Lucky Shot

Let me take a stab at this... http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7346

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0512/p13s02-sten.html

These two articles point toward a clearing of smog and therefore Global Brightening...

Lucky Shot

Switchcraft

Best. Response. Ever.

Lucky Shot

It's a very complex issue certainly.

Here is a typical Polar Bear Diet. http://nationalzoo.si.edu/publicatio...fact-polar.cfm

If you remove the weak, the old, the easy to capture seals, then it makes it tougher for polar bears to find food. When you remove pieces a link of the food chain, your going to affect other living items too. They found that removal of Wolves in Yellowstone indirectly destroyed some species of trees and some forests disappeared. It was because Beavers and Elk ran rampant over the forests and there was no great being to keep them honest. Since Wolves have been reintroduced, this vegetation has regrown also.

Lucky Shot

Diceman

Negative. The credit for best response ever goes to Winston Churchill, when intoxicated and having received the following admonishment from a contemporary:
English Lady: Sir, you are drunk.
Churchill: And you, madam, are ugly. But in the morning I shall be sober.

__________________

[drill][medic][conduct][tg-c1][tpf-c1]
[ma-c2][taw-c1]

Diceman

But...

1. the harp seal is only one of the polar bear's food sources.
2. It's the harp seal that is hunted in the seal hunt.
3. The harp seal population is currently stable at 5 million. That is three times as many harp seals as there were 30 years ago.

On the other hand, I see and agree on your point regarding wolves in Yellowstone, and the general lesson to be learnt there: removing a link in the food chain causes things to go wonky. But the seal hunt doesn't appear to be removing any food chain links.

So I'm not sure how this applies to polar bears and seal hunts.

__________________

[drill][medic][conduct][tg-c1][tpf-c1]
[ma-c2][taw-c1]

AMosely

Thanks Lucky for those sources - some of which were covered in the material I posted, and is accounted for in the last 15 minutes of the program. If the atmosphere is in fact getting cleaner (which is only occuring in selected sites - others, especially South Asia and Africa continue to worsen) - say, back to 1960's levels, this will have an even more profound effect on global warming as a whole - not a good thing.

I was only trying to point out the factual, accepted evidence of global dimming, which was fully disclosed in the $25 million INODEX project in the south Indian ocean in 1996. The brightening trend is newer, less researched, and uncorrelated by comparison. None the less, both are important studies in climate change, and both go to prove that it is not propaganda or hype (my main point).

Your source, http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7346:
Our self-induced cloudcover in the lower atmosphere was actually protecting us from the long-term and longlasting effects of CO2 buildup in the upper atmosphere. CO2 emissions are still on the rise, especially in China - and it is precisely the effect of this buildup, which takes so much longer to dissipate, that is at the center of the global warming debate.

The Bush administration claims that CO2 emissions do not have a profound effect on the climate, and that an immediate drawdown would hurt the economy too much. Without the particulate studies (global dimming, global brightening), would you believe him if he were saying this about particulate emissions?

Lucky Shot

When you cull the herd, typically it is done to remove the old, slow, weak and wounded. These are the easiest to catch for Polar Bears as it is for humans. Removing this piece of the food chain makes it tougher for polar bears, not easier. It is but one piece of a complex puzzle that has an overall effect on the polar bear.

Lucky Shot

Switchcraft

I don't understand the question. If he's not saying that about particulates, why are you asking if I would believe him is he was?

Lucky Shot

I think it's way too simple to blame global warming on CO2 emissions on factories especially as the earth has been through massive warming in the past well before factories. England for example once had a tropical climate and as quickly as it arrived, it was gone.

Here was my supporting evidence that there are many many many factors in climate change that we can't even hope to understand them all. All of these happen without human intervention.

http://www.tacticalgamer.com/419935-post8.html

Lucky Shot

Diceman

But the typical criticism of the seal hunt is that it is the pups that are being hunted. I haven't heard too many (evironmental or otherwise) voicing too much concern for the older seals. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that your notion is not the main problem insofar of what I've heard about the hunt.

I've heard some pro-hunting opinions that the seals are the ones depleting cod stocks, but I tend to think that's bunk. I have a hard time believing that even millions of harps can have the same impact as those fleets of commercial trawlers that haul up hundreds of thousands of tonnes in a season.

__________________

[drill][medic][conduct][tg-c1][tpf-c1]
[ma-c2][taw-c1]

Overlag

oh, and that information about the sun warming is also very true.... afterall global warming is happening on MARS as well... i think it reaches around +3-5c every day in the southern summer.... it never used to reach higher than -10c....

but then maybe that was our sensors being funny/crap back in the old days and the new ones (spirit at ground level) are better at detecting temperature?

__________________
From Adam Webb

Lucky Shot

I would tend to look at the trawlers as well, but it's no stretch for me to envision that young seals are also slow, and weak. I still hold true that Polar Bears wouldn't have to look as hard if we weren't cleaning out their food. It's not just because of less of an ice pack.

Lucky Shot

Diceman

Maybe. Only the shadow knows....

__________________

[drill][medic][conduct][tg-c1][tpf-c1]
[ma-c2][taw-c1]

AMosely

It's a hypothetical question designed to bring about logical equivalents (namely, CO2 emissions and particulate emissions and how they effect the climate). Let me rephrase it, because I'm curious about how some folks would respond.

30 years ago, some people claimed that particulate emissions did not effect the earth's climate - that they only hung around until the wind picked up.

Today, some people claim (including Bush) that CO2 emissions are not directly impacting global climate change.

Looking at the data concerning particulate emissions (see references on global dimming and/or global brightening), it is now a fact that particulate emissions do have a direct effect on global climate - they change the chemical formation of clouds and cause them to be more reflective, hence 'dimming' the sun. The drawdown in particulate emissions in many areas (such as the US) the last 10 years has had the opposite effect - 'brightening' the sun.

So here is the hypothetical question:
If there was no data on particulate emissions and how they effect the climate, would you believe the White House if it was telling you that they had no significant effect on the earth's climate?


Regardless of you answer, I highly recommend watching this hour long documentary summarizing these trends. As an added bonus, you get to see some of James Hansen's 50-year climate models graphically illustrated on the globe. No more Florida.

leejo

Let me ask another hypothetical question:

Given that there remains a lot of disagrement in the scientific community regarding the cause, scope, timing, and severity of global warming, why should implementing sweeping energy consumption and emissions reforms be a greater priority than bringing impoverished people around the world into the industrial age?

We know for a fact that growing the world's economy will benefit these people because we have experience to rely upon. The demand for limiting this growth is based on models and unproven predictions with which there remains disagreement. How many millions of children should live in poverty based on these hunches?