"It is really a reduction in the sea ice that is causing the change in behavior, and the reduction of sea ice is due to global warming...."
October 2, 2014
Oh, no! Crammed walruses!
They're hauling out onto dry land, 35,000 of them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
99 comments:
Alternate headline: "Massive numbers of non-endangered wildlife exhibit behavior they've exhibited in the past."
Silly liberals. There is no such thing as a "walrus"
Pity the poor clamasaurs and oysterettes.
Arctic sea ice reaches minimum extent for 2014
September 22, 2014
"On September 17, Arctic sea ice reached its likely minimum extent for 2014. This is now the sixth lowest extent in the satellite record and reinforces the long-term downward trend in Arctic ice extent. Sea ice extent will now begin its seasonal increase through autumn and winter. Meanwhile, sea ice in the Antarctic has surpassed the previous record maximum extent set in 2013 and is now more than 20 million square kilometers (7.72 million square miles) for the first time in the past thirty-five years. It is too soon to determine if Antarctic sea ice has reached its annual maximum."
"Global" warming in the north, "global" cooling in the south.
Yes, everything I've read in the non-in-the-tank press says that this behavior has been documented for the last several hundred years.
madisonfella said...
Silly liberals. There is no such thing as a "walrus"
A walrus is a socially constructed seal.
Coo coo ca choo
Jehovah's Witnesses (upper left) pass by home protected by Doberman.
If this is standard walrus behavior, then there should be pictures of it from the past.
Close quarters such as this are a recipe for the spread of disease (and trampling, as noted in the article). So is there an evolutionary advantage to it?
Sure would make hunting them easy.
There are currently record levels of sea ice in the Antarctic, and the melting in the Arctic has been "nowhere near the record loss we saw in 2012". The "Northeast Passage" above Canada has remained ice-filled.
Alaska never has ice this time of year - WWF lies for money is their only purpose
Whether or not the trend in ice coverage is due to anthropogenic global warming, it is worth noting that the logical premise for this special state of worry is utterly unscientific. The premise for this article, and many like it, is that nature should achieve stasis and never vary again.
There should always be the same number of foxes and rabbits. The beak of the finch should never vary. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Adaptation is obstruction.
"If this is standard walrus behavior, then there should be pictures of it from the past."
perhaps not necessarily pictures, as documentation in the past didn't necessarily rely on photographic evidence as heavily as it is now. Perhaps a read of this scientific paper from 1978 might help put things in perspective
"Global" warming in the north, "global" cooling in the south.
The bottom of the earth is shaded from the sun. ;>)
I guess there is nothing such as natural variability in Leftist land
Here is a quote from that paper.
"The late Lawrence Kulukhon, who resided from 1916 to 1942 at Salghat
Beach and who frequented the eastern end of St. Lawrence and the outlying
Punuk Islands, reported that between 1930 and 1932 an unusually large
number of walruses hauled out in autumn on the Punuk Islands. These were
sufficient to cover the southwestern peninSUla of the North Island and most of
the Middle Island as well. In the following spring, he found about 100
carcasses there, mainly adult females, and several more that had drifted
ashore on eastern St. Lawrence Island. A similar congregation occurred in
the following autumn, leaving about the same number of carcasses. However;
they did not occur there again in such numbers at any time during his
residence."
Perhaps we will now see Pepsi using Walruses in their advertising?
Coca-Cola has used polar bears for almost 100 years in their ads.
In the past 10-20 years they have been contributing massive amounts of money to the WWF. In return(?) WWF has been promoting the bejabbers out of polar bears. Mainly about their bogus extinction (@5,000 bears in 1976, @20,000 today. Numbers from memory)
What I get subliminally, and sometime liminally, from the dying polar bear message is "Drink Coca-Cola. Save the bears"
It is a cleaver tie in and perhaps it will work with walruses/Pepsi as well.
Show a video of a cowboy out on the wide open prairie enjoying a Pepsi, then show the crowded walruses. (Walri?)
Anything to keep those WWF officials private jets flying. They need the money.
John Henry
And of course, the every 7 year algae bloom feeding shellfish in the Kasagaluk Lagoon has nothing to do with it either.
HEre is another quote from that paper:
"At Cape Blossom, Wrangell Island, Gol'tsev (1968) observed that
about 50 carcasses were left on the haulout after some 5000 animals had
utilized it in 1958. In the same location in 1964 he found about 500 carcasses
that had accumulated in the interim, and he accounted for an additional 250 to
300 that died in that year when 33 000-35 000 animals hauled out there."
a while back the World Wrestling Federation had to change it's name and initials.
The stated reason was that World Wildlife Fund was worried about confusion.
I've long thought it was the other way around. I think the World Wrestling Federation didn't want to tarnish their brand with people confusing them for a bunch of hucksters.
John Henry
Go ahead Madisonfella/Inga, do go on and spout those talking points from ThinkProgress about how this is further due to Global Warming.
Never mind direct observations on the ground in 1930s. Or in the 1960s.
Reality based community my ass.
In the following spring, he found about 100
carcasses there, mainly adult females,
Why so many females? Isn't this a mating ritual? Is it possible the female walri were raped to death by the males?
Where do they think they are? UW or some other college campus/rape center?
John Henry
Perhaps a read of this scientific paper from 1978 might help put things in perspective
Thanks for the link!
RecChief said...Reality based community my ass.
Actually that term is correct. Logically and linguistically, "reality based" means "not real."
@CuriousRecDrago - you start drinking your vodka early in the day, don't you? Can you put the bottle down long enough to show me exactly where on ThinkProgress my 10:13 comment came from?
@John Henry - wasn't aware of the connection between Coca-Cola and the WWF. Given the close ties between the CIA and Coca-Cola I can't help but wonder what the end game is.
"“The walruses are telling us what the polar bears have told us and what many indigenous people have told us in the high Arctic,” Williams told the Associated Press, “and that is that the Arctic environment is changing extremely rapidly and it is time for the rest of the world to take notice and also to take action to address the root causes of climate change.”"
YOu mean the Polar bear population that is actually increasing?
Also, while it's the 6th lowest recorded, check this out. You'll notice in the first graph that the averages only going back to the 1980s. You'll also notice that 2012 seems to have been a low year, the 2014 sea ice extent increased over the prior two years. But since the earth is millions of years old, why should we completely discount the idea that natural viability show up in a 40 year time period?
madisonfella said...
@CuriousRecDrago - you start drinking your vodka early in the day, don't you? Can you put the bottle down long enough to show me exactly where on ThinkProgress my 10:13 comment came from? "
The WAPO story relies on quotes from ThinkProgress. Although you don't offer anything like an intelligent, well reasoned opinion, which is par for the course for you, you seem to be taking the article as gospel. This quote above shows that rather than a refutation of the evidence, you choose to imply that I am a drunk as well as multiple other commenters. This is the same strategy employed by children when they discover they can't win an argument. sad really.
Why is it that so many non-scientists are certain that global warming is a myth? Are you equally certain about other scientific questions of which you have no real knowledge? Just cause you believe something doesn't make it so.
"John said...
In the following spring, he found about 100
carcasses there, mainly adult females,
Why so many females? Isn't this a mating ritual?
"
NO, google Walrus behavior. It seems to be a migrating behavior, although I only skimmmed available articles. The females tend to congregate separately from Males, and young males seem to congregate separately from older males, with some variability to that of course.
Madisonfella,
Most people are not aware of the connection.
Most people are also not aware that Chesapeake Energy, one of the largest frackin' gas producers, used to give Sierra Club about $25mm annually. This was about 25% of Sierra Club's total revenue.
I am sure it is just a coincidence that Sierra Club was so outspoken against Chesapeake's primary competitor, coal.
Or that Tom Steyer pledged $100mm to support democrat senators up for re-election this year. (Compared to Koch Brothers spending perhaps $40-50mm total on politics over the past 10 years or so)
Or that the UN's IPCC is saying they will need $70 billion, every year, to fight global whatsit. (Warming, cooling, change, chaos)
AlGore is probably too pathetic a target to be worth discussing.
We are not talking about chump change. There is LOTS of money to be made from global whatsit. That is why they fight so hard for it.
John Henry
More totally faked science calling healthy walrus gatherings a bad thing to link it to non-existent arctic sea ice melting.
The colder and colder it gets the more a non existent greenhouse gas effect is blamed for causing warmer and warmer weather... in the minds of Big Lie believers maybe.
Speaking of Coca-Cola:
Ever noticed how many people will go out and pay money to buy a T-shirt, or a cap, or a bumper sticker etc with advertising on it? Then they will wear it around.
Not just Coke but other products, pro and non-pro sports teams, colleges such as UW and so on.
Seems like they are dupes. The advertiser should be paying them to wear the t-shirt yet people pay the advertiser for the "privilege"
I can understand why the IPCC, Sierra Club, Chesapeake, WWF and others fight so hard to promote the idea of global whatsit. They have a serious financial stake in it.
Why have so many individuals allowed themselves to be duped into paying for and wearing the t-shirt, so to speak.
Perhaps some of the global whatsit supporters here could explain their motivation. Frankly, I do not understand it at all.
John Henry
"Steve Uhr said...
Why is it that so many non-scientists are certain that global warming is a myth? Are you equally certain about other scientific questions of which you have no real knowledge? Just cause you believe something doesn't make it so.
"
Actually, I am not certain that global warming is a myth. I'm not even certain that anthropogenic global warming is a myth, but when a thinking person begins digging into the evidence and research, there are quite a few problems. Much like the story here that is touted as "proof". It proves no such thing as it has occured before, and at time periods prior to when the Oracle of global warming says anthropogenic warming started. If that doesn't provoke a questioning of the evidence, what does? I've noticed that the more that is questioned, the people making the assertions don't rely on more evidence, more robust science to back up their claims, they resort to calling names like "science denier". In the case of your questions, quoted above, whether you intend it or not, you're making the Appeal to Authority argument. I have a problem with all Appeal to Authority arguments and resist that type of argument more than any other.
The biggest threat to the walrus population has been, is and will be from hunting, not climate change. Extinction would have occurred already had not the Pacific Walrus been given protected status.
sezneg said...Meanwhile, in reality ice extent actually within 2 standard deviations of historic norm.
2 standard deviations is nothing to brag about, the real issue is how short the historical record is. We only have decent measurements for about 35 years, far too short a period of time to make any grand statements about historical norms.
We do, however, have photographic evidence of an ice-free North Pole in the 50's.
RecDrago is constantly accusing me of being Inga or Garage or Penguin or Whoever then gets really sad when I point out that he is merely projecting his behavior on others.
That is almost as funny as the way he accuses me of repeating ThinkProgress "talking points" yet can't even provide a link to those talking points I allegedly repeated in my earlier comment.
What a tool - no matter what name he log in under
This seems bizarre to me. 2012 was the real low Arctic ice year.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/Sea_Ice_Extent_v2.png
This year was way way up (compared to 2012), something like 50% more ice. Still below historical average, but way up.
"That is almost as funny as the way he accuses me of repeating ThinkProgress "talking points" yet can't even provide a link to those talking points I allegedly repeated in my earlier comment."
Ignoring what I wrote and asserting something entirely different is childish. a waste of time. Interesting, I never said you were garage mahal. Now you're just embarrassing yourself.
"tim maguire said...
sezneg said...Meanwhile, in reality ice extent actually within 2 standard deviations of historic norm.
2 standard deviations is nothing to brag about, the real issue is how short the historical record is. We only have decent measurements for about 35 years, far too short a period of time to make any grand statements about historical norms.
We do, however, have photographic evidence of an ice-free North Pole in the 50's.
"
Yes. Exactly.
"Why is it that so many non-scientists are certain that global warming is a myth?"
Keep in mind that not all non-scientists are scientifically illiterate, as you perhaps may be. I have a multi-disciplinary science degree even though I don't work in science.
Also notice I'm not saying global warming is a myth. But what I am saying is that based on the quality of the evidence put forward so far, I think they are far from the point of proving their hypothesis. In my opinion, they jumped the gun and went straight from the question to the conclusion without stopping along the way for solid proof.
"Are you equally certain about other scientific questions of which you have no real knowledge?"
Au contraire. We have all kinds of knowledge of other scientific questions. We're swimming in it and have been since the scientific revolution of the last several hundred years. We can see the quality of that evidence and how well it does in real world tests. If gravity was not well-understood we would never have gotten spacecraft to the moon or to Saturn. If microbes were not well-understood we never would have wiped out smallpox. Etc. Etc. That's why we're "certain" of those questions (although certainty is never absolute). In the case of global warming, the "there" is just not there to a sufficient and robust degree. Too many pronouncements have proven wrong and too much importance has been read into flimsy evidence. And too much evidence has apparently been manipulated beyond the level of scientific honesty.
You forgot the "I'm skeptical" tag.
This is a google books link to a report from 1600 of walruses hauled out in great numbers on a beach where they were hunted into the hundreds and thousands. It even says they were "accustomed to haul out on shore". The people pimping this story are making a big deal of the fact that the walruses have to use land now because all of the ice is gone (they claim). And yet, walruses were hauling out on land hundreds of years ago in the depths of the Little Ice Age. It kind of puts a crimp in the narrative if you look at actual facts.
"sixth lowest in thirty five years"
Wow, I wonder if these walruses evolved after the Eemian interglacial, which was warmer than the present Holocene, and for a lot longer, or 10,000 years ago, when the orbital charictaristics of the Earth made it much warmer in the Arctic for thousands of years, and managed to melt mile thick glaciers?
Chief,
The problem is that many non-scientists don't understand the scientific process, and find things that support their pre-conceived notions and ignore things that don't. What are your thoughts on evolution?
MadisonMan, you said it, it was ridiculous what you said, he pointed you to an account of the same thing happening a century ago, but I guess since they didn't have aerial photography then, it didn't happen.
"Steve Uhr said...
Chief,
The problem is that many non-scientists don't understand the scientific process, and find things that support their pre-conceived notions and ignore things that don't."
Exactly so. Or are you asserting this is more prevalent in one group of non-scientists than another?
Steve Uhr thinks you have to be a Creationist to doubt the media's reporting of the current state of climate science.
It is all about feeling superior with them, with liberalism there are two truths, they believe "All the assholes are on the other side." And there "logic" is founded on "turtles all the way down."
Steve Uhr,
Given this quote, "Are you equally certain about other scientific questions of which you have no real knowledge? Just cause you believe something doesn't make it so."
I have a question for you. What is it that you are certain of?
Ignoring what I wrote and asserting something entirely different is childish.
You're projecting again. Or are you ready to show me exactly which talking points on Think Progress you believe I was repeating?
I never said you were garage mahal.
And you never said I was Inga either, eh? And you never said that accusing someone of using multiple log-ins is the same strategy employed by children when they discover they can't win an argument, huh?
You're such a tool. If you were capable of shame you'd be embarrassed instead of doubling down on your nonsense. Seriously, who do you think you're fooling?
RecChief said...
Masisonfella said...
"And you never said I was Inga either, eh? And you never said that accusing someone of using multiple log-ins is the same strategy employed by children when they discover they can't win an argument, huh?"
Oh no, I freely admit to that. Both of those sentences. As for the other stuff, go back and read what I wrote. It's fairly simple.
As for me "projecting again", I made that argument about you previously, although more subtely so it may have slipped past your awareness. Write your own material.
Exclusive! WaPo reporter interviews crammed walruses, establishes conclusively that walrus cramming proves anthropogenic global warming!
Chief -- I'm certain about lots of things. I'm certain I love my wife. I'm certain that government is corrupt to the core. I'm certain I don't like being lawyer. I'm certain I have better things to do with my time than comment on a blog about walruses.
As for global warning, I'm certain that I don't know for certain if it a) is happening and b) if is it happening, it is caused by man. I strongly suspect the answer to both questions is yes based on the fact that the people in a position to know almost all hold that view.
h no, I freely admit to that. Both of those sentences
Kudos to you for admitting you're behaving like a child who is losing the argument. That is a big first step for you.
Steve Uhr in the United States
Steve Uhr in Texas
Steve Uhr on the East Coast
Steve Uhr in Minnesota
I can't find any Steve Uhr listed as an author, coauthor, or research assistant on any scientific papers on google. I only checked 1 page of results, but based on the logic exhibited by the Global Warming/Climate Change/ Global Weirding crowd, that should be sufficient proof.
Come, come Steve, continue your lecture about the certainty of beliefs found among non-scientists
"people in a position to know almost all hold that view"
People in a position to know?
You have a brain for goodness sake. Surely you remember something of the scientific process from High School Biology?
Madisonfella,
I will direct you to Steve Uhr's comment at 11:28: "Just cause you believe something doesn't make it so."
Steve Uhr: "Why is it that so many non-scientists are certain that global warming is a myth? Are you equally certain about other scientific questions of which you have no real knowledge? Just cause you believe something doesn't make it so."
Why is it that you find it necessary to restate the positions of others in fabricated, unflattering terms?
Is it because you have a superiority complex or are you a criminal defense attorney? LOL.
BTW, take a few seconds and rebut the creation story by describing the "scientific" proof for abiogenesis. Panspermia, anyone?
"Almost All" people who are in a position to know.
just one of many articles regarding the 97%. Consider this a PSA. The more you know.
What Steve Uhr really is saying is that "All he knows is what the papers tell him the majority of scientists are saying."
See the layer of indirection there Steve? Or do you read the papers yourself?
"As for global warning, I'm certain that I don't know for certain if it a) is happening ...."
If it is not happening, is it a myth? Just askin'.
Steve Uhr:
"Why is it that so many non-scientists are certain that global warming is a myth? Are you equally certain about other scientific questions of which you have no real knowledge?"
Not a direct answer, but:
I am a scientist. For many years I was skeptical of any connection between CO2 and recent global warming. (I have certain professional incentives to believe in it and to sell others on it.)
After getting to know a number of very good climate scientists, I bought into the theory that increasing CO2 concentrations were a major driver of the steep 1979-1998 warming. Because they're so smart (I'm not being a wise-ass; they are), and they're not all in on some hoax, and they are all convinced that CO2 is the main "control knob" on global temperatures.
Having bought into the theory, I felt somehow implicated by it. Specifically, by the tendency of scientist-advocates to point to every scary or just weird event having anything to do with the weather and yell, "You see?!"
See e.g. Hurricane Katrina, Russian heat wave, continental US drought, various floods, Kilimanjaro icecap disappearance, and many, many other famous events that were proclaimed loudly as damning evidence, then quietly walked back by actual, you know, scientists. Not to mention 35,000 walruses ashore in Alaska.
There is some fine science going on in climate science. There is also a whole lot of crap science (it happens when any scientific theme hits it big: people jump on the bandwagon with anything they can publish, and some reviewers' BS detectors go dormant), and a lot of accidental confirmation bias, and more than a little bit of deliberate cherry-picking.
Climate scientists who support the consensus theory are very quick to point out the "motivated reasoning" of those who reject it. They're not always so good at spotting theirs or their colleagues'.
Thus the rapid rise in temperatures from 1979-1998 was principally due to CO2 increase - no way could a substantial part of it be ascribed to natural variability. But the very slow rise since then? All natural variability! The deep ocean suddenly started burying the heat [if you don't like that, there are 51 alternative explanations and more on the way]. If I were a cynic, I would say maybe the theory was badly flawed at best and they're desperately trying to shore it up.
A quote from this Canadian review of the 4 main studies used to document the "97% consensus":
"Consensus means agreement on a narrow range of views about something. A “97%” consensus that relies on a range from 5% impact to 100% is virtually meaningless for scientific or public policy purposes. The scope is too broad. However, such statements have a powerful psychological impact on the public, who misinterpret these ‘consensus’ statements as meaning scientists are agreed that human impact on climate is catastrophic in nature. As this paper will show, only a very small percent of scientists, in very narrow fields of study, hold that view. Many scientists hold the view that human industrial emissions of carbon dioxide have beneficial impacts on earth, and little impact on climate."
JPS said...
"There is some fine science going on in climate science. There is also a whole lot of crap science (it happens when any scientific theme hits it big: people jump on the bandwagon with anything they can publish, and some reviewers' BS detectors go dormant), and a lot of accidental confirmation bias, and more than a little bit of deliberate cherry-picking."
Yes.
If "the powers that be" really believe what they claim about global warming, they would be bombing Chinese and Indian power plants and manufacturing facilities, since the activities of those two nations have doomed the entire planet if action is not taken now.
"a report from 1600 of walruses hauled out in great numbers on a beach"
This is interesting to me, because it seems like it might suggest what we're seeing in the current case is an effect of a normalizing walrus population.
I know that off the coast of SoCal there are islands where elephant seals congregate and entirely take over whole beaches. You can see carcasses every so often. Elephant seals used breed and birth on the main coast, but hunting made them wary so they're not really visitors to our beaches until you get a fair bit farther north.
Seals herd together. Males have harems and likes of wives and fight with each other. A big population may mean there's a climate problem or that there's a social reality at work that is magnified based on thriving populations.
Is there a reason the latter can be ruled out? I don't know, so I'm genuinely asking.
Of course, the latter can be ruled out because of human social issues, as Al Gore doesn't get paid more if walruses are just being walruses.
MadisonMan, you said it, it was ridiculous what you said, he pointed you to an account of the same thing happening a century ago, but I guess since they didn't have aerial photography then, it didn't happen.
If you are trying to baffle me with your commentary, you are succeeding.
If "the powers that be" really believe what they claim about global warming, they would be bombing Chinese and Indian power plants and manufacturing facilities, since the activities of those two nations have doomed the entire planet if action is not taken now.
I'm pretty sure that climate scientists don't have a standing army (or air force).
FACT: The CO2 molecules in the Atmosphere have gone up from 3 parts per million to 4 parts per million over the past 100 years. And CO2 has no greenhouse effect capturing heat in the open atmosphere system.
All weather changes arises from sun flares caught in the earths magnetic field that then either block or not block the cosmic ray seeding that forms more or less clouds over the oceans.
That is why were the earth is colder and colder as more clouds block the sun.
If you reverse reality and tell a model to pretend there is a CO2 blanket trapping heat, then the temperatures would have had to go up instead of level off or go down for 18 years.
All weather changes arises from sun flares caught in the earths magnetic field that then either block or not block the cosmic ray seeding that forms more or less clouds over the oceans.
Milutin Milankovitch might disagree.
If you are trying to baffle me with your commentary, you are succeeding.
I can't help it if you can't follow the criticism of your own statement. But the fact that you can't follow it doesn't invalidate it.
tim in vermont said...
If you are trying to baffle me with your commentary, you are succeeding.
I can't help it if you can't follow the criticism of your own statement. But the fact that you can't follow it doesn't invalidate it."
I think you are confusing my criticism of Madisonfella. I didn't criticize MadisonMan at all. As far as MadisonMan's question about photographic evidence, all I put out was a link showing that large walrus "haulouts" are nothing new.
MAdisonMan even thanked me for teh link to that paper.
...because (it pains me to say) I'm not an expert on walruses. More information is good.
M.M. Please tell the eminent Dr.Milankovitch that his 23,000 to 42,000 year cycles are interesting as always. But hot and cold weather changes are happening a little faster than his earth tilt theory allows for.
@tradguy, you're the one who said ALL weather changes arise from solar flares! I'm just demanding precise writing.
(You should see what I get from my students. Carumba!)
Walruses are a tusked version of the Sea Lions that we see at Pier 23 and all along the California coast. Both of those are like seals. And all have flippers and a tail design that tells us that they were first bird like mammals on the land who jumped into the sea and started swimming for a fish diet.
So semi annually "hauling" their fat bodies up onto an isolated beach or island for a rest is like a trip home for them. I suspect the are enjoying a brief time in the sun's warmth after swimming in cold waters most of the year. But the idea that they are refugees because the ice is gone is another 100% big lie.
They like the rest period on land. and the Arctic sea ice is at 80% of its maximum range of variation.
I just wanted to say that this is Althouse at her best.
Like a basketball ref at the tip-off, she tosses the ball up and we go from there. MadisonMan as usual asks a pertinent question, and RecChief has been a tour de force of on point information. MadisonMan to his credit (not that there was any doubt) thanks RecChief for his/her input. Otherwise, Madisonfella doubles down on his/her position and only makes him/herself look petty. While Steve Uhr goes trolling for hits only to be gently (so far) educated by RecChief and others.
OK that's the play by play through the first half. I've only waded through about that many comments so far, but at the rate they are accumulating it would be a couple of hours before I reached the end. And I wanted to compliment Althouse and this particular thread.
My own two cents? Focusing on this and treating it as something exceptional is like observing the emergence of 17 year locusts and saying that no one has seen this many red eyed cicadas for 16 years and then attributing it to whatever unrelated phenomenon you want to flog!
" But hot and cold weather changes are happening a little faster than his earth tilt theory allows for."
Maybe because his theories, while very compelling, and probably correct, but with the dangers inherent in curve fitting, we may never know in our lifetimes, are not the only climate influence.
They don't explain whey it was so warm in Roman times, or so cold during the time of the French Revolution, when crops were failing and Marie Antoinette was blamed, among others. Or why it was so warm during Viking times, when they were exporting beef from Greenland, per their records.
There are a lot of fluctuations that happen that orbital forcings cannot explain. That, in and of itself in now way implicates CO2
A curious person can read about the social behavior of walruses and can see hundreds of pictures of walrus colonies. Some pictures are of walruses on ice and some on dry land. It is what these animals do. It is what they have always done.
It may make you feel hot to see them crowded together and your own stomach may yearn to be on cool ice rather than hard gravel. But walruses do not seem to give a shit.
These pictures of a crowd, a colony, of walruses will be seen quite a lot in coming days just as the picture of the lone, forlorn looking, Polar bear on his bit of ice was everywhere for a few years.
Madisonfella doubles down on his/her position
Double downed on what exactly?
Despite what you want others to believe I didn't say anything about Global Warming nor repeat anything from Think Progress.
Can you quote my words that lead you to think I did?
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/234587/popular_walrus_cam_to_go_offline_for_hunt/
Here is an interesting article with picture of walruses hauled up on some rocks. Also in Alaska. The indigenous people asked that the cam corded be turned off during their annual slaughter of a few of the animals. About nine years old. No ice in sight.
I wish Richard Feynman were still around to beat these global warming lemmings about the head and shoulders yelling, "Do you not see the ugly facts marring your beautiful theory?"
We should also note that sea ice begins to melt in the summer. They have summer in Alaska. By now the summer is over and shortly the ice will begin to form again.
Amazing.
A significant portion of global warming is caused by fossil fuels used to run air conditioners, refrigerators and freezers. I think the walruses would appreciate that.
"Why is it that so many non-scientists are certain that global warming is real? Are you equally certain about other scientific questions of which you have no real knowledge? Just cause you believe something doesn't make it so."
fixed it
"The problem is that many scientists don't understand the scientific process, and find things that support their pre-conceived notions and ignore things that don't."
fixed it
The American Institute of Physics has published a paper that details the history of paleoclimatology and climate prediction:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm
Into the darkness I bring light.
One more warmie link warrior arrives with an argument he cannot himself make or defend in his own words.
"Why is it that so many non-scientists are certain that global warming is a myth? Are you equally certain about other scientific questions of which you have no real knowledge?"
I don't claim the title of "scientist," but could be, I guess.
Your first question is somewhat meaningless. Anyone who says there is no "global warming" is an idiot. Anyone who says there is no "global cooling," ditto. Anyone who says climate is static, ditto. Anyone who says man has some impact on climate, my gut says yea but now you need to define your terms. I vaguely remember that draining the everglades affected albedo and thus local weather patterns, can't find it so maybe I'm misremembering. I've seen humidity and moisture around cities cause a dome like effect that you can see from the air. Downtown Austin is nearly always a few degrees warmer than the burbs.
Global climate? Not sure what that means. The process of defining an "average global temperature" itself is a huge scientific endeavor (that incidentally is somewhat controversial if not outright fraudulent).
Second question, science is about testing and validating assumptions. If a hypothesis cannot be tested and validated, it isn't science. Measurements and testing of pieces of a hypothesis do not make the whole structure valid, and if real measurements do not agree with the theory, don't confuse models and reality - "the map is not the territory." Voodoo science, using assumed similitude to think you can manipulate the world.
OK "light bringer" pick a paragraph from that link you think we will disagree with and cut and paste it, and we can discuss it. You can probably show me to be a fool, right?
Pick the strongest one, your strongest argument. Come on, bring some light.
I hope that you are not talking about my link to the AIP paper, Tim in Vermont.
It is quite balanced. The author seems to agree with the AGW hypothesis, but would dispute that we can be confidant that we have measured it accurately. He also goes on for many, many pages describing how new and untested paleoclimatology and climate science is, how many mistakes it has made in the past, how it simply cannot explain some of the most dramatic climate events in the fossil record. They are pretty sure that that there were no ice ages before about million years ago. No one knows why the Sahara blossomed in the mesozoic. You won't get a lot of comfort from the AIP piece if you are a believer in what passes for climate science these days.
If they get too uncomfortable, they can move apart.
Problem solved.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/14/us/hurricane-season-prediction-mystery/
The constant crying-wolf bullshit is why many of us non-scientists are skeptical. Plus, most of us have enough real world experience to know that when "Shut up!" becomes the argument of choice, the underlying premise is bullshit. We hoi polloi know our bullshit.
"Why is it that so many non-scientists are certain that global warming is a myth? Are you equally certain about other scientific questions of which you have no real knowledge?"
As a programmer working with large physical models, I am well aware of the limitations of those models. When I see people claiming to have "solved" the climate 100 years down the road, using models with cells 60 miles on a side, I have a hard time taking them seriously as scientists. Especially when we all know perfectly well that they can't solve the weather 5 days down the road with much finer models using much better information.
Especially since it is still an open question of mathematics/physics whether the climate is even deterministic. There is good reason to think it might be chaotic, and thus intrinsically unpredictable.
Add to that, the fact that we still don't know what caused the glaciers to cover Canada, tens of thousands of years ago, or why they retreated 12,000 years ago. Except that man-made CO2 cannot have had anything to do with it. But in the past, the glacial eras were long, and the interglacials short, so the chances are we are due for another cold spell.
Then, just to wind things up, I note that the proposals they make to deal with the "problem" would have no appreciable effect on atmospheric CO2, but would certainly destroy the US economy.
I think, Jupiter, that what you see with climate science is an attempt to follow in the footsteps of the other natural sciences. Close observation, experimentation, and an appreciation of deep time led to geologists (for example) predicting where oil and mineral deposits might be found. Champagne all around!
If geology can't tell you anything useful, what good is it? If climate science can't tell you anything useful, what good is it?
And there are all those wonderful data points and correlations to study and write about.
There are two main problems with the whole "climate change" movement that I can see (there are likely more but 2 is a manageable number).
1) There's so, so much corruption. Where money is involved there's going to be a lot of people who take advantage of it for their own power or wealth (Al Gore I think is a prime example of both). This is true in academia and science as well. There's huge, huge amounts of funding coming in for climate studies, in every imaginable field.
Meaning that the very wealthy, corrupt people have a strong incentive to fund more research to keep their money coming in, and scientists and academics have a huge incentive to follow through because they need the funding.
There are certainly true believers and idealists, but in many ways these have become tools of those who only care about power and money. That's the state of climate change today, whether or not its an emergency issue can be a debate, but there's no doubt there's vast amounts of corruption, graft and oppression happening, all of which really does affect poor people the most.
2) Climate change has become a "god of the gaps" in science. Anything happens, it's climate change. It has become the default explanation, likely because of the first reason above, but also because it really can be a one size fits all solution. Again, that doesn't mean it's all wrong, but there are certainly instances where "It's proof of climate change!" sounds more like a religious claim than a scientific claim in the face of unexplained phenomena.
Just remember; As your data set approaches infinity the chance of finding any useful data approaches zero.
"I am the walrus! Goo goo goo joob!"
"No, I am the walrus!"
"No, I am!"
"Me, me, me! Iam the walrus!"
"Goo goo goo joob!"
"I buried Paul..."
"I think, Jupiter, that what you see with climate science is an attempt to follow in the footsteps of the other natural sciences."
When a body of knowledge becomes completely reliable, it is called "engineering", not science. This happens as a result of large numbers of carefully controlled experiments. Not as a result of ginning up some bullshit computer programs to get your grant renewed.
Post a Comment