[Lemmy]

Why haven't I gone ice fishing this year? Because, for the first time in my lifetime, there's no ice in Ontario. No, no warming here.

[EyeBrock]

Got my snow blower out once. It's pretty obvious we are in a warming trend.

[andyt]

You guys are making the same mistake Bart is, only in reverse. It's colder than usual somwhere, it's warmer than usual somewhere else - that's pretty well the norm.

Bart's own graph shows a .25 degree warming in the last 18 years. Since the warming for the last 100 years is .8 degrees, that certainly seems to fit.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

eureka wrote:

Polar Bear populations are in danger everywhere.

"Nobody really knows how many bears there were in the 1950s and 1960s. Estimates then were based on anecdotal evidence provided by hunters or explorers and not by scientific surveys.
Polar bears are affected by several factors, including hunting, pollution and oil extraction. Most notably, hunting, particularly following the introduction of snowmobiles, airplanes and ice breakers, led to a huge decline in certain subpopulations. The introduction of the International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears in 1973, which restricted or even banned hunting in some circumstances, consequently resulted in an increase in polar bear numbers.
Not all subpopulations are affected to the same degree by climate change, and while some subpopulations are well studied, for others there is insufficient data to make broad statements about current and past numbers.

With this caveat in mind, what do the figures actually say? According to a 2009 report by the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group, of the 19 recognised subpopulations of polar bears, 8 are in decline, 1 is increasing, 3 are stable and 7 don’t have enough data to draw any conclusions. Figure 1 below compares the data for 2005 and 2009."

Here is a critique of the paper that claimed that the Hudson Bay population was healthy and the climate there was fine.

It was by the same group of oil funded frauds who produced the 2003 paper that caused the resignation of six of that publication's editors. That was not peer reviewed and neither was the one on Hudson's Bay.

But read it and discover the depth of the fakery: including correlating conditions a thousand miles away from the area.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... on-is-now/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-doe ... bears.html

Ah ok, so now the Inuit are in on the big ol' oil/CO2 fraud. People who live their entire lives among polar bears would know far less about actual numbers than a group of shmucks that fly over a given area once in a while counting bears.
But you just keep spouting your left-wing agenda. I'm sure eventually you'll convert someone incapable of thinking critically for themselves.

[Gunnair]

BartSimpson wrote:

eureka wrote:

blah, blah, blah... The result will be very unpleasant.

Yet the fact remains that there is no warming. The Caspian Sea today is making news because its frozen over for the first time in years and many European countries are reporting the coldest winters in 110 years.

Frankly, global warming would be a blessing compared to what is going on.

Shit sakes, Bart, you're the first guy to grab onto any weather related event to say climate change is not happening and yet when posters previously pointed out those cherry picked weather events that support climate change, you're the first to cry out that that is weather not climate.

Make up your mind already because your sounding more like Eureka's opposite every time you post on this.

For the record, we had a cool dry fall and are having a wild and wet winter with more gales and storms than is normal. Going with the weather events mean clare change, then it must be clare change.

[andyt]

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

Ah ok, so now the Inuit are in on the big ol' oil/CO2 fraud. People who live their entire lives among polar bears would know far less about actual numbers than a group of shmucks that fly over a given area once in a while counting bears.
But you just keep spouting your left-wing agenda. I'm sure eventually you'll convert someone incapable of thinking critically for themselves.

People who have an economic stake in leading polar bear hunts. And who live locally - ie what do they know about the big picture. You really saying that scientists don't know how to count animal populations?

[PublicAnimalNo9]

andyt wrote:

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

Ah ok, so now the Inuit are in on the big ol' oil/CO2 fraud. People who live their entire lives among polar bears would know far less about actual numbers than a group of shmucks that fly over a given area once in a while counting bears.
But you just keep spouting your left-wing agenda. I'm sure eventually you'll convert someone incapable of thinking critically for themselves.

People who have an economic stake in leading polar bear hunts. And who live locally - ie what do they know about the big picture. You really saying that scientists don't know how to count animal populations?

Flyovers do not provide the same accuracy as feet on the ground. And what big picure? Alarmists want you to believe the polar bear is is rapidly going the way of the Dodo. Those that live among them claim it ain't happening.

But let's take your theory of economic stakes and apply it elsewhere.
There are MANY that are hoping to make out like bandits over AGW alarmism. How many people have financial stakes in green industries? They have a lot to lose if their pet policies don't get passed. They also seem to be the ones spreading most of the alarmist propaganda, surprise, surprise.

And let's take a look at some of the claims made in the past. This crap has been going on for a while now. So many predictions of climate catastrophe have NOT come remotely close to happening. Like the latest crop of fear mongering about 2010.
None of it came to fruition so NOW, the excuse has become, "OH, well the CO2 went deeper into the oceans than we first thought it would". No admission they were dead wrong. Just some bullshit that they merely miscalculated. Well they've been miscalculating a LOT over the last 25 years or so. Keep in mind, these were predictions made using computer modelling. You know, the same computer modelling that proponents claim is entirely accurate, this time.

It's not like I don't care. I do my part as well. When I'm on here at 3am, the only things suckin' juice are my fridge(obviously), my modem/router, this computer and the bathroom light which has two light sockets but I only use one, and it's an energy saver bulb.
If it weren't for the fact that we both have family that live away from here, I'd prolly get rid of my car since it spends most of its time in my driveway doing nothing anyway.
I also drink a lot of pop, but I give the empty cans to a buddy of mine who has a small business making solar heaters out of them. My wife uses the empty cases to make papier mache decorative "bricks" for friends, family and sale.
In winter, my thermostat isn't set to "tropical" and in summer, my a/c gets used ONLY when the humidity is unbearable.

I just don't "do" scare tactics. To me, it's the equivalent of a religious fanatic telling someone they're going to hell and describing all the various horrors they'll endure if they don't convert. Same shit, different pile.

[andyt]

Polar bear counts have nothing directly to do with climate change. They're done by biologists - same as any other population estimate. And hunters always want to dispute the numbers when they don't favor them, not just the Innuit. And it's always the same argument - "what does some smartypants university guy know."

[BartSimpson]

Gunnair wrote:

Shit sakes, Bart, you're the first guy to grab onto any weather related event to say climate change is not happening and yet when posters previously pointed out those cherry picked weather events that support climate change, you're the first to cry out that that is weather not climate.

Actually, that's Zipperfish's argument, not mine. Myself, I've said that if there's supposed to be 'catastrophic' warming then it might help if there were not any record cold events taking place.

In general, I've long said that the overall trend of the past 20,000 years is warming and that's to be expected as we are now coming to the end of an ice age. I am not alarmed by that nor should I be. But the folks who say that there won't be any winter weather events anymore due to AGW are coming off as false prophets every time something like the Caspian freezing over takes place.

Gunnair wrote:

Make up your mind already because your sounding more like Eureka's opposite every time you post on this.

Seriously, I have no clue what Eureka's opposite would be given that I have no idea who or what he/she really is.

Gunnair wrote:

For the record, we had a cool dry fall and are having a wild and wet winter with more gales and storms than is normal. Going with the weather events mean clare change, then it must be clare change.

Frankly, I'm not seeing terribly dramatic weather and this past year has seen me do a bit of traveling.

[fifeboy]

Gunnair wrote:

BartSimpson wrote:

eureka wrote:

blah, blah, blah... The result will be very unpleasant.

Yet the fact remains that there is no warming. The Caspian Sea today is making news because its frozen over for the first time in years and many European countries are reporting the coldest winters in 110 years.

Frankly, global warming would be a blessing compared to what is going on.

Shit sakes, Bart, you're the first guy to grab onto any weather related event to say climate change is not happening and yet when posters previously pointed out those cherry picked weather events that support climate change, you're the first to cry out that that is weather not climate.

Make up your mind already because your sounding more like Eureka's opposite every time you post on this.

For the record, we had a cool dry fall and are having a wild and wet winter with more gales and storms than is normal. Going with the weather events mean clare change, then it must be clare change.

And just to keep it going Saskatchewan is hanging the warmest winter in my 37 years in the province. It is also quite dry although there have been dryer years.

[andyt]

Bart didn't see it, so it didn't happen.

In Vancouver we're having much milder winters than we used to. In the 60's and 70's we used to get serious snow that stuck around for a while. Now, we get a little dusting, everybody freaks out for a day and then it's forgotten. And this is with a strong La Nina.

[eureka]

There is no such thing as "alarmist propaganda," PA> That is where you are making your mistake. There are a couple of thousand scientific papers and studies that the deniers are trying to portray as propaganda. There are none that refute the warming. Not one that has passed peer review or been thoroughly refuted.

Nobody ever said that CO2 went deeper into the oceans. What is said is that there is a heat budget. The Earth receives so much irradiance and so much is reflected back to space. The difference is what the temperature is made of.

A greater difference has to go somewhere and since most of it goes in to the oceans and the deep oceans are not amenable to measurement, then what cannot be measured is there.

[FieryVulpine]

andyt wrote:

In Vancouver we're having much milder winters than we used to. In the 60's and 70's we used to get serious snow that stuck around for a while. Now, we get a little dusting, everybody freaks out for a day and then it's forgotten. And this is with a strong La Nina.

Well, it has snowed only a handful of times in Southern Alberta this winter and the temperature remained above freezing more often than not. Am I worried? Not really. It's not like the Earth's climate can be fixed like a furnace or air conditioner.

[BartSimpson]

andyt wrote:

Bart didn't see it, so it didn't happen.

In Vancouver we're having much milder winters than we used to. In the 60's and 70's we used to get serious snow that stuck around for a while. Now, we get a little dusting, everybody freaks out for a day and then it's forgotten. And this is with a strong La Nina.

Forgive me, but why would a milder winter be so problematic in the first place?

Milder winters mean fewer homeless and eldery die from the cold. Insurance claims for frozen and ruptured water pipes are down. Citrus crops (around here) are doing better. And etc.

I'm just not seeing a downside to a generally warmer planetary climate.

That said, I'm far more concerned about the prospect of cooling than I am about warming. If things cool down that means lower crop yields and that means famine. It also means a decline in the hydrological cycle and that means increased desertification and drought.

If I was asked to choose I'd say, "Warming, please!"

[FieryVulpine]

Well, I heard of concerns that less precipitation will fall on my part of the continent and lead to drought. Then again, predicting the weather is not an exact science. Predicting the future, less so.