Global warming?

[spudcon]

And where are the charts from 2000 -2009 that show global cooling?

Originally Posted by classicman

Redux - where are the cow farts on that chart of yours?

"Sigh"....a tired old diversionary tactic to ignore the fact that the US alone spews more than 5 billion metric tons of man-made CO2 emissions into the atmosphere every year and that those emissions levels are neither natural nor sustainable and will only further degrade the atmosphere and the environment unless action is taken.

Sorry, I'm not playing that game.

[spudcon]

Originally Posted by tw

It's typical of graphs edited by a political agenda. Another example of what happens when White House lawyers rewrite the science.

Actual Vostok graphs demonstrate a scary problem. Jinx picture conveniently eliminates the last 100 years.

And TW's graph conveniently eliminates the last 9 years.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by classicman

Redux - where are the cow farts on that chart of yours?

Is it considered man-made CO2 if the reason for all the cow farts is that man has increased the cow population so that it has more cows and cow-like substances to consume? Would there be fewer cow farts if the natural order of cows and cow predators kept cow populations low?

[SamIam]

Meanwhile, back at one of those islands where no one is supposed to be concerned about the rising ocean:

MALE (Reuters) – The Maldivian president and ministers held the world's first underwater cabinet meeting on Saturday, in a symbolic cry for help over rising sea levels that threaten the tropical archipelago's existence.
…Clad in black diving suits and masks, Nasheed, 11 ministers the vice president and cabinet secretary dove 3.8 meters (12 feet, 8 inches) to gather at tables under the crystalline waters that draw thousands of tourists to $1,000-a-night luxury resorts.
As black-and-white striped Humbug Damselfish darted around a backdrop of white coral, Nasheed gestured with his hands to start the 30-minute meeting, state TV showed.
"We are trying to send our message to let the world know what is happening and what will happen to the Maldives if climate change isn't checked," a dripping Nasheed told reporters as soon as he re-emerged from the water.
The archipelago nation off the tip of India, best-known for luxury tropical hideaways and unspoiled beaches, is among the most threatened by rising seas. If U.N. predictions are correct, most of the low-lying Maldives will be submerged by 2100.
"SOS" MESSAGE
Nasheed and the ministers used a white plastic slate and waterproof pencils to sign an "SOS" message from the Maldives during the 30-minute meeting.
"We must unite in a world war effort to halt further temperature rises," the message said. "Climate change is happening and it threatens the rights and security of everyone on Earth."
World leaders will meet in Copenhagen to hammer out a successor agreement to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, and industrialized nations want all countries to impose sharp emissions cuts.
"We have to have a better deal. We should be able to come out with an amicable understanding that everyone survives. If Maldives can't be saved today, we do not feel that there is much of a chance for the rest of the world," he said.

More at:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091017/...es_environment

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Is it considered man-made CO2 if the reason for all the cow farts is that man has increased the cow population so that it has more cows and cow-like substances to consume? Would there be fewer cow farts if the natural order of cows and cow predators kept cow populations low?

Cow flatulence, which the deniers always want to toss into the discussion, is more a methane issue.

But, the massive deforestation worldwide by the cattle (and other) industry to meet the demand for more grazing land certainly contributes to the CO2 emission problem.

The larger issue for me is that billions of tons of unnatural man made CO2 emissions (from autos, coal fired power plants, deforestation, etc) belched into the atmosphere every year will eventually surpass the ability of the oceans and plants to absorb them and maintain stasis....if it hasnt already.

I think it is unfortunate, but not surprising, that some would still rather stick their head up a cow's ass as a excuse or justification to ignore the excessive anthropogenic CO2 emission problem.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Redux

"Sigh"....a tired old diversionary tactic to ignore the fact that the US alone spews more than 5 billion metric tons of man-made CO2 emissions into the atmosphere every year and that those emissions levels are neither natural nor sustainable and will only further degrade the atmosphere and the environment unless action is taken.

Sorry, I'm not playing that game.

Been there, done that.

[richlevy]

From here

Study: Arctic Ice Will Melt in 10 Years
British Explorers Return from North Pole with Ice Data Suggesting it Will Soon Disappear in Summer Months

The North Pole will turn into an open sea during summer within a decade, according to data released by a team of explorers who trekked through the Arctic for three months.

CBS News correspondent Elizabeth Palmer reports that the explorers walked - and swam - 280 miles across the Arctic ice of the Beaufort Sea, north of Alaska, drilling hundreds of ice samples as they went.

The Catlin Arctic Survey team, led by explorer Pen Hadow, measured the thickness of the ice as it sledged through the northern part of the Beaufort Sea earlier this year during their research project. Their findings show that most of the ice in the region is first-year ice that is only around six feet deep and will melt next summer. The region has traditionally contained, thicker multiyear ice which does not melt as rapidly.

So will we have global warming deniers and corporate lobbyists tying up efforts to stop this until it's too late?

[SamIam]

Oh, stop being such a spoilsport. Who cares about things like the Gulf Stream, drought, oppressive heat, and a few dead reindeers and Eskimo's?

Let's make lemonaide out of lemons. The surviving Eskimo's are sitting on (or dog paddeling in) a fortune. Pretty soon the arctic will be everyone's favorite vacation get away with its cool breezes that gently ruffle the fur of all those dead polar bears. I'm sure Bill Gates or someone is even now beginning on the plans to build several luxury resorts. I believe Disney has an option, as well. Let's all sing together now, "Its a small world...)

[Undertoad]

Sea level increased 8 inches in the last 100 years.

Polar bear numbers have doubled in the last fifty years.

It's complicated!

[SamIam]

The good news and the bad news about polar bears:

Polar bears are a potentially endangered species living in the circumpolar north. They are animals which know no boundaries. They pad across the ice from Russia to Alaska, from Canada to Greenland and onto Norway's Svalbard archipelago. Biologists estimate that there are 20,000 to 25,000 bears with about sixty percent of those living in Canada.

The main threat to polar bears today is the loss of their icy habitat due to climate change. Polar bears depend on the sea ice for hunting, breeding, and in some cases to den. The summer ice loss in the Arctic is now equal to an area the size of Alaska, Texas, and the state of Washington combined.

At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group(Copenhagen, 2009), scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, eight are declining, three are stable, one is increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a decision—this is a change from five that were declining in 2005, five that were stable, and two that were increasing. During the meeting, delegates renewed their conclusion from previous meetings that the greatest conservation challenge to the polar bear is ecological change in the Arctic related to climate warming.

On May 14, 2008, the U.S. Department of the Interior reclassified the polar bear as a Threatened Species under the Endangered Species Act, citing concerns about sea ice loss. Russia lists the polar bear as a species of concern.

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/

[Undertoad]

You don't have to cherry-pick the experts because they have done it for you. They barred a polar bear expert who is a global warming skeptic from that Copenhagen meeting. His views were considered "unhelpful". This expert has found that 17 out of 19 of the populations have increased.

NOTHING makes me more skeptical than this sort of "look here, don't look there" behavior.

[xoxoxoBruce]

If all the Arctic sea ice melts, and all the Polar bears die, do you still have to go to work the next day? I mean really, these two items are not problems, they're symptoms.
We know the climate is changing, as it has for billions of years. We don't know;

1-How much it will change, ie, how hot it will get?
2-What all the effects of that change will be?
3-How much we're contributing to that change?
4-If we can slow the change, significantly?
5-If we can limit the range, the max, of the change?
6-If we can actually reverse the direction of change?
7-If we can do something(s) effective, which something(s) are they, and which things are just a waste of time and money. Time and money not every country will share, btw.

[SamIam]

I don’t know what you mean about “cherry picking.” Most of the articles that came up when I googled the subject said more or less the same thing. You are correct in stating that the polar bear population is currently at an all time high. However, at the same time there is major cause for concern over their ultimate fate.

As for Mitchell Taylor, the scientist banned from the Copenhagen meeting, I don’t have enough information to really comment on the fairness of his banishment or not. It was obviously a stupid stunt to pull if they wanted good publicity.

Mitchell Taylor is really not the person you should be quoting to build your case, however. Here are a couple of his comments taken at random from a second google search. The first I have edited for brevity, but if you want to read the entire article, just click on the cite.

A Vancouver Province newspaper editorial criticizing the U.S. government for proposing polar bears as a possible threatened species has the scientists it quoted crying foul. Calling the US decision “a classic case of blinkered thinking,” the Province claims that Mitchell Taylor, manager of wildlife research for the Nunavut government, has been quoted as saying that, except for Hudson Bay, "polar bears appear to be overabundant."
…Contacted by DeSmog readers, however, Taylor said [he was] misquoted in the Province editorial.
“I don't even know what "overabundant" means,” said Taylor. “There are some populations that appear to be at levels where problem-bear issues are at or approaching unacceptable levels. I have said that in various interviews. I think it is pretty clear what the (Province) author’s perspective is on climate change and polar bears. I guess this is freedom of the press in action.”

http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1166

There is a very good interview of Dr. Taylor printed by the Canadian Frontier Centre for Public Policy. Here is just one sample question and response:

FC: Do you think that the current level of harvest is having a significant effect on polar bears overall and more specifically on certain sub-populations of the animals?

MT: The harvest rates are usually intended to keep the population at current levels so even a sustainable harvest would have a stabilizing effect on a population. If you are asking if I think that some populations are declining because of over harvest, I think that probably Kane Basin numbers are stable even though it is over-hunted. Kane Basin seems to be a sink for polar bears right now. The harvest in western Hudson Bay has recently been reduced and the population is thought to be stable or increasing slowly. I’m not exactly sure what’s happening with harvests in the Southern Beaufort Sea, but this population appears to have been badly stressed by the recent arctic warming. The most recent data for the other populations indicates they are sustaining current harvest levels except for Baffin Bay. In Baffin Bay the research data suggests a significant decline in population numbers, but local hunters report that numbers are stable or even increased.

http://www.fcpp.org/publication.php/2571

One might also keep in mind that Taylor is a zoologist, not a climatologist. I respect what he has to say about current bear populations, but I am skeptical about his stance on climate change.

[xoxoxoBruce]

What/where did he say about climate change? All I read was he said the Arctic is warming.
You're right him being a zoologist. He works for the native (Nunavut) regions government, making sure there is sufficient wildlife to sustain the natives tradition, and culture, of subsistence hunting. In other words, this guy should know as much or more than anyone, about what's happening with the critters in the great white north.

When the, "Polar Bear Specialist Group (set up under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature/Species Survival Commission)", meets in Copenhagen to talk about Polar Bears, they should be begging this guy for his expertise. But I suspect because his point of view is sustainable levels for hunting and ecological balance, probably differs from their view that every Polar Bear is precious, he was shunned.
I also suspect they are smart enough to know that, but are operating under, "the end justifies the means rule", which tells me they don't want to know the truth.
They can't handle the truth.