Extreme weather

[Alan Klein]

Alan, as mentioned several times in this thread, the polar bears in the northern part of Arctic with enough ice are doing fine, whereas the polar bears in the southern Arctic are on decline because of shorter winter season and less sea ice. They bears can fatten up only when there is enough sea ice from where they can hunt the seals.
It's basic biology - mammals with an easy access to food will gain weight, whereas stressed and hungry individuals die from malnourishment.

Recent surveys have show polar bears increasing overall.  Their demise has been hyped.  Certainly changes in the environment have always occurred even before any man-made changes assuming that's what is happening.  So increases and decreases in population density naturally changes from area to area.

It's interesting that you mentioned that fat bears occur in rich feeding grounds.  Of course, my photograph is biasing the reportage.  I did that deliberately to make a point.  No one ever mentions that polar bears on small ice flows is a naturally occurring event. The photo however is erroneously used as a prop to promote climate change politics. It doesn't indicate that the climate change is damaging their environment.  It's important that media, scientists, nature programs, and photographers caption their photographs with proper reporting   You can deceive on either side. 

[Peter McLennan]

It was you that suggested zero CO2.

CO2 definitely does benefit plant growth. It's a scientifically proven fact. 'No CO2' equates to 'no plant growth' which equates to 'no life'.

All crops grown in poor soils will tend to have poor nutritional value. Brazil nuts are a recommended source of Selenium, but studies show that the amount of Selenium per mass of nut varies enormously, depending on where the tree was grown. If there's very little Selenium in the soil, there will be very little Selenium in the nut. Other factors such as the pH of the soil will also affect the uptake of Selenium through the tree roots.

We don't need a high school lecture in plant nutrition, thank you very much.  This part of the discussion was related to CO2, not selenium or soil nutrients.

Rice, grown in relatively unchanging conditions year to year (ie absent radical changes in selenium or whataboutism) shows decreased nutritional value in higher CO2 conditions.

viz: 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/as-co2-levels-rise-rice-becomes-less-nutritious/#:~:text=The%20results%20of%20a%20major,important%20B%20vitamins%20all%20decline.

Like your other arguments, the idea that increasing CO2 is good for us all is old, tired and false.

[Peter McLennan]

...I'm showing a fat bear that shows they're eating fine.

It does not.  It shows that THIS polar bear is apparently doing fine.

It could be from the Calgary Zoo for all we know.

.

[LesPalenik]

Recent surveys have show polar bears increasing overall. Their demise has been hyped.  Certainly changes in the environment have always occurred even before any man-made changes assuming that's what is happening.  So increases and decreases in population density naturally changes from area to area.

It's interesting that you mentioned that fat bears occur in rich feeding grounds.  Of course, my photograph is biasing the reportage.  I did that deliberately to make a point.  No one ever mentions that polar bears on small ice flows is a naturally occurring event. The photo however is erroneously used as a prop to promote climate change politics. It doesn't indicate that the climate change is damaging their environment.  It's important that media, scientists, nature programs, and photographers caption their photographs with proper reporting   You can deceive on either side.

Not according to my sources.



BTW, polar bears don't hunt from the small floes, the floes are used only for travel and other recreational purposes. They pounce on the seals through the holes in the ice or wait for seals to come to the surface of sea ice to breathe. When the seal nears the surface, the polar bear will bite or grab the seal and pull it onto the ice.

[Alan Klein]

NASA article shows CO2 greening the earth.

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

[Alan Klein]

...
BTW, polar bears don't hunt from the small floes, the floes are used only for travel and other recreational purposes. They pounce on the seals through the holes in the ice or wait for seals to come to the surface of sea ice to breathe. When the seal nears the surface, the polar bear will bite or grab the seal and pull it onto the ice.

Interestingly, when it is too cold, bears do pretty bad too.  The ice is best when it's melting.  That allow seals to migrate and come up through the ice to breathe.  When it's too cold, the ice freezes so hard, seals abandon those areas.  So the bears have no seals to feed on and starve. 

[LesPalenik]

Interestingly, when it is too cold, bears do pretty bad too.  The ice is best when it's melting.  That allow seals to migrate and come up through the ice to breathe.  When it's too cold, the ice freezes so hard, seals abandon those areas.  So the bears have no seals to feed on and starve.

Yes, the key is the fine balance.

[faberryman]

NASA article shows CO2 greening the earth.

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

From the article you cited:

While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events.

The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”

[Alan Klein]

From the article you cited:

I'm all in favor of balance in articles and studies that present all the facts.  My problem with climate change "science" as mainly presented by scientists, media, and politicians, is that it's been biased and lopsided.  How can people and politicians make informed decisions without having the facts on all sides?  While CO2 has been presented as being "bad", there are good points about it as well.  Increased warming does cause melting ice raising sea levels.  But warmer climes in general make farm land more productive.  It helps civilization as shown by the fact we're the largest now due to warming as well as other factors.  Other species do better mainly because of warming climes as well.  Their populations expand and are better supported with more nourishment made more generally available by higher temperatures and precipitation.

Also, the other issue is that a "solution" to warming is not a solution but a tradeoff.  Spending money on reducing change, takes resources away from other important things.  Reducing money for researching diseases, feeding the poor, homing the homeless, etc. occurs if you spend it on new technologies, reducing heating and CO2, etc. Again, no one talks about the tradeoffs.  We can only do so much.  The loss of resources for other important things are ignored.  So we might make decisions that hurt us worse.  At least we should be making informed choices.  That isn’t happening because of the biased agenda. 

[faberryman]

I'm all in favor of balance in articles and studies that present all the facts.  My problem with climate change "science" as mainly presented by scientists, media, and politicians, is that it's been biased and lopsided.  How can people and politicians make informed decisions without having the facts on all sides?  While CO2 has been presented as being "bad", there are good points about it as well.  Increased warming does cause melting ice raising sea levels.  But warmer climes in general make farm land more productive.  It helps civilization as shown by the fact we're the largest now due to warming as well as other factors.  Other species do better mainly because of warming climes as well.  Their populations expand and are better supported with more nourishment made more generally available by higher temperatures and precipitation.

Also, the other issue is that a "solution" to warming is not a solution but a tradeoff.  Spending money on reducing change, takes resources away from other important things.  Reducing money for researching diseases, feeding the poor, homing the homeless, etc. occurs if you spend it on new technologies, reducing heating and CO2, etc. Again, no one talks about the tradeoffs.  We can only do so much.  The loss of resources for other important things are ignored.  So we might make decisions that hurt us worse.  At least we should be making informed choices.  That isn’t happening because of the biased agenda.

Anything else besides the biased media? 

You said that with the media there is more money in selling bad news than good news. So just how much money is the media earning by claiming climate change is adversely affecting polar bears? And who is paying the media to claim climate change is adversely affecting polar bears? Seems to me like Peter Jennings would be happy to do a segment on the nightly news proclaiming that new research shows that climate change does not adversely affect polar bears. I mean that would be a great feel good story to do at the end of the show. Is someone paying NBC not to do that.

[Alan Klein]

Anything else besides the biased media?

Anything else besides the biased media?

I said scientists and politicians are biased as well.  I could have added green manufacturers and corporations, nature organizations, film makers, nature programs, Hollywood movies, TV programs, schools and universities, professors, government agencies, teachers, and others. It's a huge industry.

[hogloff]

Recent surveys have show polar bears increasing overall.  Their demise has been hyped.  Certainly changes in the environment have always occurred even before any man-made changes assuming that's what is happening.  So increases and decreases in population density naturally changes from area to area.

It's interesting that you mentioned that fat bears occur in rich feeding grounds.  Of course, my photograph is biasing the reportage.  I did that deliberately to make a point.  No one ever mentions that polar bears on small ice flows is a naturally occurring event. The photo however is erroneously used as a prop to promote climate change politics. It doesn't indicate that the climate change is damaging their environment.  It's important that media, scientists, nature programs, and photographers caption their photographs with proper reporting   You can deceive on either side.

Sure they've been on the increase once we stopped slaughtering them for fun. They've been on the decline at their southern locations such as Churchill. Studies have shown less days on the ice as the ice melts sooner, more days on the land without food, lower pregnancy ratios than before, bears are much thinner when the winter ice does finally arrive. This has lead the Bears to move further north. As the ice starts to melt further north...the Bears will continue to migrate north, over populate and area and start to die.

Estimates of 30% of the Bears gone by 2050.

You say they can adapt...but they are adapting by migrating to where they can eat what they always ate, seals. Once that ice is gone...what do you think the bears will eat?

[hogloff]

I said scientists and politicians are biased as well.  I could have added green manufacturers and corporations, nature organizations, film makers, nature programs, Hollywood movies, TV programs, schools and universities, professors, government agencies, teachers, and others. It's a huge industry.

Not to forget people named Alan.

[Alan Klein]

Sure they've been on the increase once we stopped slaughtering them for fun. They've been on the decline at their southern locations such as Churchill. Studies have shown less days on the ice as the ice melts sooner, more days on the land without food, lower pregnancy ratios than before, bears are much thinner when the winter ice does finally arrive. This has lead the Bears to move further north. As the ice starts to melt further north...the Bears will continue to migrate north, over populate and area and start to die.

Estimates of 30% of the Bears gone by 2050.

You say they can adapt...but they are adapting by migrating to where they can eat what they always ate, seals. Once that ice is gone...what do you think the bears will eat?

They'll migrate to where the seals relocate. Or they'll start hunting other land animals or more salmon.   If your farmland soils gave out, you move to another area where it could grow food.  Bears are just as smart we are.  Maybe they'll start eating Alaskans. 

[faberryman]

I said scientists and politicians are biased as well.  I could have added green manufacturers and corporations, nature organizations, film makers, nature programs, Hollywood movies, TV programs, schools and universities, professors, government agencies, teachers, and others. It's a huge industry.

They are all getting paid to claim that climate change is adversely affecting polar bears? Just making shit up for money? Who is laying out all this money. Can you provide a link to anything that corroborates this?

I am especially surprised by the mention of Hollywood movies. Gosh, people won't watch Old Yeller because the dog dies in the end. Who's going to watch a Hollywood movie where all the polar bears die in the end?

And teachers? Whose paying teachers to ruin the childrens' day by telling them all the polar bears are going to die?

[Alan Klein]

They are all getting paid to claim that climate change is adversely affecting polar bears? Just making shit up for money? Who is laying out all this money. Can you provide a link to anything that corroborates this?

Just look around.  When you watch any nature program, they feel obligated to tell us how bad humans are and how man is messing up nature.  If a nature photographer made a movie that showed good things that corporations do about the environment, he'd never sell the film.  Producers look for what's selling.  Researchers looking for grants know they have a better chance touting the correct line. Green companies are trying to sell their products.  Right now it's that man is bad.  It's propaganda.  We're raising generations of people who are not discerning.  They can't separate the wheat from the chaff.  They believe everything they watch or hear.  They don't know how to think independently.  They don't know how to ask questions.

[faberryman]

Just look around.  When you watch any nature program, they feel obligated to tell us how bad humans are and how man is messing up nature.  If a nature photographer made a movie that showed good things that corporations do about the environment, he'd never sell the film.  Producers look for what's selling.  Researchers looking for grants know they have a better chance touting the correct line. Green companies are trying to sell their products.  Right now it's that man is bad.  It's propaganda.  We're raising generations of people who are not discerning.  They can't separate the wheat from the chaff.  They believe everything they watch or hear.  They don't know how to think independently.  They don't know how to ask questions.

So everybody is lying about the polar bears and getting rich, and we are raising a generation of imbeciles. Anything else?

[hogloff]

They'll migrate to where the seals relocate. Or they'll start hunting other land animals or more salmon.   If your farmland soils gave out, you move to another area where it could grow food.  Bears are just as smart we are.  Maybe they'll start eating Alaskans.

They'll have to fight the grizzly's and black bears for the salmon...it's already very crowded. They are not adapted to hunt fast land mammals...waste more energy than what they gain.

Funny...if it's that simple, why do we care the Pandas diet of bamboo shoots...they can just adapt to other things. Same with the orca whales diet of Salmon...they can maybe forge along the coastline on crabs and starfish.

Unfortunately, life is not that simple.

[hogloff]

So everybody is lying about the polar bears and getting rich, and we are raising a generation of imbeciles. Anything else?

And here I spend my life working hard and investing in the stock market. Hell if I knew I could make my millions telling everyone polar bears are dying...I'd be on a beach at one of my many beach homes around the world.

[faberryman]

And here I spend my life working hard and investing in the stock market. Hell if I knew I could make my millions telling everyone polar bears are dying...I'd be on a beach at one of my many beach homes around the world.

And according to Alan everyone is in on it so you would have a wide range of vocations to chose from. Where do I sign up?

Seriously, I don't know why there wouldn't be a thriving market for stuff about the polar bears are going to be okay, if it were true?