Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 6841 - 6860 of total 26989 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
May 21, 2013 - 05:42pm PT
They more than likely evovled from lower brown bear forms and could easily do the reverse of needed.

Ron, what do you think the time scale is for evolution from a lower brown bear to a polar bear or vice versa? Hint, it is far greater than a few generations... which is about how long humans have been pumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, increasing the concentration by over 40%.
CO2 concentrations induced by natural factors (increased volcanism, orbital irregularities, etc) change over much MUCH longer time scales than a 40% increase in a few decades... MUCH longer.


Bears aren't the issue anyway. The UNPRECEDENTED rate of increasing CO2 from anthropogenic sources IS THE ISSUE. You have fully admitted that. The only question that remains is... do we ignore it and hope everything turns out just fine, or do we pull our heads out of our asses and start doing something about it despite Big Oil and the morans who lap up the bullshit they spew?
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
May 21, 2013 - 05:43pm PT
Nice googling and quick switch to another funnyman's graph, but in haste you must have forgotten to answer my question, again. I'll repeat:

Tell me more about this time, Ron. When was it that polar bears were surviving higher CO2 levels?
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
May 21, 2013 - 05:44pm PT
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/about-polar-bears/essentials/current-status
I will be your huckleberry,2 clicks.
So Ron polar bear pops are growing in Greenland,and in the Torngat mountains,in Labrador.
You certainly have disproved GW.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
May 21, 2013 - 05:45pm PT

Ron asked?

how did polar bears survive higher CO2 levels in the past?

I did not know that CO2 levels were higher at any time in history than now

so ok Ron, since you know all about this stuff....

WHEN were CO2 levels higher in the past, you know for them bears to survive and all?
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 21, 2013 - 05:47pm PT
Ive actually seen hybridization on somewhat of a large scale. They just now introduced a new bass species in ARK,, the "Choctaw Bass". Evolved rather quickly from hybrid activities. WHO knows how long it would take,, but ill bet those animals, being here for 600,000 years can figure it out regardless of what we do. they were a tool used by global warmers that has since backfired,, pretty much sums it up ...If it had been such an issue , other countries would have joined in the ban like Canada fer instance.
mountainlion

Trad climber
California
May 21, 2013 - 05:48pm PT
Here is a link to Ron's polar bear and grizzly or brown bear claims...note that it says polar bears and brown bears/grizzlies mating is due to shrinking sea ice and will cause problems with bio diversity...


http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/polar-bears-and-grizzlies-producing-hybrid-offspring-as-arctic-melts-a-859218.html
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
May 21, 2013 - 05:49pm PT
guess ill ask again,, how did the polar bear survive higher CO2 content?

You really do not have a clue, do you? Why do you think I asked you when it was, that polar bears survived higher CO2? I must have had some reason.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 21, 2013 - 05:58pm PT
ok You got me there not higher,but great fluctuations in CO2, but far greater iceless conditions especially considering they are far older than thought..600,000 yrs old on fact.




“Examination of several proxy records (e.g., sediment cores) of sea ice indicate ice-free or near ice-free summer conditions for at least some time during the period of 15,000 to 5,000 years ago”

Reader David Penny astutely noted the implication that Polar Bears must have already survived an ice free Arctic in the not too distant past. According to Wikipedia :

…the polar bear diverged from the brown bear, Ursus arctos, roughly 150,000 years ago

That must mean it is OK to take Polar Bears of the endangered species list. But the decision to put them on the list never had anything to do with science anyway.


The other implication of Dr. Meier’s statement is that a warmer, ice free Arctic occurred when CO2 levels were less than 290 ppm. This implies that there is no long term correlation between CO2 and Arctic temperatures.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
May 21, 2013 - 06:02pm PT
And while we're on polar bears, the poor critters suffer from very high contaminant levels (including heavy metals and pesticides) as a result of being such high-level predators in the Arctic. There has been a lot written about that, but I just came across a new study with notes on how climate change can worsen the contamination trouble.

Global change effects on the long-term feeding ecology and contaminant exposures of East Greenland polar bears
McKinney et al., Global Change Biology (2013)

Rapid climate changes are occurring in the Arctic, with substantial repercussions for arctic ecosystems. It is challenging to assess ecosystem changes in remote polar environments, but one successful approach has entailed monitoring the diets of upper trophic level consumers. Quantitative fatty acid signature analysis (QFASA) and fatty acid carbon isotope (δ13C-FA) patterns were used to assess diets of East Greenland (EG) polar bears (Ursus maritimus) (n = 310) over the past three decades. QFASA-generated diet estimates indicated that, on average, EG bears mainly consumed arctic ringed seals (47.5 ± 2.1%) and migratory subarctic harp (30.6 ± 1.5%) and hooded (16.7 ± 1.3%) seals and rarely, if ever, consumed bearded seals, narwhals or walruses. Ringed seal consumption declined by 14%/decade over 28 years (90.1 ± 2.5% in 1984 to 33.9 ± 11.1% in 2011). Hooded seal consumption increased by 9.5%/decade (0.0 ± 0.0% in 1984 to 25.9 ± 9.1% in 2011). This increase may include harp seal, since hooded and harp seal FA signatures were not as well differentiated relative to other prey species. Declining δ13C-FA ratios supported shifts from more nearshore/benthic/ice-associated prey to more offshore/pelagic/open-water-associated prey, consistent with diet estimates. Increased hooded seal and decreased ringed seal consumption occurred during years when the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) was lower. Thus, periods with warmer temperatures and less sea ice were associated with more subarctic and less arctic seal species consumption. These changes in the relative abundance, accessibility, or distribution of arctic and subarctic marine mammals may have health consequences for EG polar bears. For example, the diet change resulted in consistently slower temporal declines in adipose levels of legacy persistent organic pollutants, as the subarctic seals have higher contaminant burdens than arctic seals. Overall, considerable changes are occurring in the East Greenland marine ecosystem, with consequences for contaminant dynamics.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
May 21, 2013 - 06:05pm PT
The other implication of Dr. Meier’s statement is that a warmer, ice free Arctic occurred when CO2 levels were less than 290 ppm. This implies that there is no long term correlation between CO2 and Arctic temperatures.

You still don't have a clue. And yet you're so sure that you do!
mountainlion

Trad climber
California
May 21, 2013 - 06:07pm PT
Here are several links that illustrate/compare the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes and how it compares with CO2 emitted by humans each year:


http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm



http://news.discovery.com/earth/weather-extreme-events/volcanoes-co2-people-emissions-climate-110627.htm



http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf


YOUR WELCOME RONG!!!!













Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 21, 2013 - 06:07pm PT
key word towards the end of that study you mention,, MAY...Seeing as how the populations were known by guides, local Indians and biologists for a decade now not to be the devastated populations reported by "studies"that "may" is very fitting.


and Chiloe,,the facts i posted are just that. Polar bears have been here for 600,000 years, survived far different habitats even dryer and fluctuations of CO2 without one single mans help or interference on this planet. They thrive there now through all the crap thrown into the water at em yes indeed. Just like the brownies do right below em and the smaller cuz griz in the interiors. The last guy i talked with that had personal knowledge of polar bears and guiding for them ( half "skeemo") had seen more his last five years than ever and made a "simple mans" observation that it just took them less of a distance to migrate between feed spots. The feed spots changed but were always present just going with the flow. But "scientists" havent interviewed him.
dave729

Trad climber
Western America
May 21, 2013 - 06:12pm PT
norton - trying to show respect to you oldsters specially when age makes you susceptible to repeated senile outbursts.

The tiny temperature change they are trying to scare us with are ridiculous. As noted earlier air and water pollution is where the focus must be.

But note CO2 is not a pollutant.


mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
May 21, 2013 - 06:16pm PT
The other implication of Dr. Meier’s statement is that a warmer, ice free Arctic occurred when CO2 levels were less than 290 ppm. This implies that there is no long term correlation between CO2 and Arctic temperatures.

No, this implies CO2 concentrations did not cause that ice free period in the Arctic. Remember all those other potential causes of the current warming you were so eager to accept in lieu of the WAY more obvious CO2 mechanism... the ones that CANNOT POSSIBLY explain the current observations, but nicely explain past observations?

If the Arctic was ice free at 290 ppm CO2 and we KNOW CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas, what effect do you think a concentration of 400 ppm is likely to have?

You seriously need some logic bud.


Dave, CO2 is ABSOLUTELY A POLLUTANT.

A pollutant is a substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource.
mountainlion

Trad climber
California
May 21, 2013 - 06:17pm PT
I like your saying under your avatar Ron "trad climber soon to be a nipple sucking liberal"---have you seen the thread "chicks dig climbers"? I predict you won't have as much time to "play with your gun" once you have fully come over from the dark side (right wingnut land)...note most of those wingnut types have flipped out due to a lack of female affection (this condition affects right wingers more than the average man...and alot more than us liberal types)...it will give a hole new meaning to stuffing a bird's a$$
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 21, 2013 - 06:20pm PT
how can CO2 NOT be blamed for other periods of fluctuation but be blamed now then?



Credit: Ron Anderson
mountainlion

Trad climber
California
May 21, 2013 - 06:23pm PT
Ron have you not read the links regarding CO2 emissions I posted in the last 10 minutes??? Reading you know stringing letters together left to right!!

By the way is that cat real, stuffed, or ceramic???
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 21, 2013 - 06:25pm PT
mouintainlion,, youve proven at least a couple of times here on this forum in rather grand style and scale of what a BOOB you actually are. Youve been very quick to take on a persona of insult when you live in a glass house.
Now you come at me as if im starved for sex or something in some shytstain maneuver to insult, while nit adding a fuggin thing to the conversation.

Gee,, did ya call the EMBASSY for asylum back a few months ROFLMAO! really,, quit the crap. youve not the chops for me or anyone else around here.
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
May 21, 2013 - 06:25pm PT
For fuksake dude. Nobody has ever said CO2 is the ONLY thing that causes climate change. Remember when you threw out all those other possibilities, the ones the scientific community has DEFINITIVELY shot down as the potential cause of the current observations? Why are you so inclined to ignore them when it comes to past climate change?

Simple answer: 290 ppm vs 400 ppm, 400ppm is much higher than 290 ppm.

Please stop being such an idiot. I was just starting to think you were an okay guy again.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 21, 2013 - 06:30pm PT
since WHEN have you thought me to be an ok guy i call BEEE_ESS! LMAO!


hey,, im just presenting questions. So if those " unkown" factors that caused other ice free periods are unkown in exact figures or even vague figures, how does one factor those in to existing models?


But the WORRY about the polar bear is/was a tool of global warming climate orgs that turns out KNOTTs to be the case..(in honor of the fallen avatar);-)
Messages 6841 - 6860 of total 26989 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews