In case of Global Warming....

[Menard_K]

Right, because there is no advance in technology as the world moves forward.

That's why we still have horses pulling our carts and attach the wings to the airplanes with wax that will melt if they fly too close to the Sun.

Thank U ever so much for your opinion
My point here is that its going to take orders of magnitude greater
energy production, and SAFE energy production ( nuke is still far too dangerous )

Note that the advance from human labor or animal augmented labor, to steam,
promoted HUGE coal burning operations and that gave us black skies & acid rain
until such time as a LOT of energy was brought to bear to clean up the smoke stacks.

There are parts of the modern world where raw materials get extracted from the ground
and processed into some item that gets used & used up, and then thrown away, ending
up in a land fill as a complex manufactured item that is extremely difficult to separate out
the various raw materials that went into it, so its just cheaper to throw it away...
How long can we keep this up before the earth becomes uninhabitable?

 

[Threegoofs]

The numbers are legitimately on the rise though, the Inuits had to start begging for the rights to defend themselves from increasing encounters. The thing is that polar bears WILL ACTIVELY HUNT HUMANS.

Really? So if you are attcked, you are not allowed to defend yourself by killing the bear? I find that hard to believe.

And I suppose you are insinuating that since polar bears hunt humans, it just makes sense to allow humans to hunt polar bears.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Really? So if you are attcked, you are not allowed to defend yourself by killing the bear? I find that hard to believe.

Have you ever gone hunting?? If so, do you know the penalties for poaching?

Killing an animal on the endangered species list (unless you can prove the immanent danger; And who do you think the officers are going to believe, you or the dead animal??) is considered poaching and carries with it very hefty penalties.

And I suppose you are insinuating that since polar bears hunt humans, it just makes sense to allow humans to hunt polar bears.

No, I'm saying that if bears encroach on humans that they should be allowed to protect themselves rather than hoping to scare them off.

Very few people hunt bear because they are scavengers and will eat anything, so the meat is not good tasting.

The bigger issue is that the issue of polar bears is propaganda because they look cute, and it's easy to say they are dying... They are one of the strongest mammal swimmers though, and they do actively hunt humans that they see... And the numbers have been increasing, so again this is another useless exaggeration from the AGW alarmist crowd.

 

[code1211]

Thank U ever so much for your opinion
My point here is that its going to take orders of magnitude greater
energy production, and SAFE energy production ( nuke is still far too dangerous )

Note that the advance from human labor or animal augmented labor, to steam,
promoted HUGE coal burning operations and that gave us black skies & acid rain
until such time as a LOT of energy was brought to bear to clean up the smoke stacks.

There are parts of the modern world where raw materials get extracted from the ground
and processed into some item that gets used & used up, and then thrown away, ending
up in a land fill as a complex manufactured item that is extremely difficult to separate out
the various raw materials that went into it, so its just cheaper to throw it away...
How long can we keep this up before the earth becomes uninhabitable?

Our shelf life as a species might well be running toward the end.

At this point, though, we are in a bargain with the devil. There are 7 billion hungry mouths to feed and to do so requires the burning of Fossil Fuels.

Figuring out a cleaner way to do this is a good thing, but trying to change over to a the "green alternative energy sources" is a pipe dream.

Even if that is successful, there is the issue of the batteries. Right now, when a battery powered car is produced, that car needs 80 years of clean running to make up for the environmental damage incumbent on the world from making the batteries and disposing of the wasted batteries and the replacement batteries when they are dead. Maybe not so good...

I try to live within the society to not make things worse, but it's a difficult proposition to accommodate.

If our goal is to stop changing the planet, then about 6.3 billion of us need to give up our seat on the bus.

 

[Threegoofs]

Have you ever gone hunting?? If so, do you know the penalties for poaching?

Killing an animal on the endangered species list (unless you can prove the immanent danger; And who do you think the officers are going to believe, you or the dead animal??) is considered poaching and carries with it very hefty penalties.
.

I'm quite familiar with poaching fines and punishment.

And if you report killing a bear, and haven't taken the meat or pelt, I doubt authorities would get you for poaching. It's not like rangers are unaware of the danger of polar bears....

 

[Threegoofs]

The bigger issue is that the issue of polar bears is propaganda because they look cute, and it's easy to say they are dying... They are one of the strongest mammal swimmers though, and they do actively hunt humans that they see... And the numbers have been increasing, so again this is another useless exaggeration from the AGW alarmist crowd.

I agree. Charismatic megafauna tend to be exploited for political reasons for lots of causes.

But making little Jenny (who slept thru biology class) reflect upon the truly devastating environmental damage being caused by AGW probably won't work by discussing the expanded lifecycle of pine bark beetles, or non synchronous pollination caused by earlier springs.

 

[BmanMcfly]

I'm quite familiar with poaching fines and punishment.

And if you report killing a bear, and haven't taken the meat or pelt, I doubt authorities would get you for poaching. It's not like rangers are unaware of the danger of polar bears....

That's why the Inuit tribes (you know, the people that actually share territory with polar bears) have been begging the government for years to change them from protected status.

Oh; and btw, unless the bear is in the process of attacking you MUST attempt only to scare it off. The rangers, because of the status of polar bears must, unless there is proof otherwise, assume that other non-lethal measures had failed.

I agree. Charismatic megafauna tend to be exploited for political reasons for lots of causes.

But making little Jenny (who slept thru biology class) reflect upon the truly devastating environmental damage being caused by AGW probably won't work by discussing the expanded lifecycle of pine bark beetles, or non synchronous pollination caused by earlier springs.

So we must lie to them in order to ensure that they pay attention...

I know that's how the alarmists think; another reason why nobody buys their bs anymore.

 

[Jack Hays]

The 5000 figure was based off of flyovers only; finding and counting all the bears was what showed that they were not really as endangered as what was once thought.

The numbers are legitimately on the rise though, the Inuits had to start begging for the rights to defend themselves from increasing encounters. The thing is that polar bears WILL ACTIVELY HUNT HUMANS.

Yup. They think THEY are the top of the food chain.

 

[Jack Hays]

I'm quite familiar with poaching fines and punishment.

And if you report killing a bear, and haven't taken the meat or pelt, I doubt authorities would get you for poaching. It's not like rangers are unaware of the danger of polar bears....

[h=2]CO2 calculation in the global carbon cycle may be off due to a depth error[/h] Posted on August 31, 2013 by Anthony Watts
It seems that a simple assumption about where to measure CO2 in the ocean surface has drastic implications. via The Hockey Schtick

New paper finds global carbon cycle datasets may be biased
A paper published today in Global Biogeochemical Cycles finds prior calculations of the global carbon cycle may be erroneous because such calculations are based upon partial pressures of CO2 from several meters below the ocean surface instead of CO2 levels at the ocean surface ["the boundary layer"] where CO2 is actually exchanged between the atmosphere and ocean.
The authors find a “strong” CO2 variability between the global datasets measured from several meters below the surface in comparison to the ocean surface that cannot be explained by Henry’s Law alone, and are primarily due to variations in biological activity between these layers. The paper finds higher levels of CO2 in the boundary layer than in the 5 meter deep global datasets, which would suggest that either the oceans are less of a sink for CO2 or a larger source of CO2 to the atmosphere than previously assumed.
Continue reading →