Slashdot Mirror

The climate models are by no means "closed-source". I ran the GFDL-FMS model (and my own variants on it) as a grad student. If you happen to have at least a quad-core processor (or better a cluster) sitting around I'm sure I could dig up the source code in my old files and ship it off to you. Granted, my version wasn't the most realistic model ever created, but it's illustrative. Or you could just go download it directly from NASA.

Repost of my AC post:

Lots of data at NCDC.

Simple interactive Java climate model JCM5.

3D general circulation model EdGCM (based on NASA GISS Model II, state of the art in 1983 and what James Hansen himself used in his famous 1988 testimony to Congress).

For more modern and advanced models ... they're not so easy for laymen to run themselves, but ...

There are a variety of Earth System Models of Intermediate Complexity (EMICs) which are not fully 3D models but represent a lot of physics and don't require a supercomputer. One such is UVic; there are many more (here).

You can even get full blown state of the art GCMs which run on supercomputers, like NASA GISS Model E or NCAR CCSM, but expect to run them for most of a year to get any kind of result ...

I've hit my 30 comment limit so I have to post anonymously, but:

Lots of data at NCDC.

Simple interactive Java climate model JCM5.

3D general circulation model EdGCM (based on NASA GISS Model II, state of the art in 1983 and what James Hansen himself used in his famous 1988 testimony to Congress).

For more modern and advanced models ... they're not so easy for laymen to run themselves, but ...

There are a variety of Earth System Models of Intermediate Complexity (EMICs) which are not fully 3D models but represent a lot of physics and don't require a supercomputer. One such is UVic; there are many more (here).

You can even get full blown state of the art GCMs which run on supercomputers, like NASA GISS Model E or NCAR CCSM, but expect to run them for most of a year to get any kind of result ...

How could someone like me, familiar with instrumentation, go out and gather data and submit it to the community for inclusion in reporting?

Ah, but that community DOES exist! Sign up at http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/coop/

And COOP observations are published at http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/ for free

NCDC generally doesn't charge for data, just publications. There is no "bandwidth" toll.

How could someone like me, familiar with instrumentation, go out and gather data and submit it to the community for inclusion in reporting?

Ah, but that community DOES exist! Sign up at http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/coop/

And COOP observations are published at http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/ for free

NCDC generally doesn't charge for data, just publications. There is no "bandwidth" toll.

Not to be elitist, but do you really think you could effectively review the data? I sure as hell couldn't. Which is not to say it should be kept secret, simply that it may not be that urgent to make the raw data hyper-available to every guy on the street. As long as interested scientists - regardless of their previous conclusions or political leanings - can get the raw data when they want to review it, I think the process should work fine.

Because so many people lack the highly specialized knowledge to make sense of the raw data, there are two types of information that are far more important to make widely available: 1) Education on how to be a climate scientist and 2) The conclusions that qualified climate scientists have reached.

For all I know, most of the models cited by the IPCC are TOP SECRET, but if you want actual data for studying climate change, most of the ice core data is here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/current.htm l
Tree ring data is also available, but conclusions draw from that are more questionable.

And produce a report like, say, the upcoming IPCC synthesis report? Where lots of analysts "took a gander"?

Or just the selection of NOAA climate data that's free? Or, did you want to look at, for example, sea ice data?

Reallly, people. There's boats of data out there. Sure, it may not be in a "trusted" place (btw, who exactly would the contrarians consider trusted here?).

Have at it.

If you watch or see Bob Pitman's presentation you will know there are none left. Sad but true. http://swfsc.noaa.gov/news.aspx?id=9816 also, be aware the next to go is the Vaquita dolphin in the gulf of mexico... http://swfsc.noaa.gov/textblock.aspx?id=9758&Paren tMenuId=448

If you watch or see Bob Pitman's presentation you will know there are none left. Sad but true. http://swfsc.noaa.gov/news.aspx?id=9816 also, be aware the next to go is the Vaquita dolphin in the gulf of mexico... http://swfsc.noaa.gov/textblock.aspx?id=9758&Paren tMenuId=448

The prevailing knowledge two years ago was that global warming was going to increase the number and severity of hurricanes like Katrina. The scientific data was being used to try to explain the circumstances of the time.

More recent studies have concluded that global warming will actually reduce the number and severity of hurricanes. The warmer air temperatures will increase wind shear, running a counterbalance against the warming water and air temperatures:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2840.htm

While the people that said we were going to have more Katrina-like storms got a lot of press, this study hasn't gotten as much press. It certainly wasn't being talked about at "Live Earth".

The point is that there is a groupthink that has formed, where the analysis is being made to fit a particular view of what will be happening to the world. The question has become "how can this data show that climate change is dangerous" instead of "what does this data say about what will happen"?

The warming effect of carbon dioxide is strongest where air is cold and dry, mainly in the arctic rather than in the tropics, mainly in mountainous regions rather than in lowlands, mainly in winter rather than in summer, and mainly at night rather than in daytime. The warming is real, but it is mostly making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter. To represent this local warming by a global average is misleading. - Freeman Dyson

The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70N. - NOAA
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming. html

I don't know enough about the human involvement part yet to disagree with him (though I've been looking into it, and the research is compelling enough to keep me reading). But I have pored over the numbers on the temperature record, and when he says it is inconclusive, he is mistaken. I think he has not looked at the data very thoroughly, and that this fact is quickly demonstrated by his inaccurate statement that the effect has been greatest in the arctic.

More data here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming. html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/mpp/freedata.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleo data.html
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

The warming effect of carbon dioxide is strongest where air is cold and dry, mainly in the arctic rather than in the tropics, mainly in mountainous regions rather than in lowlands, mainly in winter rather than in summer, and mainly at night rather than in daytime. The warming is real, but it is mostly making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter. To represent this local warming by a global average is misleading. - Freeman Dyson

The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70N. - NOAA
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming. html

I don't know enough about the human involvement part yet to disagree with him (though I've been looking into it, and the research is compelling enough to keep me reading). But I have pored over the numbers on the temperature record, and when he says it is inconclusive, he is mistaken. I think he has not looked at the data very thoroughly, and that this fact is quickly demonstrated by his inaccurate statement that the effect has been greatest in the arctic.

More data here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming. html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/mpp/freedata.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleo data.html
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

The warming effect of carbon dioxide is strongest where air is cold and dry, mainly in the arctic rather than in the tropics, mainly in mountainous regions rather than in lowlands, mainly in winter rather than in summer, and mainly at night rather than in daytime. The warming is real, but it is mostly making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter. To represent this local warming by a global average is misleading. - Freeman Dyson

The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70N. - NOAA
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming. html

I don't know enough about the human involvement part yet to disagree with him (though I've been looking into it, and the research is compelling enough to keep me reading). But I have pored over the numbers on the temperature record, and when he says it is inconclusive, he is mistaken. I think he has not looked at the data very thoroughly, and that this fact is quickly demonstrated by his inaccurate statement that the effect has been greatest in the arctic.

More data here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming. html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/mpp/freedata.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleo data.html
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

The warming effect of carbon dioxide is strongest where air is cold and dry, mainly in the arctic rather than in the tropics, mainly in mountainous regions rather than in lowlands, mainly in winter rather than in summer, and mainly at night rather than in daytime. The warming is real, but it is mostly making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter. To represent this local warming by a global average is misleading. - Freeman Dyson

The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70N. - NOAA
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming. html

I don't know enough about the human involvement part yet to disagree with him (though I've been looking into it, and the research is compelling enough to keep me reading). But I have pored over the numbers on the temperature record, and when he says it is inconclusive, he is mistaken. I think he has not looked at the data very thoroughly, and that this fact is quickly demonstrated by his inaccurate statement that the effect has been greatest in the arctic.

More data here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming. html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/mpp/freedata.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleo data.html
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

I'd love to see original scientific research on the question on global warming, but it seems that everyone with an opinion on global warming is merely a pundit for either the right or the left.

The NOAA and CRU are the two best sources I've found for the raw data.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming. html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/mpp/freedata.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleo data.html
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

I'd love to see original scientific research on the question on global warming, but it seems that everyone with an opinion on global warming is merely a pundit for either the right or the left.

The NOAA and CRU are the two best sources I've found for the raw data.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming. html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/mpp/freedata.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleo data.html
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

I'd love to see original scientific research on the question on global warming, but it seems that everyone with an opinion on global warming is merely a pundit for either the right or the left.

The NOAA and CRU are the two best sources I've found for the raw data.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming. html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/mpp/freedata.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleo data.html
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

Interesting that Huricane Flossie http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphics_ep4+shtml /204039.shtml?5day?large#contents has grown in strength of the last 6 hours with maximum sustained winds up 10 mph to 85 mph. It is heading roughly in the direction of Hawaii. Its path looks a little like what I remember from Iniki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Iniki_1992_trac k.png. Might want to wait to the end of the season before counting up the storms.
--
Rent solar power and keep you beer cold after a storm: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

1. 2005 - June 8
2. 1950 - August 12
3. 1995 - June 2
4. 2004 - July 31
5. 1961 - July 20
6. 1955 - July 31
7. 1998 - July 28
8. 1999 - June 11
9. 2003 - April 20
10. 1964 - June 2

This year, the first named storm was Subtropical Storm Andrea on May 9. Even if we limit ourselves to properly tropical systems, it started early with Barry forming on June 1, the first official day of the season.

What could be more interesting is the number of tropical storms by August 10 (today) in the above list.

1. 2005 - 9
2. 1950 - 0
3. 1995 - 6
4. 2004 - 3
5. 1961 - 1
6. 1955 - 4
7. 1998 - 1
8. 1999 - 1
9. 2003 - 5
10. 1964 - 4

We've had three named storms so far, although they've been fairly pathetic.

For even more statistics and pretty graphs, we have the NHC's Climatology page. There we see that on average, the first Atlantic hurricane does not form until August 14. We also can see that we're only now approaching the statistical bulk of hurricane season.

So, what does this all mean? It means that an armchair meteorologist needs to learn a little about hurricanes before spouting off that "2007 will be a bad year for hurricanes... hasnt[sic] happened". Sometimes bad seasons start early. Sometimes they do not.

And remember, it only takes one bad hurricane to make a season memorable. 1983's season was the least active since 1950, but Hurricane Alicia still did $4 billion (2006 dollars) in damage when it hit Houston. If not for Hurricane Andrew, 1992 would be an utterly forgettable season.

If you want to be convincing, please quote someone other than McKitrick. He's abused data more than anybody he complains about.

If you want to be convincing, please quote someone other than McKitrick. He's abused data more than anybody he complains about.

by your logic 1998 would have really been a mild hurricane season as it was WARMER than 2006 by that chart... and guess what...

http://www.outlook.noaa.gov/98hurricanes/

NOAA scientists say that the 1998 hurricane season brought an above-average number of hurricanes and tropical storms -- including the devastating Hurricane Mitch -- making it the deadliest Atlantic region season in more than 200 years in terms of storm-related fatalities.

Remember hearing about El Niño back when you were younger? It's a weather pattern that is accompanied by warmer-than-usual weather and lots of rain in the East. It's happened in past years (big one in 1997/98, the second warmest year of the century) and got plenty of media attention. It hit again in fall of 2006-early winter 2007, explaining what you experienced, and since it also affects different parts of the world differently, would explain why you felt something others didn't.

Now, this past year, the media focussed on global warming instead of El Niño as being a cause. But, while El Nino itself is natural, there's been an increase in their frequency, which at least some, like David Suzuki's group (no surprise), attribute to global warming:
Detailed statistical analyses show that the increase in frequency of El Niños observed since the 1970s is very unlikely to be part of a natural cycle (e.g. Trenberth and Hoar, Geophysical Research Letters, Dec 1, 1997). It has been estimated that the observed pattern is 99.9% likely to be due to human induced climate change. (http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/Impacts /Extreme_Weather/El_Nino.asp)

If global warming is happening as most say it is (I ain't no scientist!), it's not like it'd exist because one year is suddenly warmer than another -- it'll be determined only by long-term scientific analysis of trends, you know, the kind of science that isn't undermined by a Y2K bug!

El Niño US: http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/elnino/el-nino-story. html
El Niño Canada: http://www.el-nino-news.info/El-Nino-Canada.php

The impact of a cubic kilometer of matter (with density = 1000 kg/m3) traveling at 11 km/s is 6e+19 J. The explosion and the debris falling all over the planet would heat up the atmosphere significantly. Calculating from http://www.oco.noaa.gov/index.jsp?show_page=page_r oc.jsp&nav=universal, the atmospheric heat capacity is about 3e+18 J/K. so if the bulk of the energy is absorbed by the atmosphere, there will be about a 20-kelvin average short-term temperature increase around the globe. If the asteroid is slightly larger or denser, oven-like average temperatures are possible

Typical Texan BS. The official record high for Texas is 120 degrees F, on Aug. 12, 1936, according to the NCDC.

... And I say with with vehement disgust in lieu of stronger words. I like stronger words, but those to whom they'd refer have their heads someplace where they couldn't hear them clearly, so I'll save them.

When I was crawling in and out of underground fuel tanks in a space suit (not really, but we called it that; the air supply was via a hose, not an air tank) I picked up more than a couple pertinent details. And after reading this article I went and looked up a couple more.

The underground temperature at the depth most tanks must reside is between 54 and 58 F depending on location (and varying 1 to 2 F over a year), not 64.7. That figured was arrived at by a company that sells the same kind of equipment this article talks about. They have a vested interest in the data. Not stated is when the measurement is taken -- just after a 5,000 gal. tanker dumps its load into a 20,000 gal tank?

Tanks need to be more than just under the surface. They need to have enough ground covering them so they don't float up out of the ground through bouyancy. Many are tied down by steel straps to a concrete cradle for this reason, but the depth underground is a fail-safe and still adhered to. They also have to be well underground anywhere a vehicle has to drive over them, or a concrete apron will cover them, so the weight above will be spread out and not collapse the tank. Thus, they're almost invariably below the level where variations will be more than a degree or two.

The average annual temperature temperature where I am, Dallas-Fort Worth, is 64.5 F. The expansion of gasoline from 60 to 64.5 is ~0.3% (0.00069 per degree F; diesel is less, 0.00050 per). The amount of gas above the ground in a piping and pump system is the only part of a fill up that'll be affected by air temperature, and then only if it sits long enough to equalize. The volume involved is from 0.5 to 1.5 gallons depending on distance from riser and style of pump+hose. The rest of what's pumped will come right from underground and will be at or less than 60 F.

If this passes, the average US driver will lose the benefit they're already getting due to the average temperature being less than 60 F. The average temperature from 1900 to 2000 is less than 60 over almost all the US (according to plots from data at NOAA's Earth Systems Research Lab http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/USclimate/USclimdivs.html) . The expansion of the small portion of gas above the riser will be negative for more people than not, more of the time than not. It'll be a contraction.

They'll also pay even more because they'll foot the bill for these devices and their installation; the big oil producers will just plow these costs into the price, and it'll never be noticed, because they can raise the price 10 times that amount, then drop it 9 of that 10, and people will think the price is so close to what it started at that they won't think about it twice.

I had more than a passing familiarity with the issue. Besides going into tanks to inspect them, I also did the annual volumetric testing of gas pumps. I had to apply the correction factor. Where I was, the upper peninsula of Michigan, the average air temperature was very much less than 60. It was 32 F when I moved there in 1976. However, we applied the correction, or rather tried to, based on measuring the temperature of the fuel in the testing can. There was a thermometer built into the glass tube on the side of the can's neck where we also measured the gas level in 0.1 in^3 increments (one part on over 10,000 for the 5 gallon testing can). The temperature was never, as far as I can recall, ever outside the 50s F range.

I'd like to hear from someone up in the Great White as to exactly why they have those temperature sensing devices installed. Whose idea was it, the gas companies' or the peoples'? The article(s; I've looked at several elsewhere) seems to imply the former, but I can't find anything explicit on it.

Seems if there are more problems at the NHC...why the original poster didn't include these articles in the first place is beyond me.

Storm intensifies as forecasters want director removed
http://www.miamiherald.com/459/story/159712.html

Pressure builds for storm chief
http://www.miamiherald.com/460/story/158757.html

Actual QuikSCAT data
http://manati.orbit.nesdis.noaa.gov/quikscat/
http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/sat-bin/scatt_winds.cgi

first result on google, dude! it's not like filing a legal counterclaim or anything :P

It's actually the best way to get rid of unwanted radioactive waste.

I am not sure that the people and animals living around the Golden Gate area for the next few thousand years would agree.

http://www.sfweekly.com/2001-05-09/news/fallout/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farallon_Islands
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3720/is_20 0207/ai_n9128555/pg_2
http://ludb.clui.org/ex/i/CA3160/
http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/farallon/radwaste.html

As a slap in the face to environmentalists, Bush designated the nuclear waste dump as a marine sanctuary, ensuring that there was highly restrictive blanket of laws http://farallones.noaa.gov/manage/regulations.html regarding access to and use of the waters in and around the nuclear waste in order to prevent people from researching how badly all the radioactive materials are leaking and contaminating the water, sea bed and sea life in the area while at the same time pretending to do something pro-environment - the joke is on us. http://farallones.noaa.gov/manage/sac.html

It's actually the best way to get rid of unwanted radioactive waste.

I am not sure that the people and animals living around the Golden Gate area for the next few thousand years would agree.

http://www.sfweekly.com/2001-05-09/news/fallout/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farallon_Islands
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3720/is_20 0207/ai_n9128555/pg_2
http://ludb.clui.org/ex/i/CA3160/
http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/farallon/radwaste.html

As a slap in the face to environmentalists, Bush designated the nuclear waste dump as a marine sanctuary, ensuring that there was highly restrictive blanket of laws http://farallones.noaa.gov/manage/regulations.html regarding access to and use of the waters in and around the nuclear waste in order to prevent people from researching how badly all the radioactive materials are leaking and contaminating the water, sea bed and sea life in the area while at the same time pretending to do something pro-environment - the joke is on us. http://farallones.noaa.gov/manage/sac.html

There are 3 'north' poles.

Only in the context of magnetic navigation does your comment relate to the magnetic north pole.
The magnetic pole is not fixed and is based upon the iron core of our planet. It has a deviation and changes over time and location.

There is the political north pole which cartography is based upon. This is where we get nautical measurements from. It is 5400 nautical miles from the North Pole to the equator.
90 degree right angle from pole to equator; 60 minutes each degree, 1 nautical mile per degree : 90*60 = 5400 nautical miles.

Then there is the axial or celestial 'North' pole which is where our 23 degree tilt comes from. That measurement is not a constant either as our planet has a `wobble`.

Even if such a claim were advanced, A) it isn't continental shelf, so it isn't eligible (it's ocean crust), and B) Spitsbergen and Greenland form a narrow junction that would cut off any claim before reaching the pole anyway.

The issue exists because the Lomonosov Ridge appears to be continental crust, at least in part, and it happens to extend almost across the pole from the Canada/Greeland side to the Russian side (or vice-versa).

The most detailed (publically available) map of the Arctic Ocean can be found at this link. If the Lomonosov Ridge is connected to the Russian continent, an equivalent claim could easily be made for the Canada/Denmark side (the connection on the latter side is actually shallower). All three countries are currently fairly busy trying to better understand the geology of the ridge.

While this sounds good, looking at the video of the 777 wings, I doubt they would hold up under windspeed after that kind of damage. The aluminium panels buckled and ripped free of the rivits and the way the aircraft sagged as they did suggests that the panels are a signifigant structural component of the wings. This 150% number they keep throwing around is 150% greater than the maximum load the aircraft wings would be expected to face (which probably has it's own safety margin thrown in). Given that aircraft can and have been flown into hurricanes, and hurricanes can have maximum sustained winds of over 300 kph, I don't think I'll be worrying about the wings failing the next time I get on a Boeing aircraft.

Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of twilight model experts and the crowd of diluted citizens that believe the numbers predicted by their models. Of course they say I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak.

Do I detect the smell of burning martyr? Let me guess, another one who takes scientific scrutiny of his claims as attempts at censorship.

It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds.

Lie, some countries have kept records of climate ever since the invention of the meteorological instruments in the 17th century, today we have over 7000 stations that measure land temperatures, we also use satellites to measure sea levels, water and troposphere temperatures.

I don't know about a population increase, but according to my research the bowhead species of whales is in fact still endangered

They also don't reproduce very often, although they do live a long time (if they survive). According to wikipedia, females can bear young about every 3-4 years.

However, the wiki article also states that the current hunts are not having an overly negetive effect upon the whale population. Given that, I would currently have no person objection (not that it makes a difference if I do) to the current hunts so long as the whale population isn't further endangered by them.

As for the other "traditions," yes, perhaps I went a bit far. However, the problem is that humans by nature also tend to go to far based on a few other concepts of our nature:

a) We use tradition, or "this is the way we've been doing it, so why should we stop", as a reason to continue doing something
b) We tend to use the "I want to do so, and I can, so I will" methodology, paying more attention to what we can do as opposed to why we shouldn't or why it was done a particular way previous.
c) We are ever-increasing in our ability to consume resources, and overwhelm nature.

Actually This comment said it pretty well.

Again, I perhaps went a bit far in what was meant to be a cautionary comment. Just because they can hunt due to tradition - with increasingly modern technology - doesn't mean that it's right. However, at this point it doesn't mean it is wrong either, so long as the intent is preserved. In opposition to both of our previous comments, the intent/tradition is neither "to hunt" nor "to hunt in a particular way," but rather to provide and acquire sustenance. So long as it doesn't go beyond that, keeping in mind future survival (not depleting the food resource), it would seem to be acceptable in its current form. A bit sad to cause the death of a century-old creature, but death is a part of life, it's the slaughter we should try to avoid...

I'm guessing that whatever I write here will receive a flame or insulting reply, however. Going by your previous comments you tend to take your stances for the opportunity to use profanity and insults. Perhaps that's it's just your style to be insulting, but you'll get more useful response if you toned it down a bit (and less downmods too)

You'd never make it as a weather forecaster, then. They have to work with graphical "products" from QuikSCAT all the time.