sakols Photography
Re: Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?
« Reply #23 on: January 22, 2017, 10:28:55 am »

We are entering an anti science era based largely on greed and ignorance. Now more than ever the public needs to understand the nature of science and how it is used as a tool.  The theory of of human caused global warming is supported by countless peer reviewed studies.  Peer Review is when others can call you on your BS. 

Here is an interesting article, from a non science source.  Still it is interesting.
Mt Lyle Glacier, Yosemite
Logged

HSakols

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1239
    • Hugh Sakols Photography
Re: Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?
« Reply #24 on: January 22, 2017, 10:38:24 am »

Furthermore,
Quote
Look at the tropics where there are more species than anywhere else.  Mainly due to higher temperatures year around.
  Alan, I have to respectfully disagree with this.  The reason for high species diversity in the tropics goes beyond temperature.  Still I like your photo related contributions.

Hugh
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?
« Reply #25 on: January 22, 2017, 11:05:27 am »

So we're back on climate change. My view is that so-called climate scientists who truly believe in the dangers of increased CO2 levels are probably suffering from OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder).

We know that many housewives have an obsession with cleaning the house every day, and that people in general who are obsessed about the cleanliness of the environment that their children are playing in, might induce future medial problems for their children, as a result of protecting the immune system from dealing with common bacteria.

I see the same sort of attitude in AGW alarmists. For example, it is well-known that increased CO2 levels encourages plant growth. A doubling of atmospheric CO2 can increase crop production by as muchg as 40%.

However, the globl warming alarmists, point to studies that imply that in major crops such as rice and wheat, increased CO2 levels tend to result in decreased protein content, and that this is a terrible worry.

How ridiculous! If anyone is suffering from a lack of protein, rice and wheat are not the food products that would be recommended. It would be meat, fish, chicken, eggs and so on.
If meat, fish and chickens are not available, then it would be sensible to insist on eating brown rice which contains more protein than white rice.
Logged

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2511
Re: Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?
« Reply #26 on: January 22, 2017, 12:18:49 pm »

My view is that so-called climate scientists who truly believe in the dangers of increased CO2 levels are probably suffering from OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder).

That's because you haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about. There is a mountain of evidence on the causes and consequences of co2 levels. What have you got? Nothing.
Logged

degrub

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?
« Reply #27 on: January 22, 2017, 12:27:17 pm »

Chill on the attacks. You don't accomplish anything for the good of the discourse or the forum. If someone does not accept your or others argument, then so be it. Try a different reasoning if you want to influence.

Frank
Logged

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?
« Reply #28 on: January 22, 2017, 12:59:46 pm »

Dehumidifiers do work but not for prolonged spells of H+H! We use the dehumidifier all summer, but it has trouble keeping up when it's over 30°C (86°F) for more than a few days in a row with high humidity.
Absolutely!  I run a dehumidifier in the family room in addition to the central air during the summer.  When the evening temperature is 80F with loads of humidity and no breeze open windows don't do much at all.  I'm all in favor of natural ventilation to keep things cool and we have some big trees in our yard but it is of little help in July and August here.
Logged

DeanChriss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 592
    • http://www.dmcphoto.com
Re: Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?
« Reply #29 on: January 22, 2017, 01:29:29 pm »

You're blaming human population expansion causing changes in wildlife population to effects of climate change.  What are the statistics directly effected by climate change?  Who determined that the climate of the 1800's was the perfect situation?  Maybe if it is a little bit warmer that it could be better for populations of animals and plants in general?  While the poplar bear may decline, other animals may expand.  Look at the tropics where there are more species than anywhere else.  Mainly due to higher temperatures year around.  I'm not arguing if it's getting warmer.  I'm asking for the research that shows how the diversity and quantity of species are effected.  We really don't get much on that except some general comments how it's going to be bad.  But no real proof that I can find on population changes that will occur or are occurring due to climate change.  The charts just support that climate change is happening.   

I apologize if I have blurred problems caused by overpopulation and global warming, but it makes little difference to me if we populate most life to extinction, warm it to extinction, or both. I think the impacts of warming, human population growth, pesticide use, pollution, and countless other factors that impact wildlife cannot be readily separated. For instance we know climate change has a major and obvious detrimental effect on polar bears and some other species. At the same time factors like habitat loss and pesticide use may play a bigger role in the dramatic drops recorded in songbird populations. We know that climate change plays a role in changing migration patterns, locations and times, but I do not believe anyone knows what percent of the population decline is due to warming. We only know it is a contributing factor for many bird species. The bottom line is that wildlife diversity and the total population of all wildlife species combined have only declined even as some specific species in specific locations have increased. That's bad news, but it's also reality.

It makes no sense to me that we could eliminate most of the earth’s wilderness, burn most of what we get from it to create heat plus 40 billion tons of CO2 per year, replace it with heat absorptive surfaces like dirt, pavement, buildings and rooftops, and have no effect on climate. Common sense tells me that’s not a reasonable conclusion, but I know that complex systems do not always follow common sense rules. Since I am no climate scientist I look to the consensus opinion of people who spend entire lifetimes studying it. That consensus consists of the best and most critically scrutinized information that exists, and it says human caused global warming is both real and serious.

I'd also mention that even oil companies that used to fund junk science studies with predetermined and opposite conclusions now acknowledge the reality of human-caused climate change. A statement by ConocoPhillips says “We recognize that human activity, including the burning of fossil fuels, is contributing to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere that can lead to adverse changes in global climate.”. Shell and others have issued similar statements. That does not mean they are doing much about it, but at least the facts are well acknowledged. Politicians continue to muddy the facts for obvious reasons.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2017, 01:34:59 pm by DeanChriss »
Logged
- Dean

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?
« Reply #30 on: January 22, 2017, 03:25:02 pm »

Driving to Palma de Mallorca from the north-east involves running down a hill towards that city. On some summer days, as far back as the 80s, the view of Palma was more a view of a tobacco haze spreading right over said city and over the Bay of Palma. In winter, no such haze that I've noted. With several thousand hire cars off the road and most powerboats asleep in their berths, it's not surprising.

If you live in Palma, that's the shit you're breathing in much of the year. No need to go to Delhi nor even to China. Even Paris has problems these days... Of course there's no human input!

Rob

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?
« Reply #31 on: January 22, 2017, 04:05:14 pm »

Furthermore,  Alan, I have to respectfully disagree with this.  The reason for high species diversity in the tropics goes beyond temperature.  Still I like your photo related contributions.

Hugh

I like your photos too. Curious what the other reasons for high species count in the tropics?  Could have to do with lots of rain also.  What else?  Which reminds me of the joke about which species G-D favors the most?  It seems to be beetles as there are over 600,000 varieties of them.  BUGS!! 

degrub

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?
« Reply #32 on: January 22, 2017, 04:15:02 pm »

Bacteria would have to be high on the list, i think.
The tropics - i would think readily available resources allowing many avenues of evolution.

Frank
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?
« Reply #33 on: January 22, 2017, 04:16:11 pm »

You can actually see that warming climate changes are increasing the amount of populations.  As it warms up in the north countries, the tree line moves up the mountain.  Grasses grow and subsequently insects, small mammals followed by more birds of prey and other animals move up the mountain as well.   The same is true as the tundra melts year around in greater areas. These areas get populated by increasing numbers of animals and plants.   But you never read about these things.  Only how the polar bear is decreasing.  Science and the media should present all sides and facts,  not just the effects that support their arguments.  When they provide weighted info to support their views and objectives, they lose people because there is a sense of dishonesty in the advocates of climate change. 

HSakols

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1239
    • Hugh Sakols Photography
Re: Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?
« Reply #34 on: January 22, 2017, 04:44:56 pm »

Alan,
I just think it is too easy to simplify a complex ecological principle.  High spceis diversity has also been recorded in cold areas such as upwelling waters off the coast of California.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_evolutionary_time  To be fair, I guess you are right, but there is more to it.  I would also say that having a number of top level predators can result in creating greater species diveristy of plants and animals.  The only reason I even replied was I just finished reading Where the Wild Things Were by William Stolzenburg.  At this very moment I am releasing plenty of CO2 as I sit by my wood stove.  Wood is our only source of heat and it supposed to snow by this evening.  We have plenty of wood due to beetle killed trees.
Logged

Chairman Bill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3352
    • flickr page
Re: Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?
« Reply #35 on: January 22, 2017, 04:52:27 pm »

Trump has said that global warming isn't true, and that he had the most bigly audience for any presidential inauguration ever, so the polar bears should be safe. Er ...

DeanChriss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 592
    • http://www.dmcphoto.com
Re: Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?
« Reply #36 on: January 22, 2017, 06:43:49 pm »

...
Curious what the other reasons for high species count in the tropics?
...

Species evolution and diversification take a very long time. The tropical forests of Africa and South America began to develop only after being essentially wiped out by the climate change of the ice age, something like 2.6 million years ago. The most diverse rain-forests in the world are in Southeast Asia, in particular on the Malaysian peninsula and island of Borneo. Because of their physical location these forests were untouched by drastic climate change (until now) for more than 130 million years, making them the oldest and most diverse forests on earth. The same thing accounts for the higher diversity of forests in Africa and South America relative to forests in, say, North America. Basically the extra diversity comes from species having had more time to develop, not because of the particular temperature range. Rapid shifts in climate lessen diversity because species that developed to accommodate a particular climate over millions of years cannot change in a centuries or decades. That's true whether the climate change is natural or human caused.
Logged
- Dean

N80

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 621
Re: Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?
« Reply #37 on: January 22, 2017, 09:06:36 pm »

We are entering an anti science era based largely on greed and ignorance.

And whose fault is that? Could it just possibly be that its the fault of "scientists" who use "science" to further political and ideological agendas that many people are just now seeing through? Could it be the fault of presenting bad science as fact? If not, where is the anti-science bias coming from? The religious right? Gimme a break.

Quote
Now more than ever the public needs to understand the nature of science and how it is used as a tool.

Exactly. In the west and particularly the US the general population is woefully ignorant about what constitutes good science. Many don't believe the prevailing science but don't know why. An equal portion believe the science and also don't know why. Both of these belief structures are equally WRONG.

Climate science is by nature weak science. Climate data is young. Everything else is extrapolated or consensus based. Very little hard data. Very little direct verification of hypotheses. Very little consistently reproducible data. Tons, and tons and tons of sketchy statistics.  All of this rolled together to form models. These same sorts of models are the ones that predict 100% chance of snow, at least 8 inches, in the next eight hours and you wake up to no snow at all. Its the best we have. But it isn't very good especially when the predictions are global (which, really, is a special kind of hubris).

And the truth is that climate science has probably got it right that we are in a warming trend....even though there is STILL debate about that WITHIN the climate science communities. They might be right that it is manmade. But that is as far as any real science goes. What happens next week or ten years from now is based on models of incredibly weak and tenuous data.

Because of that, plenty of smart people are not willing to risk world economies and cultures based on unproven and untestable models. Thats not anti-science, thats common sense. And anyone suggesting that socialism, more laws and a restructuring of world economic systems is that answer to climate change will be perfectly willing to sell you a bridge in Manhattan too.

Quote
The theory of of human caused global warming is supported by countless peer reviewed studies.  Peer Review is when others can call you on your BS.

Peer review, much like consensus is weak science. It all hinges on who the peers are and who gets heard. The tactics of the ideologues in climate science to drown out dissent have been documented. Sadly, it has rendered peer review in this field totally untrustworthy.

Logged
George

"What is truth?" Pontius  Pilate

N80

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 621
Re: Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?
« Reply #38 on: January 22, 2017, 09:08:21 pm »

Thanks for your post, DeanChriss - I was getting depressed by the level of ignorance demonstrated here.

Your terse little ad hominem attacks have been far more telling about ignorance than any posts in this thread. Worshipping at the alter of science is hardly proof of intelligence.
Logged
George

"What is truth?" Pontius  Pilate

N80

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 621
Re: Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?
« Reply #39 on: January 22, 2017, 09:21:24 pm »

Animals can't adapt as fast as we're changing things, there are not many places they can go, and it's nearly everything, not just polar bears. Recent studies have found that 58 percent of the global wildlife population vanished in the last 50 years. In the last 20 years we have converted 10% of the world’s wilderness to our own use, with only 23% of the world’s land area remaining as wilderness today. In my lifetime many common and widespread American songbird populations have declined by 50 to 80 percent while numerous woodlands and rural areas, including the one I grew up in, became nothing but housing developments and shopping malls. I don't think any of this will stop and most species that aren't useful to humans (we'll save cows and chickens) end up extinct. Even so, we ought to at least realize the consequences of what we're doing.

This line of thought has so many problems. First, we are animals, right? Evolved just like all the rest. There are limited resources. We grow, others decline. If evolution is a fact and it is also a fact that it was unguided then there is nothing morally wrong with us dominating the globe to propagate our species. Survival of the fittest. We are stronger. We win. For now.

Second, we only want to talk about polar bears and animals that are furry and cute. Pretty trees and woodlands. That is a fetish. It is a desire. It has nothing to do with the evolution of life on the planet. In a world view in which all this happened by accident a slug has no more or less value than a polar bear. Just because we 'like' polar bears is hardly cause to buck the evolutionary order. From that standpoint we are only obligated, evolutionarily, to preserve that which preserves us.

Third, there is no evidence that human expansion, global warming or anything else has produced less life on this planet. Bacteria are by far and away the most successful life form. They are doing just fine and in great diversity. Sure, we can't see them, they don't have big sad eyes, but they are life and they are thriving.

Fourth, so much of the climate argument hinges on having things a certain way, typically the way they are now, or were 20 years ago. Why? Things change. If we are changing them, so what?

So if you want to make an argument for the preservation of certain species or some imaginary status quo, climate science is not your ally. In fact, science in general is your enemy. Science doesn't care what you or I want or desire. It can't and shouldn't. To justify some human obligation to preserving and conserving you will have to look somewhere other than science because when the last polar bear finally dies it will have a net impact of just about ZERO on virtually the entire human population. It will be an evolutionary event of virtually no importance whatsoever.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2017, 09:34:47 pm by N80 »
Logged
George

"What is truth?" Pontius  Pilate
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 13   Go Up