CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 10662
PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 12:50 pm
 


Zipperfish wrote:
N_Fiddledog wrote:
Polar ice loss affecting gravity hint, hint.

Basically some group got the money to pull another nutty theory out their butts so start worrying about flying off into space.


What's nutty about that? If you shift the mass distribution you'll shift gravity. Flying off into space? Where do you come up with this stuff?

Image

Do the math.


That math just enlightens the gravity of the situation. :wink:


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20991
PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 12:55 pm
 


The math shows that the distribution of ice will change gravity at a tiny scale, probably only noticeable by sensitive instruments. Who is saying we're going to be "flying off the planet"? I just can't fathom the ignorance out there.

As for the polar bears, some are fine, some are not. Shrinking sea ice will be a challenge for them, as will encroachment by other bears north as the Arctic heats up. They are supremely adapted to their environment, like other creatures, and whne that environemnt changes they must expend energy to adapt. Again, pretty simple if you tune all the silly stuff people are asying.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 22873
PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 1:19 pm
 


I'll believe we know everything we need to know about gravity when I'm being fitted for my anti-gravity boots.

As to "flying off into space," it's inculcated into our brains to see global warming stories and think of negative impacts. Global warming = we're in danger. So yeah drifting of into the stratosphere is hyperbole, but it comes from an honest place when the headline reads "Polar ice loss affecting gravity". The original topic of discussion on that one was dishonest headlines.

As to polar bears, over all it's an increase. The decrease is happening in areas without hunting regulations. Hunting restrictions were added to the Beaufort area outdating data used in studies such as the one we were discussing from the LA Times. It's not that specific one, but that one has been cited in later reports that tried the same trick of using outdated data. The stats improved for Beaufort bears. I was just reading about it on the Polar Bear site I linked to.


Last edited by N_Fiddledog on Tue Jun 02, 2015 1:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 22873
PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 1:24 pm
 


I just browsed that article in Polar Bear Science though. Do you want me to go back and get you a link. It's possible I'm not entirely correct. I know I am correct in general though. I can find support for the general sense of what I'm saying, I know.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20991
PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 2:01 pm
 


N_Fiddledog wrote:
I'll believe we know everything we need to know about gravity when I'm being fitted for my anti-gravity boots.

As to "flying off into space," it's inculcated into our brains to see global warming stories and think of negative impacts. Global warming = we're in danger. So yeah drifting of into the stratosphere is hyperbole, but it comes from an honest place when the headline reads "Polar ice loss affecting gravity". The original topic of discussion on that one was dishonest headlines.

As to polar bears, over all it's an increase. The decrease is happening in areas without hunting regulations. Hunting restrictions were added to the Beaufort area outdating data used in studies such as the one we were discussing from the LA Times. It's not that specific one, but that one has been cited in later reports that tried the same trick of using outdated data. The stats improved for Beaufort bears. I was just reading about it on the Polar Bear site I linked to.


Polar ice loss does affect gravity, so how is that dishonest. What is dishonest is claiming that people are going to be flying off the earth. Where does it say that? I have a feeling you are making that up.

The polar bear site you linked to is a joke, unfortunately. Disappearing habitat is going to likely affect polar bears. The site you linked to doesn't look very science-y. The writer is somewhat of a crackpot, I'm afriad.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 22873
PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 2:11 pm
 


Zipperfish wrote:
Polar ice loss does affect gravity, so how is that dishonest. [/url]

I told you how. The topic was dishonest headlines. The example headline insinuated danger. The way I remember the actual headline of the one I was originally referring to was the same thing.

Quote:
The polar bear site you linked to is a joke


CBC and every other alarmist media shill out there are jokes. Nothing you claim about Polar Bear Science would not apply to them. If we're relying on personal opinion, I mean.


Last edited by N_Fiddledog on Tue Jun 02, 2015 2:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 22873
PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 2:22 pm
 


Here you go. Show me what you believe is incorrect or unsupported.

Recent S. Beaufort polar bear count was a cherry-picked result – new evidence

Polar bear researchers knew S Beaufort population continued to increase up to 2012

There's a link to a US fish & wildlife report on bear population surveys in the second one.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20991
PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 3:06 pm
 


N_Fiddledog wrote:
Here you go. Show me what you believe is incorrect or unsupported.

Recent S. Beaufort polar bear count was a cherry-picked result – new evidence

Polar bear researchers knew S Beaufort population continued to increase up to 2012

There's a link to a US fish & wildlife report on bear population surveys in the second one.


What is incorrect is her supposition that uncertainty should be equated with weak science. That is certainly not the case. Like WUWT, her blog seems completely concerned with attacking the findings of others, and yet presents no original research of her own. She has no published peer-reviewed papers on polar bears. And like WUWT she caters to people who want to be told what to think.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 22873
PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 6:17 pm
 


You object to her personally. Her view is not yours. Right. We got that.

Here's the actual point though. The adjunct Professor of Zoology from the University of Victoria claimed a study was using outdated data when more current data was available. She does show how the up-to-date survey from American fish and wildlife claimed bear population increases. What specifically about her claim or how she supported it do you believe was incorrect.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 22873
PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 7:42 pm
 


You know what though? I'm trying to find exactly what she means by 2 years of truncated data. Having problems. Where is it then?

I do notice however that the guys responsible for the study the LA times was going into hysterics over do seem to have pulled in their horns a bit from their claim of 40% dead.

http://alaska.usgs.gov/science/biology/ ... pop_assess

Dr. Crockford claims they have to come clean by June to what looks to be some sort of modelers regulatory agency. Maybe we'll get the whole story then.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20991
PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 8:43 pm
 


N_Fiddledog wrote:

Dr. Crockford claims they have to come clean by June to what looks to be some sort of modelers regulatory agency. Maybe we'll get the whole story then.


No you won't get the whole story. There is no whole story. There will always be uncertainty. The deniers seem to think means the whole thing is bunk if there is any uncertainty. Polar bears cover a vast expanse of relatively unexplored territory covering several countries.

There doesn't seem to be much evidence either way. Although sea ice is critical of their life cycle, so less sea ice is going to have some kind of impact, clearly.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 22873
PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 11:11 pm
 


Zipperfish wrote:
Although sea ice is critical of their life cycle, so less sea ice is going to have some kind of impact, clearly.


I know Dr. Crockford was saying there have been historic cases of die-offs with thick spring ice. I imagine the seals have trouble breaking through. That's periodic though.

The problem with trying to imagine a massive, die-off, extinction from global warming is it's been much warmer than it is today during the hundred thousand or more years of polar bear existence.

Check here to see how current temps stand up against Medieval, Roman, and Holocene climate optimums according to ice core data

How did the Polar bear survive?


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 31631
PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 7:15 am
 


N_Fiddledog wrote:
Zipperfish wrote:
Polar ice loss does affect gravity, so how is that dishonest. [/url]

I told you how. The topic was dishonest headlines. The example headline insinuated danger. The way I remember the actual headline of the one I was originally referring to was the same thing.

Quote:
The polar bear site you linked to is a joke


CBC and every other alarmist media shill out there are jokes. Nothing you claim about Polar Bear Science would not apply to them. If we're relying on personal opinion, I mean.


None of these links were about, or from, the CBC.


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
Profile
Posts: 27
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2015 2:52 pm
 


BartSimpson wrote:
Well, there goes another blow against the global warming cult! Now let's sit back and see how this gets spun by the cultists to explain this away. :mrgreen:


This years Arctic sea ice maximum is at its lowest recorded level according to NASA.

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2256/

Quote:
The sea ice cap of the Arctic appeared to reach its annual maximum winter extent on Feb. 25, according to data from the NASA-supported National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) at the University of Colorado, Boulder. At 5.61 million square miles (14.54 million square kilometers), this year’s maximum extent was the smallest on the satellite record and also one of the earliest.


The Greenland ice sheet is losing mass - which is raising sea levels.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/greenl ... ng-ice.htm

Quote:
The evidence suggested by a multitude of different measurement techniques suggests that not only is Greenland losing ice but that these ice losses are accelerating at a rapid pace (Velicogna 2009). Further evidence suggests that although ice losses have up to this point primarily occurred in the South and Southwest portions of Greenland, these losses are now spreading to the Northwest sector of the ice sheet (Khan et al 2010).

Although there have been some gains at high altitudes, significant ice losses are occurring at low altitudes (Wouters 2008) along the coastline where glaciers are calving ice into the oceans far quicker than ice is being accumulated at the top of the ice sheet (Rignot and Kanagaratnam 2006).

In conclusion Greenland is losing ice extensively along its margins where fast flowing ice streams are pushing more ice into the ocean than is gained in the center of the ice sheet. For more information on how ice sheets lose mass, a more comprehensive discussion is available here.


Antarctica is losing ice mass which is going into the oceans

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarct ... ng-ice.htm

Quote:
Estimates of recent changes in Antarctic land ice (Figure 2, bottom panel) show an increasing contribution to sea level with time, although not as fast a rate or acceleration as Greenland. Between 1992 and 2011, the Antarctic Ice Sheets overall lost 1350 giga-tonnes (Gt) or 1,350,000,000,000 tonnes into the oceans, at an average rate of 70 Gt per year (Gt/yr). Because a reduction in mass of 360 Gt/year represents an annual global-average sea level rise of 1 mm, these estimates equate to an increase in global-average sea levels by 0.19 mm/yr.


That's 1.35 Trillion tons between 1992 and 2011.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 10662
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2015 3:38 pm
 


:P


Attachments:
on fire.jpg
on fire.jpg [ 65.94 KiB | Viewed 272 times ]
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 78 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.