the polar bear climate change photo

Started Mar 24, 2007 | Discussions
Chipsthe1 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,828
Dipics

dipics wrote:

That's why I follow the actual peer reviewed science journals.
Instead of playing to the ignorant, they have to convince actual
scientists that they are right.

So then you are in agreement as well with some religous sects who believe that the time for human life on earth is rapidly drawing near. Interesting.

-- hide signature --

Shoot lots of pictures, always fill the frame

dipics Veteran Member • Posts: 4,317
Re: Whoa, hot... : )

Laurentiu Todie wrote:

all?
(you can't be serious…)

I don't see where I said "all". There are ALWAYS dissenters.

DIPics

Chato Forum Pro • Posts: 46,027
I confess, it was me

dipics wrote:

Laurentiu Todie wrote:

all?
(you can't be serious…)

I don't see where I said "all". There are ALWAYS dissenters.

DIPics

I used the word "all."

I should have said 99 percent.

Dave

Matt Sergeant Regular Member • Posts: 471
Re: You would think that there are those who welcome global warming

That was a Channel 4 documentary, btw, not a BBC documentary. It has been very heavily criticized by the scientific community (in part for using plain falsified data) and some of the scientists involved in the making of it have publicly withdrawn their support for it.

wjansen Regular Member • Posts: 305
Re: I don't want to be misconstrued...

Yes, I imagine you still think the world is flat too. It's amazing how all you Gore haters think there must be some worldwide conspiracy by the vast majority of the scientific community to take away your Hummers! I suppose you think the alarmists of global warming are also pinko commies tying to undermine the American way. May God and all his oil barron angels save us!

dipics Veteran Member • Posts: 4,317
Re: Dipics

Chipsthe1 wrote:

dipics wrote:

That's why I follow the actual peer reviewed science journals.
Instead of playing to the ignorant, they have to convince actual
scientists that they are right.

So then you are in agreement as well with some religous sects who
believe that the time for human life on earth is rapidly drawing
near. Interesting.

I am? Why would I think that the "time for human life on earth is drawing near". We're already here so the time is obviously now.

Nor do I believe that the end of that time is near. We are a very adaptable species after all.

And, I'm willing to believe that most members of these sects believe that we need oxygen. Does the possibility that these people are flakes mean that we really DON'T need oxygen? That's a type of logical fallacy called an "association fallacy". It goes something like "The Nazi's wore shoes, The Nazi's were evil, so wearing shoes must be evil."

DIPics

Tom Rowland Veteran Member • Posts: 5,891
The Answer Is

Al Patterson wrote:

It appears that the polar ice cap on Mars is also melting. Tell me
what could cause this, with no SUVs or Neocons present?

Lots of stuff, including the fact that Mars, and the rest of the planets dont orbit in a circle, and they also wobble on their axis, which is suppose to cause ice ages on the earth about every 28,000 years or so.

Could it be that big yellow ball in the sky?

Well it defintely causes things to warm up.

Not the answer for earth, which may be applicable to Mars too.

Hope I got this straight, it is all from memory.

About 100,000 years ago a lot of hydrogen fused in to helium at the core of the sun. Thru conduction at first, then convection it took that 100,000 years for that energy to reach the surface of the sun. Then light energy in the amount of 10 to the 28 ergs every second is released in all directions.

Of course only a small amount of that energy like 13 wats per square meter per 24 hours (close) high in the atmosphere reaches earth.

Some of that energy is reflected off clouds, some reaches the earth and is absorbed, and some is reflected up and if there clouds it may be reflected back down to earth again in an itterative process.

The black body temp should be about 235, our best models now say it should be about 280, but in reality it is about 257 so we are cooler than we should be. These numbers may be a little off since they are from memory, but they are close. And if you are not using kelvins use your friend google.

So the bottom line is while vulcanism and friction is responsible for a tiny fraction of global warming for pratical purposes only the sun energy needs to be modeled.

Most of what is called global warming is really a discussion about how much infra red blocking atoms and molecules slow down the rate of global cooling. The infra red blocking stuff is composed of about 95% water vapor and 5% CO2 (but some guys say it is closer to 97% water and 3% CO2). And probably 90% or so of the CO2 is from natural sources, not man made sources.

The only way a workable model can be constructed to get such small amounts of man made CO2 to be significant is if you use what is called a positive feed back loop, or come up with some kinda bound carbon theory. Not to say these things are not possible, but they are not really intuative appealing.

It also explains why lots of folks are saying given the small contribution man made CO2 reducing it may not really make any difference at all. And it explains why so much grant money is spent trying to come up with models.

Chato Forum Pro • Posts: 46,027
Another group of environmental whacko's takes a position - The Inusrance Industry

And as we all know, there is no industry which take your interests so much to heart as these guys - Also known as some of the hardest hearted buisness's in the country...

New combatant against global warming: insurance industry

By Ron Scherer, The Christian Science Monitor

NEW YORK — Insurance companies, who like to stay out of the limelight, are becoming leading business protagonists in the assault on global warming.

• Next week, Travelers, the giant insurance firm, will offer owners of hybrid cars in California a 10% discount. It already offers the discount in 41 other states and has cornered a large share of the market.

• This fall, Fireman's Fund will cut premiums for "green" buildings that save energy and emit fewer greenhouse gases. When it pays off claims, it will direct customers to environmentally friendly products to replace roofs, windows, and water heaters.

• In January, Marsh, the largest insurance broker in the U.S., will offer a program with Yale University to teach corporate board members about their fiduciary responsibility to manage exposure to climate change.

The insurance industry's clout is sizable. It's the second-largest industry in the world in terms of assets, and has a direct link to most homeowners and businesses. It insures coal-fired power plants as well as wind farms, so it can influence the power industry's cost structure. With its financial muscle, the industry could help advance the use of new financial instruments designed to allow companies to trade greenhouse-gas emissions in the same way that commodities are bought and sold.

INSURANCE GOES ECO: Do these insurance changes make you green with envy or anger? Comment at On Deadline

"The insurance industry has the ability to change behavior, policies and communicate with clients," says Nancy Skinner, U.S. director of the Climate Group, which lobbies for business and government action to address global warming.

Some consumers are already noticing a negative effect of this shift. In the past year, some 600,000 homeowners living in a zone that an insurer considers a high storm risk in an era of climate change have seen their policies cancelled or not renewed. This includes coastal areas stretching from Texas to New York. Currently, coastal properties are valued at $7.2 trillion.

Reassessing risk

One reason for this massive change in coverage is an ongoing shift in the way insurance companies view risk. Insurers are starting to change their risk-assessment models to reflect future climate-change scenarios instead of past weather patterns.

"Climate change represents an ever-increasing risk, a risk far too great to ignore," says Clement Booth, a member of the Board of Management at Allianz AG, one of the world's largest insurance firms.

This week, Allianz, in cooperation with the World Wildlife Fund, issued a report on steps the insurance industry could take to reduce the physical impact of global warming or to help society adapt.

"The industry is in a unique position to incentivize," says Miranda Anderson, an author of the report and a vice president at David Gardiner & Associates. "This is the very beginning of thinking through this issue."

In fact, the industry is not driven just by an attempt to help the environment: It also wants to make money. In Travelers' case, the impetus to give a policy discount on hybrid cars came when Greg Toczydlowski, a senior vice president of product management, was gassing up his wife's Ford Excursion.

"A hybrid zipped in and out while I was still pumping, and it occurred to me it takes so little gasoline and runs so much longer on a tank," says Mr. Toczydlowski. "I came back and did research on how many hybrids are out there and what's the profile of the customer. We discovered it was a preferred customer — middle-aged, very responsible, and stable financially."

Now hybrid owners, besides saving on their fuel bills, can save money on their auto insurance — about $100 a year, according to Travelers.

Attentive state regulators

The attention on climate change is likely to receive a boost from state insurance regulators, who had planned to discuss its risks in September 2005 in New Orleans, at their annual meeting. Hurricane Katrina intervened, however, and the meeting was moved to Chicago.

"As a result, regulators spent an enormous amount of time on climate change and what changes to promulgate to make sure the companies are financially sound," says Mindy Lubber, president of Ceres, a coalition of investors, environmental groups, and public-interest organizations in North America.

Ceres has made two reports on what the insurance industry can do to profitably manage climate change. In a report issued in August, Ceres details some steps currently underway, such as Swiss Re's investment in new solar technology, Munich Re's insurance renewable energy projects, and Lloyds of London's insurance on predicted energy savings.

In the U.S., one of the more unique and potentially far-reaching efforts will be rolled out this fall by Fireman's Fund. After a building is damaged, Fireman's will specify that it must be repaired with "greener" materials, including consumer electronics that must have Energy Star ratings from the Environmental Protection Agency. If a building is a total loss, it will be rebuilt as a "green" building. The insurer also plans to pay for an engineer to make sure ventilation systems and boilers are installed properly, which could also save energy.

For the complete article follow the link.

Copyright 2006, The Christian Science Monitor

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-10-13-insurance-warming_x.htm

Chipsthe1 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,828
Re: Something for you to read

Chato wrote:

I want to be careful not to call you personally a liar. But NO
SCIENTIST ever claimed that there was going to be a global freeze.
This was a media extravaganza based on one very cold winter in the
North East. This has become an Urban Legend.

Really?

Harry Bryden at the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton, felt the analysis by his group demonstrated Europe faced another ice age.

Arctic explorer Donald MacMillan opined that we were facing another ice age. Although that was back in 1920 so perhaps that should not count.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov said he and his colleagues had concluded that a period of global cooling similar to one seen in the late 17th century
Russian Academy of Sciences’ predicted another forthcoming ice age.

There were others as well so it was not just media outcry nor was it an Urban Legend. I do not know if there is global warming or not but I do know that scientists not many years ago were predicting cooling and something akin to an ice age. There were indeed scientists making such predictions.

Weather predictions are very tricky, right now even a forecast for seven days in advance is far from 100% accurate. That makes me think that I will have shuffled off this mortal coil before global warming makes a great impact on the human race.

Shoot lots of pictures, always fill the frame

TomFid Senior Member • Posts: 2,710
Back to the topic of the photo rights ...

The indignation of the alleged photog, Amanda Byrd, seems somewhat misplaced. If I were shooting professionally, and felt some proprietary interest in my copyright, I sure as heck wouldn't be uploading my pics to anyone else's computer. I'm not condoning stealing, but given the difficulty of establishing ownership of digital assets after the fact, there ought to be some burden upon the shooter to exercise minimal care (i.e. don't leave the car running at the curb).

Tom

(unknown member) Regular Member • Posts: 126
Re: More ignorance...

If you really read scientific papers, you know what an "impact factor" is.

For the journal you mentionned, Environmental Geology, it's 0.654. nothing strong here.

And, as others have pointed it, G. V. Chilingar is a petroleum geologist. Maybe what he says is too "polarized"...

Remi

PS : I read scientif papers everyday.

Ryan McDaniel wrote:

I get the impression that none of you people ever read any
scientific papers, do you?

It's easy to fall hook, line, and sinker for the claim that ALL
scientists agree when you don't actually read anything by
scientists, but simply watch the nightly news.

There's no consensus, as if science was ever determined by
consensus to begin with. Opinions are all over the map. Some think
man is background noise. Others think he has an impact, but not
significant. Still others think it's significant, but not worth
worrying about. And still others would agree with the "sky is
falling" crowd.

The "sky is falling" crowd is pretty much centered at the U.N. btw.

Let me get you started with just one paper here: Khilyuk, L.F., and
G. V. Chilingar. 2006. On global forces of nature driving the
Earth’s climate. Are humans involved? Environmental Geology, 50,
899–910.

Have fun!

Chipsthe1 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,828
Re: Dipics

dipics wrote:
oxygen? That's a

". It goes
something like "The Nazi's wore shoes, The Nazi's were evil, so
wearing shoes must be evil."

I thought they wore hob nailed boots.
--
Shoot lots of pictures, always fill the frame

Chipsthe1 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,828
Re: You would think that there are those who welcome global warming

Matt Sergeant wrote:

That was a Channel 4 documentary, btw, not a BBC documentary.

There was a BBC documentary about it as well. That may have been the one the poster mentioned
--
Shoot lots of pictures, always fill the frame

Chato Forum Pro • Posts: 46,027
Urban Legends: Scientist were predicting Global Cooling in the 70's

The global cooling myth

Every now and again, the myth that "we shouldn't believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970's they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling" surfaces. Recently, George Will mentioned it in his column (see Will-full ignorance) and the egregious Crichton manages to say "in the 1970's all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming" (see Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion ). You can find it in various other places too [here, mildly here, etc]. But its not an argument used by respectable and knowledgeable skeptics, because it crumbles under analysis. That doesn't stop it repeatedly cropping up in newsgroups though.

I should clarify that I'm talking about predictions in the scientific press. There were some regrettable things published in the popular press (e.g. Newsweek; though National Geographic did better). But we're only responsible for the scientific press. If you want to look at an analysis of various papers that mention the subject, then try http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ .>

For the rest of the article follow the link.

Because of my trade as a heating installer, who lived through the Winter of 77, I remember the media frenzy...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

Dave

Chato Forum Pro • Posts: 46,027
I've posted a link about this urban legend, it's at the bottom of the page

Chipsthe1 wrote:

Chato wrote:

I want to be careful not to call you personally a liar. But NO
SCIENTIST ever claimed that there was going to be a global freeze.
This was a media extravaganza based on one very cold winter in the
North East. This has become an Urban Legend.

Really?

Harry Bryden at the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton,
felt the analysis by his group demonstrated Europe faced another
ice age.

A quick check on the net punching in his name reveals that you have misquoted him. He states that changes in the water currents "due to global warming" may make England and Northern Europe colder. His date is being disputed, but in either event he is NOT predictiong global cooling

(Snip)

There were others as well so it was not just media outcry nor was
it an Urban Legend. I do not know if there is global warming or
not but I do know that scientists not many years ago were
predicting cooling and something akin to an ice age. There were
indeed scientists making such predictions.

I am referring to the often quoted MYTHS that climatologist were predicting global cooling and another ice age in the 70's. It is in fact an urban legend.

Weather predictions are very tricky, right now even a forecast for
seven days in advance is far from 100% accurate. That makes me
think that I will have shuffled off this mortal coil before global
warming makes a great impact on the human race.

I'm going to be sixty, even so, I wouldn't invest in Florida land deals at this time...:)

Shoot lots of pictures, always fill the frame

Chato Forum Pro • Posts: 46,027
I'll take a shot at answering it as well

The Martian "polar ice cap" shrinks and grows every year. The polar ice cap on Mars consists of a very thin layer of frozen gas...

The question has nothing to do with what goes on here on earth.

Dave

TomFid Senior Member • Posts: 2,710
Re: Something for you to read

This exchange highlights the problem with any statement about universal agreement in science. Scientists express speculative opinions, bad papers slip through peer review, and chance sometimes yields perverse data. Therefore individual papers are seldom revolutionary - one has to weigh the whole body of evidence in the literature to understand what's going on.

With that in mind, Chato is right in spirit if not to the letter - there was never a body of evidence in climatology suggesting that an ice age was an imminent threat. A few scientists did note that it was a problem in principle. Mostly they were talking about something that could happen over a few thousand years, and the press neglected the little detail of timing in its search for something to get excited about. There weren't any calls for action other than further inquiry.

The fact that weather is unpredictable does not mean that climate is unpredictable. I can't predict how far a given pixel on my camera will deviate from neutral if I photograph a gray card, but I can reliably predict that the standard deviation of a bunch of pixels will be higher at ISO 1600 than ISO 100.

Tom

Chipsthe1 wrote:

Chato wrote:

I want to be careful not to call you personally a liar. But NO
SCIENTIST ever claimed that there was going to be a global freeze.
This was a media extravaganza based on one very cold winter in the
North East. This has become an Urban Legend.

Really?

Harry Bryden at the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton,
felt the analysis by his group demonstrated Europe faced another
ice age.

Arctic explorer Donald MacMillan opined that we were facing another
ice age. Although that was back in 1920 so perhaps that should not
count.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov said he and his colleagues had concluded
that a period of global cooling similar to one seen in the late
17th century
Russian Academy of Sciences’ predicted another forthcoming ice age.

There were others as well so it was not just media outcry nor was
it an Urban Legend. I do not know if there is global warming or
not but I do know that scientists not many years ago were
predicting cooling and something akin to an ice age. There were
indeed scientists making such predictions.

Weather predictions are very tricky, right now even a forecast for
seven days in advance is far from 100% accurate. That makes me
think that I will have shuffled off this mortal coil before global
warming makes a great impact on the human race.

Shoot lots of pictures, always fill the frame

austinphotog Contributing Member • Posts: 837
Re: I don't want to be misconstrued...

I am not sure what you studied, but their have been significant changes to the earth in the 20th century.

I have not seen one peer reviewed article stating that there is no global warming. Even Exxon Mobile that has funded many of the think tanks that try to buy research that will contradict global warming, has now in public statements has said it exists. The projected warming over the next century have a large range, but the projections are 1 - 6 degrees centigrade.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has also been measured, and there is no scientific doubt that human's are responsible for the increased rate of accumulation.

The current disputes in the scientific comunity are how much will the tempuratures increase, and how much human activity is responsible. If you have studied, I am curious which materials you are studying, because they clearly have given you a flawed understanding.

Now to the point of al gore. There is a dispute on whether he is fat. The general consensus is yes, but some such as Michael more think gore is not fat. I understand that some documentary makers like michael more may have valued opinions but maybe their view of the topic is flawed. Does gore use more energy than he should? I think so, but I actually believe we should reduce our carbon footprint. obviously some prefer consume conspicuously. Pres bush has a much smaller ranch, and uses alternative energy.

But the real issue should be misrepresnting photography. This is an ugly misuse of a photograph. I believe that photos can convey messages, even though they are staged. But when these are used to make a point, or worse in a news story (lebanon recently) to misrepresent facts we should all be outraged.

Ryan McDaniel wrote:

Matt Nelson wrote:

Wow - the anti-global-warming voices here are pretty scary.
Complete denial that there may be any merit in the opposing camp's
statements.

I went off on a rant because I was in a bad mood and things like
the polar bear photo annoy me. It scares me that a crowd of people
can be so ignorant as to be pushed to panic by a photo of bears
clinging to ice.

My humble opinion? Man's CO2 output probably has some impact on
climate, but that impact is below the threshold of natural
variability. We can't detect our own signature, it's background
noise.

I'm perfectly open to evidence I'm wrong, and keep up on the latest
literature as best as I can. For the record, screaming that ALL
scientists agree or showing photos of polar bears does not
constitute evidence.

The people who are the most hysterical about climate change are the
ones who have never studied Earth's climate history. I have.
Nothing unusual happened in the 20th century.

On the one hand, you've got a bunch of scientists saying "Human
activity is causing the planet to warm." On the other hand, you've
got a bunch of scientists saying "Human activity is NOT causing the
planet to warm."

At best, there is some debate about the issue

I would be fine if the "other side" could admit there's a debate,
rather than resorting to personal attacks to discredit people they
disagree with.

(OK, OK...I know I attacked Gore...but there's just something wrong
with him telling me how to live when he is the most wasteful human
on Earth.)

The problem is, we've only got one planet to experiment with. If
it's true that humans are changing climate (either warm or cool,
btw), then we are on the road to really screwing up the planet in
ways that we may never be able to reverse.

Study the planet's climate history.

dipics Veteran Member • Posts: 4,317
Re: Dipics

Chipsthe1 wrote:
dipics wrote:
oxygen? That's a

". It goes
something like "The Nazi's wore shoes, The Nazi's were evil, so
wearing shoes must be evil."

I thought they wore hob nailed boots.

Only the low level ones.

DIPics

Gary Martin
Gary Martin Veteran Member • Posts: 4,062
Re: I confess, it was me

I used the word "all."

I should have said 99 percent.

Which is not enough, stangely, for followers of the "1% Doctrine". Very confusing indeed.

-- hide signature --
 Gary Martin's gear list:Gary Martin's gear list
Ricoh GR II Pentax K-5 IIs Olympus PEN-F Pentax K-1 Pentax smc DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited +13 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads