Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: The True Adonis on January 20, 2010, 07:53:43 AM
-
-
Cant bother watching.This entire theory has been proven a lie.The temperature numbers have been manipulated.These scientists sold their soul to a political agenda.None of it can be trusted from the so called "hockey stick" temp graffe to any of it.ALL LIES FROM START TO END!
-
Cant bother watching.This entire theory has been proven a lie.The temperature numbers have been manipulated.These scientists sold their soul to a political agenda.None of it can be trusted from the so called "hockey stick" temp graffe to any of it.ALL LIES FROM START TO END!
Wrong.
-
NASA Caught in Climate Data Manipulation; New Revelations Headlined on KUSI-TV Climate Special
WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Climate researchers have discovered that NASA researchers improperly manipulated data in order to claim 2005 as "THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD.” KUSI-TV meteorologist, Weather Channel founder, and iconic weatherman John Coleman will present these findings in a one-hour special airing on KUSI-TV on Jan.14 at 9 p.m. A related report will be made available on the Internet at 6 p.m. EST on January 14th at www.kusi.com.
In a new report, computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo discovered extensive manipulation of the temperature data by the U.S. Government's two primary climate centers: the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) in Ashville, North Carolina and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at Columbia University in New York City. Smith and D’Aleo accuse these centers of manipulating temperature data to give the appearance of warmer temperatures than actually occurred by trimming the number and location of weather observation stations. The report is available online at http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf.
The report reveals that there were no actual temperatures left in the computer database when NASA/NCDC proclaimed 2005 as "THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD.” The NCDC deleted actual temperatures at thousands of locations throughout the world as it changed to a system of global grid points, each of which is determined by averaging the temperatures of two or more adjacent weather observation stations. So the NCDC grid map contains only averaged, not real temperatures, giving rise to significant doubt that the result is a valid representation of Earth temperatures.
The number of actual weather observation points used as a starting point for world average temperatures was reduced from about 6,000 in the 1970s to about 1,000 now. “That leaves much of the world unaccounted for,” says D'Aleo.
The NCDC data are regularly used by the National Weather Service to declare a given month or year as setting a record for warmth. Such pronouncements are typically made in support of the global warming alarmism agenda. Researchers who support the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) also regularly use the NASA/NCDC data, including researchers associated with the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia that is now at the center of the “Climategate” controversy.
This problem is only the tip of the iceberg with NCDC data. “For one thing, it is clear that comparing data from previous years, when the final figure was produced by averaging a large number of temperatures, with those of later years, produced from a small temperature base and the grid method, is like comparing apples and oranges,” says Smith. “When the differences between the warmest year in history and the tenth warmest year is less than three quarters of a degree, it becomes silly to rely on such comparisons,” added D’Aleo who asserts that the data manipulation is “scientific travesty” that was committed by activist scientists to advance the global warming agenda.
Smith and D'Aleo are both interviewed as part of a report on this study on the television special, "Global Warming: The Other Side" seen at 9 PM on January 14th on KUSI-TV, channel 9/51, San Diego, California. That program can now be viewed via computer at the website http://www.KUSI.com. The detailed report is available at http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf.
For more information, contact:
E. Michael Smith
E-mail: pub4all@aol.com
Blog: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
For Joseph D’Aleo
Telephone: 603-689-5646
E-mail: Jsdaleo6331@aol.com
Web: http://www.icecap.us/
For call KUSI TV
Telephone: 858-571-5151, ask for the News Director
E-mail: news@kusi.com
Web: http://kusi.com
-
Go outside and look up in the sky, there is a big yellow ball, it is called the Sun. Then go and take a look at high and low levels of solar activity over the years.
Hope this helps
-
Adam, you're an idiot..... (Hope this helps)
-
Adam, you're an idiot..... (Hope this helps)
Monckton’s deliberate manipulation
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulation/
Monckton’s deliberate manipulation
Filed under:
* Climate Science
* IPCC
* Instrumental Record
— gavin @ 2 May 2009
Our favorite contrarian, the potty peer Christopher Monckton has been indulging in a little aristocratic artifice again. Not one to be constrained by mere facts or observable reality, he has launched a sally against Andy Revkin for reporting the shocking news that past industry disinformation campaigns were not sincere explorations of the true uncertainties in climate science.
The letter he has written to the NY Times public editor, with its liberal sprinkling of his usual pomposity, has at its heart the following graph:
Among other issues, it is quite amusing that Monckton apparently thinks that;
* trends from January 2002 are relevant to a complaint about a story discussing a 1995 report,
* someone might be fooled by the cherry-picked January 2002 start date,
* no-one would notice that he has just made up the IPCC projection curves
The last is even more amusing because he was caught out making stuff up on a slightly different figure just a few weeks ago.
To see the extent of this chicanery, one needs only plot the actual IPCC projections against the observations. This can be done a number of ways, firstly, plotting the observational data and the models used by IPCC with a common baseline of 1980-1999 temperatures (as done in the 2007 report) (Note that the model output is for the annual mean, monthly variance would be larger):
These show clearly that 2002-2009 is way too short a period for the trends to be meaningful and that Monckton’s estimate of what the IPCC projects for the current period is woefully wrong. Not just wrong, fake.
Even if one assumes that the baseline should be the year 2002 making no allowance for internal variability (which makes no sense whatsoever), you would get the following graph:
- still nothing like Monckton showed. Instead, he appears to have derived his ‘projections’ by drawing a line from 2002 to a selection of real projections in 2100 and ignoring the fact that the actual projections accelerate as time goes on, and thus strongly over-estimating the projected changes that are expected now (see here).
Lest this be thought a mere aberration or a slip of his quill, it turns out he has previously faked the data on projections of CO2 as well. This graph is from a recent presentation of his, compared to the actual projections:
How can this be described except as fake?
Apart from this nonsense, is there anything to Monckton’s complaint about Revkin’s story? Sadly no. Once one cuts out the paranoid hints about dark conspiracies between “prejudiced campaigners”, Al Gore and the New York Times editors, the only point he appear to make is that this passage from the scientific advice somehow redeems the industry lobbyists who ignored it:
The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential for a human impact on climate is based on well-established scientific fact, and should not be denied. While, in theory, human activities have the potential to result in net cooling, a concern about 25 years ago, the current balance between greenhouse gas emissions and the emissions of particulates and particulate-formers is such that essentially all of today’s concern is about net warming. However, as will be discussed below, it is still not possible to accurately predict the magnitude (if any), timing or impact of climate change as a result of the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. Also, because of the complex, possibly chaotic, nature of the climate system, it may never be possible to accurately predict future climate or to estimate the impact of increased greenhouse gas concentrations.
This is a curious claim, since the passage is pretty much mainstream. For instance, in the IPCC Second Assessment Report (1995) (p528):
Complex systems often allow deterministic predictability of some characteristics … yet do not permit skilful forecasts of other phenomena …
or even more clearly in IPCC TAR (2001):
In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states….
Much more central to the point Revkin was making was the deletion of the sections dealing with how weak the standard contrarian arguments were – arguments that GCC publications continued to use for years afterward (and indeed arguments that Monckton is still using) (see this amendment to the original story).
Monckton’s ironic piece de resistance though is the fact that he entitled his letter “Deliberate Misrepresentation” – and this is possibly the only true statement in it.
-
For someone who claims to be so intelligent, you are very easily manipulated by the enviro-wacko's. But what ever, if you want to go and worship at the green church with pastor Al Gore more power to you, but don't expect me to do the same.
-
For someone who claims to be so intelligent, you are very easily manipulated by the enviro-wacko's. But what ever, if you want to go and worship at the green church with pastor Al Gore more power to you, but don't expect me to do the same.
I think it is safe to say that TA is no longer an opponent of organized religion. He now has adopted the religion of the green movement in every form and manner.
-
For someone who claims to be so intelligent, you are very easily manipulated by the enviro-wacko's. But what ever, if you want to go and worship at the green church with pastor Al Gore more power to you, but don't expect me to do the same.
Wrong.
I go wherever the Scientific Evidence,Conclusion and overwhelming consensus of empirical peer reviewed evidence goes.
Sorry, but being a denier is Anti-Science and Anti-Fact akin to faith based Creationist babble.
You can THINK all you want, but believing against or in spite of all Scientific evidence is faith based lunacy and is truly wacko.
-
Wrong.
I go wherever the Scientific Evidence,Conclusion and overwhelming consensus of empirical peer reviewed evidence goes.
Sorry, but being a denier is Anti-Science and Anti-Fact akin to faith based Creationist babble.
You can THINK all you want, but believing against or in spite of all Scientific evidence is faith based lunacy and is truly wacko.
Ha ha. TA - did you know Santa Claus is fake?
-
I think it is safe to say that TA is no longer an opponent of organized religion. He now has adopted the religion of the green movement in every form and manner.
Science is not faith based. Science is evidence based.
-
Wrong.
I go wherever the Scientific Evidence,Conclusion and overwhelming consensus of empirical peer reviewed evidence goes.
Sorry, but being a denier is Anti-Science and Anti-Fact akin to faith based Creationist babble.
You can THINK all you want, but believing against or in spite of all Scientific evidence is faith based lunacy and is truly wacko.
wHEN THE "EVIDENCE" has been manipulated from day one,and then thrown away,how could ANYONE believe a dam thing these political hacks that call themselves scientists believe a word of it.A proven lie=man made global warming.,
-
wHEN THE "EVIDENCE" has been manipulated from day one,and then thrown away,how could ANYONE believe a dam thing these political hacks that call themselves scientists believe a word of it.A proven lie=man made global warming.,
Sorry, Data is Data and is impossible to manipulate.
That would be akin to saying the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is simply a manipulated ploy to explain entropy.
-
Sorry, Data is Data and is impossible to manipulate.
That would be akin to saying the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is simply a manipulated ploy to explain entropy.
TA - you are sounding more like a religious fundy every day with these posts.
-
3333 and Billy....
Both of yous have proven yourselves to think of a conclusion (or let fox news or sarah palin think of it and then work backwards from there throwing in factors. Global warming is and has been real.
-
Wrong.
I go wherever the Scientific Evidence,Conclusion and overwhelming consensus of empirical peer reviewed evidence goes.
Sorry, but being a denier is Anti-Science and Anti-Fact akin to faith based Creationist babble.
You can THINK all you want, but believing against or in spite of all Scientific evidence is faith based lunacy and is truly wacko.
Yes becuase none of the data has been manipulated ::), Al Whore's movie was all truth ::). Peer reviewed, it has already been showed how it was peer reviewed.
More bullshit, fake science provided by con men, follow the money dumbass, find who stands to prosper the most. Got news for you Al Gore has a shit load of venture capital invested in "green" and if things don't break his way he stands to be financially wiped the fuck out.
Yes I can THINK, I guess that's what seperates me from you, I have my own opinions and do my own research and do no depend on some asshat on the grant gravy train to think for me.
-
3333 and Billy....
Both of yous have proven yourselves to think of a conclusion (or let fox news or sarah palin think of it and then work backwards from there throwing in factors. Global warming is and has been real.
Where is the evidence of it Mal? Where is the unbiased evidenced that has not been manipulated that anyone can duplicate, replicate, and prove without any shadow of a doubt?
-
TA - you are sounding more like a religious fundy every day with these posts.
Religion is based on faith which is the belief of something without evidence or in spite of the evidence.
Science is the opposite. Global Warming denials are faith based and contrary to scientific evidence and to not stand up to the scientific method at all.
I really wish Global Warming was not occurring and that mitigating it would be simpler.
If you REALLY want to get to the heart of the problem, it is human overpopulation. I for one support population control. China already does this via incentives for having no children or just a single child. There are too many worthless humans on our planet and as sea levels rise and erode the land, more humans will move inland and create a strain on resources like no other.
-
3333 and Billy....
Both of yous have proven yourselves to think of a conclusion (or let fox news or sarah palin think of it and then work backwards from there throwing in factors. Global warming is and has been real.
Because Keith Olbermann and Al Gore say so?The evidense has been manipulated!!!Its all lies to rape America of its money.Period!!!!!!!These scientists are political hacks manipulating facts to further their agaenda.Believe it if you want but know this after last night.CAP AND TRADE IS FUCKING DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Great Post Adonis. 333 Averaging of temperatures is pretty normal and not a scandal you are trying to make it seem.
-
Man Billy, 333, etc need to turn off the propaganda and turn on the facts. Both sides in this debate show a complete and utter faith in 'news' agency's to report their information on this issue. The video of mockton and the girl proves that the pro warming debaters need to educate themselves and not just believe everything that is told to them. Same with Billy and 333. You post continuous propaganda based articles and always reference Al Gore as if he tells the world of climate science what to do. This has been around long before Gore's movie or talks and to be honest i don't like Gore. I don't watch his movies or listen to him speak on this issue and i probably never will, because unlike a lot of you, i prefer to read articles published by scientists not fox news or msnbc who BOTH have a vested financial interest in the war for the public's minds.
-
Man Billy, 333, etc need to turn off the propaganda and turn on the facts. Both sides in this debate show a complete and utter faith in 'news' agency's to report their information on this issue. The video of mockton and the girl proves that the pro warming debaters need to educate themselves and not just believe everything that is told to them. Same with Billy and 333. You post continuous propaganda based articles and always reference Al Gore as if he tells the world of climate science what to do. This has been around long before Gore's movie or talks and to be honest i don't like Gore. I don't watch his movies or listen to him speak on this issue and i probably never will, because unlike a lot of you, i prefer to read articles published by scientists not fox news or msnbc who BOTH have a vested financial interest in the war for the public's minds.
KC - where is the unbiased, raw data proving man-made global warming that can be duplicated, replicated, and authenticated by anyone, anywhere, at any time?
-
Good post TA.
Arguing scientific facts with Palin supporters is fruitless.
-
KC - where is the unbiased, raw data proving man-made global warming that can be duplicated, replicated, and authenticated by anyone, anywhere, at any time?
Any Peer Reviewed Scientific Journal. Take your pick.
-
Any Peer Reviewed Scientific Journal. Take your pick.
Just YESTERDAY the global warming kooks had to admit yet another lie ,saying the glaciers in the Himalayans were going to melt by 2035.They had to admit it was a lie and then were perplexed how that ended up in another of their kook reports.Everyday its a new lie.
-
Any Peer Reviewed Scientific Journal. Take your pick.
Hysterical TA - would you allow me to peer review Billy's posts?
-
Just YESTERDAY the global warming kooks had to admit yet another lie ,saying the glaciers in the Himalayans were going to melt by 2035.They had to admit it was a lie and then were perplexed how that ended up in another of their kook reports.Everyday its a new lie.
Billy they weren't lying when they proposed that could happen. The glaciers are receding all over the world. They make predictions and then revise them with time it's not lying at all, i can guarantee that no scientist worth anything would 'guarantee' the glaciers would be gone by 2035. They will make predictions based on what may happen but revising the date to further in the future is hardly a case against global warming. Seriously Billy i urge you to do some traveling and speak to locals in places where glaciers were once dominant features of the landscape and have now become little more than a glimmer of blue in the distance.
BTW the consequences of the himalayan glaciers melting at a fast rate will be felt world wide. India and Pakistan rely on that for their crops, the river goes through india then into pakistan and back into india, the water into pakistan is basically 'loaned' by india when the river starts producing less and less water do you really think they will keep it flowing through pakistan or do you think they will divert it to avoid major crop failures and droughts in their own country? Then ask yourself what would a nuclear nation like Pakistan do to protect it's peoples crop and food supply? War Billy, between two countries that have nuclear weapons and massive armies.
-
Billy they weren't lying when they proposed that could happen. The glaciers are receding all over the world. They make predictions and then revise them with time it's not lying at all, i can guarantee that no scientist worth anything would 'guarantee' the glaciers would be gone by 2035. They will make predictions based on what may happen but revising the date to further in the future is hardly a case against global warming. Seriously Billy i urge you to do some traveling and speak to locals in places where glaciers were once dominant features of the landscape and have now become little more than a glimmer of blue in the distance.
BTW the consequences of the himalayan glaciers melting at a fast rate will be felt world wide. India and Pakistan rely on that for their crops, the river goes through india then into pakistan and back into india, the water into pakistan is basically 'loaned' by india when the river starts producing less and less water do you really think they will keep it flowing through pakistan or do you think they will divert it to avoid major crop failures and droughts in their own country? Then ask yourself what would a nuclear nation like Pakistan do to protect it's peoples crop and food supply? War Billy, between two countries that have nuclear weapons and massive armies.
These same people state Polar Bears are going extinct,a lie.Sorry,I dont take ANYTHING they say seriously.They are nut jobs.Each and every week another lie is exposed.By the way,even if the earth was in dire straights what could man do about it?Just recently they found an average pet dog expells more carbon then a small car driving 25,000 miles in a year does.
Cap and trade would reduce the "warming" by something like .000003 degrees.Cap and trade is designed for one thing.To utterly destroy the American economy and to steal as much wealth from this country to redistribute it to the rest of the crappy world.
-
These same people state Polar Bears are going extinct,a lie.Sorry,I dont take ANYTHING they say seriously.They are nut jobs.Each and every week another lie is exposed.By the way,even if the earth was in dire straights what could man do about it?Just recently they found an average pet dog expells more carbon then a small car driving 25,000 miles in a year does.
Cap and trade would reduce the "warming" by something like .000003 degrees.Cap and trade is designed for one thing.To utterly destroy the American economy and to steal as much wealth from this country to redistribute it to the rest of the crappy world.
Cap & Trade is a hoax and madoff scheme.
-
These same people state Polar Bears are going extinct,a lie.Sorry,I dont take ANYTHING they say seriously.They are nut jobs.Each and every week another lie is exposed.By the way,even if the earth was in dire straights what could man do about it?Just recently they found an average pet dog expells more carbon then a small car driving 25,000 miles in a year does.
Cap and trade would reduce the "warming" by something like .000003 degrees.Cap and trade is designed for one thing.To utterly destroy the American economy and to steal as much wealth from this country to redistribute it to the rest of the crappy world.
Polar bears are declining in numbers. go up to Hudson Bay and talk to the first nations of that area or better yet just google it Billy.
The effects of global warming are most profound in the southern part of the polar bear's range, and this is indeed where significant degradation of local populations has been observed.[112] The Western Hudson Bay subpopulation, in a southern part of the range, also happens to be one of the best-studied polar bear subpopulations. This subpopulation feeds heavily on ringed seals in late spring, when newly weaned and easily hunted seal pups are abundant.[104] The late spring hunting season ends for polar bears when the ice begins to melt and break up, and they fast or eat little during the summer until the sea freezes again.[104]
Due to warming air temperatures, ice-floe breakup in western Hudson Bay is currently occurring three weeks earlier than it did 30 years ago, reducing the duration of the polar bear feeding season.[104] The body condition of polar bears has declined during this period; the average weight of lone (and likely pregnant) female polar bears was approximately 290 kg (640 lb) in 1980 and 230 kg (510 lb) in 2004.[104] Between 1987 and 2004, the Western Hudson Bay population declined by 22%
-
Polar bears are declining in numbers. go up to Hudson Bay and talk to the first nations of that area or better yet just google it Billy.
The effects of global warming are most profound in the southern part of the polar bear's range, and this is indeed where significant degradation of local populations has been observed.[112] The Western Hudson Bay subpopulation, in a southern part of the range, also happens to be one of the best-studied polar bear subpopulations. This subpopulation feeds heavily on ringed seals in late spring, when newly weaned and easily hunted seal pups are abundant.[104] The late spring hunting season ends for polar bears when the ice begins to melt and break up, and they fast or eat little during the summer until the sea freezes again.[104]
Due to warming air temperatures, ice-floe breakup in western Hudson Bay is currently occurring three weeks earlier than it did 30 years ago, reducing the duration of the polar bear feeding season.[104] The body condition of polar bears has declined during this period; the average weight of lone (and likely pregnant) female polar bears was approximately 290 kg (640 lb) in 1980 and 230 kg (510 lb) in 2004.[104] Between 1987 and 2004, the Western Hudson Bay population declined by 22%
The Polar bear population is INCREASING over the last few years.This is utter nonsense!Another Al Gore lie,and he was called out on it.Please stop falling for manipulated numbers.The Polar bear population is INCREASING.
No. 551
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
by H. Sterling Burnett
Recently, some scientists have claimed that human-caused global warming poses a significant threat to the survival of many species. For most species at risk, they argue, warming will cause the range of suitable habitat to shift faster than either the species (or their food sources) can move or adapt to a new range. For other species, they say, suitable habitat will cease to exist altogether. Among the species claimed to be at high risk of extinction from human-caused global warming is the charismatic polar bear.
Indeed, in February 2005 the Center for Biological Diversity filed a petition with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to list the polar bear as endangered or threatened. The petition was later joined by the Natural Resources Defense Council and Greenpeace. In response, the USFWS initiated a formal status review to determine if the polar bear should be protected throughout its range.
A new NCPA study by Dr. David Legates, director of the University of Delaware's Center for Climatic Research and state climatologist, examines the claim that global warming threatens to cause polar bear extinction and finds little basis for fear. By and large, the study finds that polar bear populations are in good shape.
Is the Arctic Warming? In the study, Climate Science: Climate Change and Its Impacts , Legates reviewed the claims that global warming is causing an unnatural increase in Arctic temperatures, posing a threat to the thickness and extent of sea ice and thus to the polar bears who rely upon it. In particular, he examined assertions made in the 2004 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (hereafter, the Arctic Assessment ), an international project of the Arctic Council and the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC).
Legates finds that their claims of an impending, human-induced Arctic meltdown are not supported by the evidence. For example, the Arctic Assessment proclaimed that Arctic air temperature trends provide an early and strong indication that global warming is causing polar ice caps and glaciers to melt. However, current research suggests that coastal stations in Greenland are instead experiencing a cooling trend, and average summer air temperatures at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet have decreased at the rate of 4°F per decade since measurements began in 1987.
In addition, the Arctic Assessment ignored a relatively recent long-term analysis of records from coastal stations in Russia. Russian coastal-station records of both the extent of sea ice and the thickness of fast ice (ice fixed to the shoreline or seafloor) extending back 125 years show significant variability over 60- to 80-year periods. Moreover, the maximum air temperature reported for the 20th century was in 1938, when it was nearly 0.4°F warmer than in 2000. The Russian study concludes that actual temperature measurements do not show the increased warming predicted by computer climate models.
However, even if warming is occurring, it has happened before, as ice cores from Baffin Island and sea core sediments from the Chukchi Sea show. For example, in Alaska, the onset of a warming in 1976-1977 ended the multi-decade cold trend in the mid-20th century and simply returned temperatures to those experienced in the early 20th century. Sharp, substantial fluctuations are typical of the historic pattern of natural climate variability extending back several centuries. And, as expected in response to natural variability, Alaskan ecosystems have responded rapidly and visibly to this recent warmth. By contrast, if the recent warmth were human-induced by constant additions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, responses in the Arctic region would be expected to be gradual and modest when viewed within any short time period.
Is Warming Causing Sea Ice to Melt? According to the Arctic Assessment , human-caused warming in the Arctic will necessarily lead to decreased sea ice thickness and extent. However, air temperature is only one factor that influences sea ice; the frequency and velocity of the wind also has an effect. When the Arctic is relatively calm, it is easier for sea ice to develop. During stormy periods, surface winds churn the water and move existing ice, making it more difficult for sea ice to form.
A study commissioned by Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans examined the relationship between air temperature and sea ice and concluded, "the possible impact of global warming appears to play a minor role in changes to Arctic sea ice." Rather, the Canadian study found that changing wind patterns are the primary cause of changing sea ice distributions. Moreover, while sea ice has decreased in the Arctic, it has remained relatively constant (or even increased slightly) in the Antarctic since 1978.
Is Global Warming Killing Polar Bears? The Arctic Assessment concludes, "global warming could cause polar bears to go extinct by the end of the century by eroding the sea ice that sustains them." According to the assessment, the threat to polar bears is threefold: changes in rainfall or snowfall amounts or patterns could affect the ability of seals, the bears' primary prey, to successfully reproduce and raise their pups; decreased sea ice could result in a greater number of polar bears drowning or living more on land, negatively affecting their diet (forcing them to rely on their fat stores prior to hibernation); and unusual warm spells could cause the collapse of winter dens or force more bears into less-desirable denning areas.
Though polar bears are uniquely adapted to the Arctic region, they are not wedded solely to its coldest parts nor are they restricted to a specific Arctic diet. Aside from a variety of seals, they eat fish, kelp, caribou, ducks, sea birds and scavenged whale and walrus carcasses. In addition, as discussed above, Arctic air temperatures were as high as present temperatures in the 1930s and polar bears survived.
Interestingly, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), an international organization that has worked for 50 years to protect endangered species, has also written on the threats posed to polar bears from global warming. However, their own research seems to undermine their fears. According to the WWF, about 20 distinct polar bear populations exist, accounting for approximately 22,000 polar bears worldwide. As the figure shows, population patterns do not show a temperature-linked decline:
Only two of the distinct population groups, accounting for about 16.4 percent of the total population, are decreasing.
Ten populations, approximately 45.4 percent of the total number, are stable.
Another two populations - about 13.6 percent of the total number of polar bears - are increasing.
The status of the remaining six populations (whether they are stable, increasing or decreasing in size) is unknown.
Moreover, when the WWF report is compared with the Arctic air temperature trend studies discussed earlier, there is a strong positive (instead of negative) correlation between air temperature and polar bear populations. Polar bear populations are declining in regions (like Baffin Bay) that have experienced a decrease in air temperature, while areas where polar bear populations are increasing (near the Bering Strait and the Chukchi Sea) are associated with increasing air temperatures. Thus it is difficult to argue that rising air temperatures will necessarily and directly lead to a decrease in polar bear populations.
Conclusion. Are human activities causing a warming in the Arctic, affecting the sea ice extent, longevity and thickness? Contradictory data exists. What seems clear is that polar bears have survived for thousands of years, including both colder and warmer periods. There may be threats to the future survival of the polar bear, but global warming is not primary among them.
H. Sterling Burnett is a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis.
Back to: Brief Analyses | Environment | Global Warming
-
did you read the study? there is a larger percentage decreasing than increasing and this is an old study. Like i said go up to hudson bay speak to someone with local knowledge and you'll understand the impact this is having.
-
Sorry, Data is Data and is impossible to manipulate.
That would be akin to saying the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is simply a manipulated ploy to explain entropy.
LOL
I dont really care one way or the other on global warming but I wanted to point out the idiocy that is TA and help send him back to the G&O...
Data can indeed be manipulated many different ways and it can also be interpreted in many different ways as well.
-
I see TA posted a thread for another brutal owning..LOL!
-
But but but but...cut and paste...paste and cut...but but but but...utube video utube video...but but but.....paste paste paste...give up TA it was alllllllllllllllllllllll bullshit to make money. This has zero to do with Palin or Bush...or anything, they fucking lied. This has nothing to do with organized religion...they fucking lied. End it....separate ur garbage, conserve, recycle...do ur part but stop the bullshit.
-
did you read the study? there is a larger percentage decreasing than increasing and this is an old study. Like i said go up to hudson bay speak to someone with local knowledge and you'll understand the impact this is having.
YES!!The study CLEARLY states global warming has NOTHING to do with the polar bear polpullation at all.
-
YES!!The study CLEARLY states global warming has NOTHING to do with the polar bear polpullation at all.
Billy - check out my article about Obama and suburbia. This entire "issue" is nothing more than a smokescreen for more marxism, more regulation, more control, etc.
The climate has changed daily since the earth was formed billions of years ago and these fools want me to get hyped up about an insignificant fluctuation that is barely a blip on the radar screen.
-
did you read the study? there is a larger percentage decreasing than increasing and this is an old study. Like i said go up to hudson bay speak to someone with local knowledge and you'll understand the impact this is having.
Ok. How about something from June of 2009:
Polar Bear Testimony Suppressed Due to 'Inconvenient' Truths
By P.J. Gladnick (Bio | Archive)
Sun, 06/28/2009 - 14:05 ET
As the U.S. Senate now prepares to consider the cap-and-trade climate bill recently passed by the House, they will want to consider all the facts related to this landmark spending program. So far we have learned that the Environmental Protection Agency has suppressed an internal report skeptical about the wild global warming claims and now, from across the pond, we find out that a polar bear expert has been forbidden by global warming alarmists from reporting that most of those animals have actually been increasing in population during the past few years or are at optimum levels.
Although you won't find this story anywhere in the American media, Christopher Booker of the UK Telegraph has delivered an excellent report on this inconvenient truth suppression:
Over the coming days a curiously revealing event will be taking place in Copenhagen. Top of the agenda at a meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group (set up under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature/Species Survival Commission) will be the need to produce a suitably scary report on how polar bears are being threatened with extinction by man-made global warming.
This is one of a steady drizzle of events planned to stoke up alarm in the run-up to the UN's major conference on climate change in Copenhagen next December. But one of the world's leading experts on polar bears has been told to stay away from this week's meeting, specifically because his views on global warming do not accord with those of the rest of the group.
Suppressed EPA report, meet suppressed polar bear report. You both represent inconvenient truths.
Dr Mitchell Taylor has been researching the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006 he has made headlines by insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined.
No! No! This wasn't what we wanted to hear. It just does not fit in with our preconceived notions.
He has also observed, however, how the melting of Arctic ice, supposedly threatening the survival of the bears, has rocketed to the top of the warmists' agenda as their most iconic single cause. The famous photograph of two bears standing forlornly on a melting iceberg was produced thousands of times by Al Gore, the WWF and others as an emblem of how the bears faced extinction – until last year the photographer, Amanda Byrd, revealed that the bears, just off the Alaska coast, were in no danger. Her picture had nothing to do with global warming and was only taken because the wind-sculpted ice they were standing on made such a striking image.
Correct, and NewsBusters' Noel Sheppard also reported on this "stranded polar bear" hoax two years ago.
Dr Taylor had obtained funding to attend this week's meeting of the PBSG, but this was voted down by its members because of his views on global warming. The chairman, Dr Andy Derocher, a former university pupil of Dr Taylor's, frankly explained in an email (which I was not sent by Dr Taylor) that his rejection had nothing to do with his undoubted expertise on polar bears: "it was the position you've taken on global warming that brought opposition".
Dr Taylor was told that his views running "counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful". His signing of the Manhattan Declaration – a statement by 500 scientists that the causes of climate change are not CO2 but natural, such as changes in the radiation of the sun and ocean currents – was "inconsistent with the position taken by the PBSG".
An inconvenient truth because it is inconsistent with preconceived global warming alarmist notions.
So, as the great Copenhagen bandwagon rolls on, stand by this week for reports along the lines of "scientists say polar bears are threatened with extinction by vanishing Arctic ice". But also check out Anthony Watt's Watts Up With That website for the latest news of what is actually happening in the Arctic. The average temperature at midsummer is still below zero, the latest date that this has happened in 50 years of record-keeping. After last year's recovery from its September 2007 low, this year's ice melt is likely to be substantially less than for some time. The bears are doing fine.
Your humble correspondent has checked out Watts Up With That? and has found it to be an excellent resource for the truth about the inconvenient facts on the global warming hoax that is ignored by most of the American media. And one such inconvenient fact is that the overall polar bear population is growing, not declining.
-
I have no respect for Science Deniers.
-
I have no respect for Science Deniers.
Bro - you are the exact caricature of the Fundies you laugh at on this issue.
-
Bro - you are the exact caricature of the Fundies you laugh at on this issue.
You are trying to argue something that can`t be argued like the Law of Gravity or Evolution. Global Warming is an undeniable fact. Am I glad it is a fact? No. I wish it were not happening as I realize the difficulty ahead and the danger it poses.
I also realize how dumb people are and how they don`t understand the most basic Science. This surely does not help any technological or knowledge advancement in the future and the collective nation will just get even dumber as a result. They will look to politicians or whoever for answers rather than relying on cold, hard, data and Science.
-
You are trying to argue something that can`t be argued like the Law of Gravity or Evolution. Global Warming is an undeniable fact. Am I glad it is a fact? No. I wish it were not happening as I realize the difficulty ahead and the danger it poses.
I also realize how dumb people are and how they don`t understand the most basic Science. This surely does not help any technological or knowledge advancement in the future and the collective nation will just get even dumber as a result. They will look to politicians or whoever for answers rather than relying on cold, hard, data and Science.
Well there are thousands of scientists who say its a lie.Those are the scientists that wont make any money by perpatrating the fraud.I think I will take their word on it before I believe a guy that stands to make money if this lie is believed.
-
You are trying to argue something that can`t be argued like the Law of Gravity or Evolution. Global Warming is an undeniable fact. Am I glad it is a fact? No. I wish it were not happening as I realize the difficulty ahead and the danger it poses.
I also realize how dumb people are and how they don`t understand the most basic Science. This surely does not help any technological or knowledge advancement in the future and the collective nation will just get even dumber as a result. They will look to politicians or whoever for answers rather than relying on cold, hard, data and Science.
Which is where TA?
-
I have no respect for Science Deniers.
I have no respect for idiots that refuse to accept the fact that the "data" was manipulated from the very beginning.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a-different-story-than-the-official-one/
-
I have no respect for idiots that refuse to accept the fact that the "data" was manipulated from the very beginning.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a-different-story-than-the-official-one/
Warming over New Zealand through the past century is unequivocal.
NIWA’s analysis of measured temperatures uses internationally accepted techniques, including making adjustments for changes such as movement of measurement sites. For example, in Wellington, early temperature measurements were made near sea level, but in 1928 the measurement site was moved from Thorndon (3 metres above sea level) to Kelburn (125 m above sea level). The Kelburn site is on average 0.8°C cooler than Thorndon, because of the extra height above sea level.
-
Warming over New Zealand through the past century is unequivocal.
NIWA’s analysis of measured temperatures uses internationally accepted techniques, including making adjustments for changes such as movement of measurement sites. For example, in Wellington, early temperature measurements were made near sea level, but in 1928 the measurement site was moved from Thorndon (3 metres above sea level) to Kelburn (125 m above sea level). The Kelburn site is on average 0.8°C cooler than Thorndon, because of the extra height above sea level.
hahahaha!!!
That is their reason. Which did not make any sense to any other scientist since sea level SHOULD NOT have account for any adjustment to the raw data.
Forget it. You are a lost cause. The raw data was manipulated. Period. Any result stemming from that data is FLAWED.
-
hahahaha!!!
That is their reason. Which did not make any sense to any other scientist since sea level SHOULD NOT have account for any adjustment to the raw data.
Forget it. You are a lost cause. The raw data was manipulated. Period. Any result stemming from that data is FLAWED.
I don`t think you understand the basics. Global Warming does not mean summer and no more winters ever again.
-
I don`t think you understand the basics. Global Warming does not mean summer and no more winters ever again.
Oh course, TA, the economist, climate scientist, philosopher, chef, engineer, chemist, and expert on all of the hard sciences can explain all of this to us. ::) ::) ::)
-
Oh course, TA, the economist, climate scientist, philosopher, chef, engineer, chemist, and expert on all of the hard sciences can explain all of this to us. ::) ::) ::)
The best I can do is help you understand. To truly KNOW the material would take an active commitment of learning and time which so few people have which is why large and even small scientific and non-scientific issues are poorly understood.
The typical 9-5 schmuck would rather watch American Idol than learn about the Cosmos.
-
I don`t think you understand the basics. Global Warming does not mean summer and no more winters ever again.
Adonis, I know what Global Warming means.
What you don't understand is that the reason used by NIWA does not in anyway support their initial conclusion that New Zealand is in a warming trend. Their "adjustment" may have completely skewed the result. And other scientists are suspicious because:
"Wratt is refusing to release data his organisation claims to have justifying adjustments on other weather stations, meaning the science cannot be reviewed. However, he has released information relating to Wellington temperature readings, and they make for interesting reading.
Here’s the rub. Up until 1927, temperatures for Wellington had been taken at Thorndon, only 3 m above sea level and an inner-city suburb. That station closed and, as I suspected in my earlier post, there is no overlap data allowing a comparison between Thorndon and Kelburn, where the gauge moved, at an altitude of 135 metres.
With no overlap of continuous temperature readings from both sites, there is no way to truly know how temperatures should be properly adjusted to compensate for the location shift."
Also:
Wratt told Investigate earlier there was international agreement on how to make temperature adjustments, and in the news release tonight he elaborates on that:
“Thus, if one measurement station is closed (or data missing for a period), it is acceptable to replace it with another nearby site provided an adjustment is made to the average temperature difference between the sites.”
Except, except, it all hinges on the quality of the reasoning that goes into making that adjustment. If it were me, I would have slung up a temperature station in the disused location again and worked out over a year the average offset between Thorndon and Kelburn. It’s not perfect, after all we are talking about a switch in 1928, but it would be something. But NIWA didn’t do that.
Instead, as their news release records, they simply guessed that the readings taken at Wellington Airport would be similar to Thorndon, simply because both sites are only a few metres above sea level.
Airport records temps about 0.79C above Kelburn on average, so NIWA simply said to themselves, “that’ll do” and made the Airport/Kelburn offset the official offset for Thorndon/Kelburn as well, even though no comparison study of the latter scenario has ever been done.
-
Oh course, TA, the economist, climate scientist, philosopher, chef, engineer, chemist, and expert on all of the hard sciences can explain all of this to us. ::) ::) ::)
LOL. He is indeed a "renaissance man". ;D
-
Adonis, I know what Global Warming means.
What you don't understand is that the reason used by NIWA does not in anyway support their initial conclusion that New Zealand is in a warming trend. Their "adjustment" may have completely skewed the result. And other scientists are suspicious because:
"Wratt is refusing to release data his organisation claims to have justifying adjustments on other weather stations, meaning the science cannot be reviewed. However, he has released information relating to Wellington temperature readings, and they make for interesting reading.
Here’s the rub. Up until 1927, temperatures for Wellington had been taken at Thorndon, only 3 m above sea level and an inner-city suburb. That station closed and, as I suspected in my earlier post, there is no overlap data allowing a comparison between Thorndon and Kelburn, where the gauge moved, at an altitude of 135 metres.
With no overlap of continuous temperature readings from both sites, there is no way to truly know how temperatures should be properly adjusted to compensate for the location shift."
Also:
Wratt told Investigate earlier there was international agreement on how to make temperature adjustments, and in the news release tonight he elaborates on that:
“Thus, if one measurement station is closed (or data missing for a period), it is acceptable to replace it with another nearby site provided an adjustment is made to the average temperature difference between the sites.”
Except, except, it all hinges on the quality of the reasoning that goes into making that adjustment. If it were me, I would have slung up a temperature station in the disused location again and worked out over a year the average offset between Thorndon and Kelburn. It’s not perfect, after all we are talking about a switch in 1928, but it would be something. But NIWA didn’t do that.
Instead, as their news release records, they simply guessed that the readings taken at Wellington Airport would be similar to Thorndon, simply because both sites are only a few metres above sea level.
Airport records temps about 0.79C above Kelburn on average, so NIWA simply said to themselves, “that’ll do” and made the Airport/Kelburn offset the official offset for Thorndon/Kelburn as well, even though no comparison study of the latter scenario has ever been done.
What you just posted does not mean anything in terms of disproving anything.