"When I read that some time back, I understood it to mean that the hybridization happened during a period when the ice cap extended from North America to the British Isles (and Scandinavia)."
Interesting point. My interpretation was the opposite, that the bears were forced south by warming to more solid ground.
I am not sure which is more correct. I suppose it could be either.
But I would like to point out that this is not exactly an isolated finding. This, which is admittedly a few years old, and also this, from a couple of years later, are from one of the chief researchers for the IPCC reports and he, too, says that there is little evidence that climate change would have a significant impact on hurricane activity. In fact the "AGW" climate models, themselves, actually predict more wind shear and therefore LESS cyclonic activity.
Does slightly heavier rainfall in some areas qualify as "extreme" weather events? Possibly. Or a degree or two warmer here, a degree or two cooler there? Also possibly. But I think when most people say "extreme" events, they are referring to hurricanes, typhoons, actual monsoons, tsunamis and the like. Of which we have actually seen a decrease in recent decades, not an increase.
First, I am not "right-wing". Frankly, right-wingers probably disgust me about as much as they obviously do you. To me, your repeated claim that I am "right-wing" just indicates your level of intelligence. And not in a flattering way.
Also, your reference is to a paper that is over 2 years old, which references data that is 2 years older yet. But now, 4 years later, we happen to know a bit more. Imagine that.
"Jane Q Public, you get your statistics from Fox News."
I don't watch Fox News, bozo.
Read about it yourself. And if you don't believe that source, there are plenty of others, which you can confirm for yourself with a couple of minutes on Google.
Seriously. I have to wonder how alarmists have the cojones to call others "deniers", when they do so much of their own denying of facts.
Okay, I stand corrected: hybridized, not "evolved".
But other than that, the article actually supports my point: it asserts that the two species came together at some point in the past, presumably at times that were warm.
Further, and more to the point: the supposition that Polar Bears are endangered by diminishing Arctic ice are just so much BS, as current Arctic ice levels clearly show... seeing as how in fact, Arctic sea ice is right now at above average levels.
"They don't get it because It's not true. Ice trapped on the north pole will stay here and does not contribute to tidal movement and/or ocean currents. Once the ice melts, the excess water will move towards the equator (centripetal force), so water levels will still rise where anyone cares about them."
You have simply proved my point, which is that many people simply don't get it. And you are one of those people.
There is no "excess water" when floating ice melts. Go read about Archimedes, and water displacement.
Here is the way it REALLY works: fill a large measuring cup 3/4 full of water. Then freely float some ice cubes on top. Do not add so much that it crowds the cup... they have to be freely floating for this to be a valid experiment. Now make note of the water level by the marks on the cup.
Walk away. Come back when the ice is all melted. Surprise! The water level will not have changed. At all.
That's science, my friend.
It's not about tidal currents, etc. We were discussing water level. And melting of Arctic ice (which is floating) will not result in an overall rise in water level.
Ice melting on land, however, runs downhill and eventually ends up in the ocean. That CAN contribute to rising ocean levels.
"It IS very much like a pot of water. Complex water, but water never the less."
Actually, no he's not.
You can't have it both ways! Either it is complex (which was my point), or it is simple, like a pot of warming water. You can't argue that it is both, because those are mutually exclusive models.
You're talking about the United States. Not countries with slash-and-burn practices.
And, being in an area with an economy that depends largely on "forest products", I can say very definitely that even in the United States, that is not strictly true. Wood products companies can and have cut down old-growth forests and unsustainable rates, until The People protested so much that the government forced them to stop.
As we know by now, beyond a shadow of a doubt, planting new trees does not support the same ecosystem as old-growth forest. Further, the trees planted by wood products companies have often not been of the same species as those removed, which does further damage to the environment. But, it does indeed make wood harvesting more "sustainable". At a very high cost to the existing ecology.
Sorry, but the reality doesn't support your assertion. What you say would be the ideal case, but we just haven't seen it in the real world. If they would replace with the same species as they remove, and limit themselves to young-growth areas, then what you say might be largely true. But we know, from long experience, that they haven't done that unless forced to.
"How would physicists, chemists and meterologists, but not a single economist, know what the cheapest economic solution to reducing effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would be? "
"Not a single economist" is not accurate. Economist BjÃrn Lomborg (the english-ified spelling: Bjorn Lomborg, in case Slashdot's messed-up character set support does not show that properly), has in fact studied the situation and has come to the same conclusion. He even gave a TED talk and wrote a book about it.
Most economists have simply not looked at the situation. But the ones who have that I know about, support the conclusions of TFA.
Sorry, but the Earth is not a pot of water. Changes happen locally, not globally. If there are enough local changes, global change can happen. But as the other poster pointed out, on Earth you can have one hand in a boiling pot, and another one in a freezing pot, and there is no contradiction because it is not even remotely a homogeneous system like a small pot of water.
Biologists have determined that Polar Bears probably evolved in an area somewhere around Ireland, believe it or not. So a bit of warming will probably not hurt them a hell of a lot.
Actually, as an example it works just FINE. Every tree that is cut down is one more tree that will no longer turn more CO2 into wood. The more trees you cut down, the less conversion you get.
This reminds me very much of the situation with crime in America.
With increase media coverage, the perception of many Americans has been that crime has been getting steadily worse. Simply because they see more of it on the news. However, when you look at the actual statistics, you will see that crime -- especially violent crime -- has been steadily dropping for well over 20 years. And not just a little, either. A lot.
Ahem... except... you should look up the actual statistics. We have not been experiencing an increase in extreme weather.
Certainly, as news has become more global we have learned about more extreme weather events, but when you look at the actual statistics, there has not been any increase. There just hasn't. In fact, hurricane and typhoon activity have been at a 40-year low.
Um... you are conflating two different things. Actually, not even that: you are apparently misunderstanding the letter completely.
The authors of that letter do not "disbelieve" in "climate change". On the contrary, they explicitly state that they know the climate is getting warmer. All the letter says is that it isn't getting as warm as the alarmists said it would, and that anthropogenic warming is probably not as big a factor as has been claimed by said alarmists.
Belief has nothing to do with it. And this is not even remotely a "denialist" letter. They list some scientific facts. So far, nobody has refuted those facts. So... where does that leave your "belief"?
"Pure CO2 has a distinctive odor (sharp, almost metallic), it's caused by carbonic acid forming on mucous membranes."
But nobody inhales "pure" CO2. You have to inject a little bit of reality into this. At concentrations likely to be encountered in the real world -- that is, unless you stick your head into a plastic bag with a pound or two of dry ice -- CO2 is indeed odorless and tasteless.
Don't be so quick to judge Hayek. Interestingly, now that Keynes has been thoroughly discredited, probably beyond redemption by now, a lot of economists are looking at Hayek much more seriously.
Followers of Keynes (who have been dominant in dominant in government for decades) have been wrong in their predictions of economic events nearly every time. And prediction is the ONLY valid measure of a theory's worth. The inescapable conclusion is that government has, for the most part, been following defunct theory that doesn't work.
On the other hand, it is easy to show that Austrians have been correct in their predictions during the 20th century and beyond, more often than not . In modern economics, that's a pretty awesome track record.
"Plus they are not conducted anonymously. If people wish to make a point then they need to stand up for their cause not hide in the shadows like little cowards."
I agree with with you in general, but there are important exceptions. Anonymity is an essential freedom, necessary for preserving democracy. If you can't make political "speech", for example, without everybody knowing who it is and possibly putting pressure on the speaker, then your freedom is doomed.
The Founding Fathers acted anonymously when they met to create the Declaration of Independence, because they rightfully feared for their lives should they be found out. Similar situations have occurred elsewhere, in other times.
So while in peaceful times, it may be right to consider someone who speaks anonymously a coward, in times of strife it may be a necessary tool in order to Do The Right Thing.
Ahhhh... the classics. I don't mean Hemingway or Steinbeck. I mean: Common Sense by Thomas Paine. The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith. The Road to Serfdom by F. A. Hayek. The United States Constitution by, ultimately, the votes of just about every damned person in every State at the time, when it came time to ratify.
Everybody should read them. They are vastly more interesting than stodgy old Steinbeck. And more relevant to modern times.
You mean just like Ruby Ridge, and Waco (maybe to a lesser extent)?
Of course the whole Ruby Ridge fiasco was due to government bungling and attempted entrapment, while the Waco siege was completely unnecessary and a result of just plain bungling. They had an opportunity to get Koresh alone and didn't take it.
Is it coincidence that this kind of government heavy-handedness is accompanied by so much bungling? I don't think so. It's just that those are the times when government bungling is the most public, for everybody to see. I assert that such government bungling takes place all the time; most of the time we don't see it directly, or we see only the edges of it peeking out.
Slashdot Mirror
"You're a man who likes to pretend to be a woman in the internet."
Hahahahaha!
"If your reference relies on what happened in the last 4 years, then it's got fuck all to do with climate trends."
I see. So your claim is that knowledge is not knowledge, unless it was gained years ago?
That's an interesting proposition, but somehow I don't think it's valid.
Why don't you go argue with someone your own intellectual size? (That is to say, very small.)
"When I read that some time back, I understood it to mean that the hybridization happened during a period when the ice cap extended from North America to the British Isles (and Scandinavia)."
Interesting point. My interpretation was the opposite, that the bears were forced south by warming to more solid ground.
I am not sure which is more correct. I suppose it could be either.
Not that I am aware of, but there may be.
But I would like to point out that this is not exactly an isolated finding. This, which is admittedly a few years old, and also this, from a couple of years later, are from one of the chief researchers for the IPCC reports and he, too, says that there is little evidence that climate change would have a significant impact on hurricane activity. In fact the "AGW" climate models, themselves, actually predict more wind shear and therefore LESS cyclonic activity.
Does slightly heavier rainfall in some areas qualify as "extreme" weather events? Possibly. Or a degree or two warmer here, a degree or two cooler there? Also possibly. But I think when most people say "extreme" events, they are referring to hurricanes, typhoons, actual monsoons, tsunamis and the like. Of which we have actually seen a decrease in recent decades, not an increase.
Shows how much you know. (I.e., close to zero.)
First, I am not "right-wing". Frankly, right-wingers probably disgust me about as much as they obviously do you. To me, your repeated claim that I am "right-wing" just indicates your level of intelligence. And not in a flattering way.
Also, your reference is to a paper that is over 2 years old, which references data that is 2 years older yet. But now, 4 years later, we happen to know a bit more. Imagine that.
One meteorologist's speculations, with no reference to supporting facts, is hardly a refutation of a reviewed research paper.
"Jane Q Public, you get your statistics from Fox News."
I don't watch Fox News, bozo.
Read about it yourself. And if you don't believe that source, there are plenty of others, which you can confirm for yourself with a couple of minutes on Google.
Seriously. I have to wonder how alarmists have the cojones to call others "deniers", when they do so much of their own denying of facts.
Okay, I stand corrected: hybridized, not "evolved".
But other than that, the article actually supports my point: it asserts that the two species came together at some point in the past, presumably at times that were warm.
Further, and more to the point: the supposition that Polar Bears are endangered by diminishing Arctic ice are just so much BS, as current Arctic ice levels clearly show... seeing as how in fact, Arctic sea ice is right now at above average levels.
"They don't get it because It's not true. Ice trapped on the north pole will stay here and does not contribute to tidal movement and/or ocean currents. Once the ice melts, the excess water will move towards the equator (centripetal force), so water levels will still rise where anyone cares about them."
You have simply proved my point, which is that many people simply don't get it. And you are one of those people.
There is no "excess water" when floating ice melts. Go read about Archimedes, and water displacement.
Here is the way it REALLY works: fill a large measuring cup 3/4 full of water. Then freely float some ice cubes on top. Do not add so much that it crowds the cup... they have to be freely floating for this to be a valid experiment. Now make note of the water level by the marks on the cup.
Walk away. Come back when the ice is all melted. Surprise! The water level will not have changed. At all.
That's science, my friend.
It's not about tidal currents, etc. We were discussing water level. And melting of Arctic ice (which is floating) will not result in an overall rise in water level.
Ice melting on land, however, runs downhill and eventually ends up in the ocean. That CAN contribute to rising ocean levels.
"It IS very much like a pot of water. Complex water, but water never the less."
Actually, no he's not.
You can't have it both ways! Either it is complex (which was my point), or it is simple, like a pot of warming water. You can't argue that it is both, because those are mutually exclusive models.
You're talking about the United States. Not countries with slash-and-burn practices.
And, being in an area with an economy that depends largely on "forest products", I can say very definitely that even in the United States, that is not strictly true. Wood products companies can and have cut down old-growth forests and unsustainable rates, until The People protested so much that the government forced them to stop.
As we know by now, beyond a shadow of a doubt, planting new trees does not support the same ecosystem as old-growth forest. Further, the trees planted by wood products companies have often not been of the same species as those removed, which does further damage to the environment. But, it does indeed make wood harvesting more "sustainable". At a very high cost to the existing ecology.
Sorry, but the reality doesn't support your assertion. What you say would be the ideal case, but we just haven't seen it in the real world. If they would replace with the same species as they remove, and limit themselves to young-growth areas, then what you say might be largely true. But we know, from long experience, that they haven't done that unless forced to.
"How would physicists, chemists and meterologists, but not a single economist, know what the cheapest economic solution to reducing effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would be? "
"Not a single economist" is not accurate. Economist BjÃrn Lomborg (the english-ified spelling: Bjorn Lomborg, in case Slashdot's messed-up character set support does not show that properly), has in fact studied the situation and has come to the same conclusion. He even gave a TED talk and wrote a book about it.
Most economists have simply not looked at the situation. But the ones who have that I know about, support the conclusions of TFA.
Mod up. A lot of people haven't seemed to get this. They should have it pounded into their heads, if necessary.
Sorry, but the Earth is not a pot of water. Changes happen locally, not globally. If there are enough local changes, global change can happen. But as the other poster pointed out, on Earth you can have one hand in a boiling pot, and another one in a freezing pot, and there is no contradiction because it is not even remotely a homogeneous system like a small pot of water.
Biologists have determined that Polar Bears probably evolved in an area somewhere around Ireland, believe it or not. So a bit of warming will probably not hurt them a hell of a lot.
Actually, as an example it works just FINE. Every tree that is cut down is one more tree that will no longer turn more CO2 into wood. The more trees you cut down, the less conversion you get.
This reminds me very much of the situation with crime in America.
With increase media coverage, the perception of many Americans has been that crime has been getting steadily worse. Simply because they see more of it on the news. However, when you look at the actual statistics, you will see that crime -- especially violent crime -- has been steadily dropping for well over 20 years. And not just a little, either. A lot.
Ahem... except... you should look up the actual statistics. We have not been experiencing an increase in extreme weather.
Certainly, as news has become more global we have learned about more extreme weather events, but when you look at the actual statistics, there has not been any increase. There just hasn't. In fact, hurricane and typhoon activity have been at a 40-year low.
"(I believe in climate change, personally)."
Um... you are conflating two different things. Actually, not even that: you are apparently misunderstanding the letter completely.
The authors of that letter do not "disbelieve" in "climate change". On the contrary, they explicitly state that they know the climate is getting warmer. All the letter says is that it isn't getting as warm as the alarmists said it would, and that anthropogenic warming is probably not as big a factor as has been claimed by said alarmists.
Belief has nothing to do with it. And this is not even remotely a "denialist" letter. They list some scientific facts. So far, nobody has refuted those facts. So... where does that leave your "belief"?
"Pure CO2 has a distinctive odor (sharp, almost metallic), it's caused by carbonic acid forming on mucous membranes."
But nobody inhales "pure" CO2. You have to inject a little bit of reality into this. At concentrations likely to be encountered in the real world -- that is, unless you stick your head into a plastic bag with a pound or two of dry ice -- CO2 is indeed odorless and tasteless.
Don't be so quick to judge Hayek. Interestingly, now that Keynes has been thoroughly discredited, probably beyond redemption by now, a lot of economists are looking at Hayek much more seriously.
Followers of Keynes (who have been dominant in dominant in government for decades) have been wrong in their predictions of economic events nearly every time. And prediction is the ONLY valid measure of a theory's worth. The inescapable conclusion is that government has, for the most part, been following defunct theory that doesn't work.
On the other hand, it is easy to show that Austrians have been correct in their predictions during the 20th century and beyond, more often than not . In modern economics, that's a pretty awesome track record.
"Plus they are not conducted anonymously. If people wish to make a point then they need to stand up for their cause not hide in the shadows like little cowards."
I agree with with you in general, but there are important exceptions. Anonymity is an essential freedom, necessary for preserving democracy. If you can't make political "speech", for example, without everybody knowing who it is and possibly putting pressure on the speaker, then your freedom is doomed.
The Founding Fathers acted anonymously when they met to create the Declaration of Independence, because they rightfully feared for their lives should they be found out. Similar situations have occurred elsewhere, in other times.
So while in peaceful times, it may be right to consider someone who speaks anonymously a coward, in times of strife it may be a necessary tool in order to Do The Right Thing.
On the contrary: it is societal mores that should inform government action, never the other way around.
If you have government deciding what The People's morals should be, you are already in deep sh*t. Don't go there.
Ahhhh... the classics. I don't mean Hemingway or Steinbeck. I mean: Common Sense by Thomas Paine. The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith. The Road to Serfdom by F. A. Hayek. The United States Constitution by, ultimately, the votes of just about every damned person in every State at the time, when it came time to ratify.
Everybody should read them. They are vastly more interesting than stodgy old Steinbeck. And more relevant to modern times.
You mean just like Ruby Ridge, and Waco (maybe to a lesser extent)?
Of course the whole Ruby Ridge fiasco was due to government bungling and attempted entrapment, while the Waco siege was completely unnecessary and a result of just plain bungling. They had an opportunity to get Koresh alone and didn't take it.
And those two remind me of the time the police in Philadelphia -- "the City of Brotherly Love" -- dropped a bomb on some of its own brothers, killing a number of children and setting an entire city block on fire.
Is it coincidence that this kind of government heavy-handedness is accompanied by so much bungling? I don't think so. It's just that those are the times when government bungling is the most public, for everybody to see. I assert that such government bungling takes place all the time; most of the time we don't see it directly, or we see only the edges of it peeking out.
That should have read "... and is protected."
Damn typos.