Is Climate Change Real? Polling Public Opinion on the Controversial Issue

[BillJx]

But then again, when will the surprises stop?

http://www.knmi.nl/~laatdej/2003GL019024.pdf

Never, I hope!
But I don't see any reference to heat of combustion in your link.
I do see where he gives an estimate for the amount of carbon burned. It's easy to calculate the thermal energy released from 8000 Tg of C. And it shouldn't be hard to come up with a reasonable estimate for the H heat. But I don't have an estimate for the amount of heat necessary for a given amount of observed global warming. It's not only the atmosphere and ocean, there is also warming of the soil and rock (to an undetermined extent), the increase in the rate of ice melting, and the increase in atmospheric H2O.

So an answer could be computed for Astronuc's question but it would take a bit of work. I'm quite sure it's been done long ago, and the energy found to be insufficient. But it would be a fun exercise.

 

[Stainsor]

The global climate is one of the most complex physics problems known to man. The number of variables involved is immense and our ability to measure many of these variables is limited.

Because of the complexity of the climate it is likely that no one will ever be able to predict the global climate with high degrees of accuracy and precision for any span of time long enough to have implications on global warming. (The time span would have to be several years at least.)

Since we can't solve the problem from pure theory, we have to observe and record the climate over time. Like many physics problems climate exhibits oscillatory behavior. It's commonly known that temperature (among other things) oscillates on a day to day and season to season basis. But we know little about the long term oscillations of the global climate. Unfortunately humans have not had thorough and precise records of the climate for more than a few hundred years (at most). So we know nothing about climate oscillations that cycle on time scales of thousands of years. All this to say that we have no way of knowing if the recent rise in temperature is primarily due to some natural long term oscillation in temperature or if it is the result of human behavior.With that said, I think it's quite plausible that humans are responsible for Global Warming. But I agree with the general consensus: Who knows?

 

[BillJx]

Except for the experts, what we each believe about the science really doesn't matter.

QUOTE]

I agree with Ivan. No surprise there! And an expert is someone who has done the post graduate work in that field.

If peer-reviewed science is not vastly more reliable than public opinion, then where did all that stuff in the electronics store come from? If science does work, then the AGW debate is quickly reaching the level of the creationist debate.

It's unfortunate that the first option uses the term "unimpeachable science" instead of "sound science". I chose it anyway, because #3 implies too much doubt. Art, did you phrase the questions that way for a reason?

 

[edward]

This is a bit off topic but IMHO the worries about GW should be secondary to more immediate health effects of atmospheric pollution. They are both easier to study and much more useful in promoting stricter regulation.

I agree. Ironically the source of most of the atmospheric pollution is the same fossil fuels that create the CO2.

 

[Astronuc]

In the past few years, climatologists have realized that the record of past climate changes shows shifts in a decade or less. It appears that gradual warming or cooling leads to a point of imbalance. There are a few educated guesses about mechanisms, but in general they're not understood yet.

I would appreciate sources or reports on that. I imagine one could study fossil trees, or something, but going back millions of years, how can one discern a decade or century from rocks that might span millions of years. I would think the resolution would be wiped out.

Efficiency only determines the amount of fuel burned per unit of energy produced. It doesn't affect the amount of heat produced per unit of fuel.

True. But the point is with a 33% efficient process, one needs 3kW of thermal energy to produce 1 kW of light or whatever useful form one wants at hand. So look at the TWh of electricity and triple the number roughly for how much energy is being dumped into the environment.

However, climatologists calculate that the amount of heat directly generated doesn't have a measurable effect on climate.

I find that hard to believe given the magnitude of energy generation in terms of electrical generation and transportation (motorcycles, cars, buses, trucks, trains, planes, boats, ships).

 

[Bystander]

(snip) I find that hard to believe given the magnitude of energy generation in terms of electrical generation and transportation (motorcycles, cars, buses, trucks, trains, planes, boats, ships).

Human population of Earth is 6 x 10⁹; energy hogs in this country operate at 3kW per capita (that includes t-dynamic efficiency); call everyone else on the planet equally greedy; solar input is 350 W/m²; Earth surface area is 5 x 10¹⁴ m². 1.8 x 10¹⁰ kW is 0.01% of the 1.75 x 10¹⁴ kW radiation budget.

del q "dot"/q "dot" ~ 4 del T/T, 0.0025% of 300 K is 7.5 mK, all other things being held constant. Intuition is no substitute for doing the math.

 

[denverdoc]

well not to nitpick but the sunshines only during the day and is far from constant as a fx of latitude, etc. But even if our energy losses are a miniscule part of the budget, I'm still a fan of trapping solar energy via wind and photovoltaics, just seems more elegant, as anything put back would have been there in the first place. But maybe another way to frame the issue is to look at the temps of cities which have massive amts of heat absorbtion capacity. The temps there are often several degrees higher than the countryside, or deforestation which eliminates a significant heatsink. That adds to the peak of heat waves and stresses the infrastructure to a considerable extent--several times two summers ago, we could almost count on an interruption of power a few times a week near Denver. Its not limited to AGW or pollutants, you can't pave a significant fraction of Earth and not expect some consequences.

 

[Bystander]

well not to nitpick

No nits to pick --- you want the IPCC's numbers? http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/252.html
342 +/- 6% (they don't specify aphelion or perihelion) covers the 350; you do understand that the ratio of Earth's "disc" area to total area is 1/4, covers the day-night question? And, that that ratio accounts for average insolation rates?

but the sunshines only during the day and is far from constant as a fx of latitude, etc. But even if our energy losses are a miniscule part of the budget, I'm still a fan of trapping solar energy via wind and photovoltaics, just seems more elegant, as anything put back would have been there in the first place. But maybe another way to frame the issue is to look at the temps of cities which have massive amts of heat absorbtion capacity. The temps there are often several degrees higher than the countryside,

Peterson's paper in "The great global warming swindle" thread indicates no UHI, in contrast to Karl's work for NOAA. Which is it? Cityscapes tend to be surfaced with low thermal diffusivity materials, making for elevated surface temps under solar illumination, but very little total heat absorbed.

or deforestation which eliminates a significant heatsink.

How does a forest act as a "heatsink?"

That adds to the peak of heat waves and stresses the infrastructure to a considerable extent--several times two summers ago, we could almost count on an interruption of power a few times a week near Denver.

That's a function of PUC, zoning commissions, Dick Lamm, Roar Romer, Bill Owens, and assorted other crooked politicians overbuilding and under-maintaining distribution systems.

Its not limited to AGW or pollutants, you can't pave a significant fraction of Earth and not expect some consequences.

Your "significant fraction" is what? Tenths of a per cent of the Earth's surface area? Changing the total heat budget by how much?

 

[denverdoc]

well first there was nothing I saw in the math you presented that properly accounted for such. Maybe it was buried in the surface area calcs.

A forest operates as a heat sink if you can recall bio 101 by using photons to split water. They also offer shade.

Are you arguing cities aren't hotter? Good luck.

 

[Bystander]

well first there was nothing I saw in the math you presented that properly accounted for such. Maybe it was buried in the surface area calcs.

A forest operates as a heat sink if you can recall bio 101 by using photons to split water. They also offer shade.

And, from bio 102, browsers, insects, fungi, and bacteria metabolize the products of photosynthesis at approximately the same rate plants produce them, releasing the same amount of energy --- net zero.

Are you arguing cities aren't hotter? Good luck.

Nerp. Karl says they are; Peterson says they aren't, and both are "experts" claiming GW is real and anthropogenic. Are cities more uncomfortable? Damn bet you --- stand in an open area next to south facing buildings (or north in S hemisphere) and you can feel the blood boiling in your brain --- it's a primitive solar cooker. You can do the same experiment in gullies in arid, "rural" areas --- expose yourself to IR from two solar heated surfaces. Walk "The Miracle Mile" or Wall St. in midsummer and freeze your a** off because the sun never reaches the ground. And, you're guaranteed to have respiratory difficulties from the dirt and restricted air movement.

Is the UHI real? Waste heat from leaky buildings in winter and A/C in summer? Paving? Cars? Industrial processes?

"Let's do the math." http://www.demographia.com/db-intlua-area2000.htm Urban pop. densities for the U.S. run 1,000-1,500/km²; we'll boost the per capita energy use to 10kW; gives us an excess of 10W/m². That much gives us 1/2 K increase beyond just solar heating, without playing with emissivities; cut 'em down to increase the difference, and cool the solar heat background --- might be a wash; raise 'em, and go the other way --- again, might be a wash.

 

[Astronuc]

Human population of Earth is 6 x 10⁹; energy hogs in this country operate at 3kW per capita (that includes t-dynamic efficiency); call everyone else on the planet equally greedy; solar input is 350 W/m²; Earth surface area is 5 x 10¹⁴ m². 1.8 x 10¹⁰ kW is 0.01% of the 1.75 x 10¹⁴ kW radiation budget.

These are reasonable numbers. The 350 W/m² would include geometric effects and probably albedo.

del q "dot"/q "dot" ~ 4 del T/T, 0.0025% of 300 K is 7.5 mK, all other things being held constant. Intuition is no substitute for doing the math.

I'm still pondering the ratio.

 

[Bystander]

These are reasonable numbers. The 350 W/m² would include geometric effects and probably albedo.

I'm still pondering the ratio.

q"dot"(T₂) - q"dot"(T₁) = sigma x k_S-B((T₁ + del T)⁴ - (T₁ )⁴)

The rest of the derivation is left to the reader.

 

[denverdoc]

And, from bio 102, browsers, insects, fungi, and bacteria metabolize the products of photosynthesis at approximately the same rate plants produce them, releasing the same amount of energy --- net zer0...



This has not een ny experience. I sit under a tree it is cooler--part of this radiation shielding, but any argument that food chain is net zero ignores the work done by whatever critters at an efficiency of 25 percnt or so, i'll bet tthe efficiency of this current discussion is a few points riight of zero.

 

[Bystander]

(snip)"Let's do the math." http://www.demographia.com/db-intlua-area2000.htm Urban pop. densities for the U.S. run 1,000-1,500/km²; we'll boost the per capita energy use to 10kW; gives us an excess of 10W/m². That much gives us 1/2 K increase beyond just solar heating, without playing with emissivities; cut 'em down to increase the difference, and cool the solar heat background --- might be a wash; raise 'em, and go the other way --- again, might be a wash.

Need to correct this, it's about a 2 K increase. Can't say the 10kW assumption is anything more than a guess, though.

 

[Bystander]

And, from bio 102, browsers, insects, fungi, and bacteria metabolize the products of photosynthesis at approximately the same rate plants produce them, releasing the same amount of energy --- net zer0...



This has not een ny experience. I sit under a tree it is cooler--part of this radiation shielding, but any argument that food chain is net zero ignores the work done by whatever critters at an efficiency of 25 percnt or so, i'll bet tthe efficiency of this current discussion is a few points riight of zero.

Biological efficiencies run around 10%; and, all that work they do winds up as waste heat. Termites pile dirt 5 m above ground level, and all that mgh comes right back after a few years of rainfall.

 

[Art]

It's unfortunate that the first option uses the term "unimpeachable science" instead of "sound science". I chose it anyway, because #3 implies too much doubt. Art, did you phrase the questions that way for a reason?

Not specifically, it was more to convey a sense of total belief in the conviction that GW is a problem and that we are causing it as opposed to total disbelief with the other 2 options allowing for those undecided but leaning in one direction or the other.

 

[Art]

Are you arguing cities aren't hotter? Good luck.

If they are not then GW is far less than the warmers claim as they use these city temps towards their proof the Earth is warming which is why Peterson did his (IMO) rather dodgy study to try and show cities have no effect on temperature.

 

[BillJx]

I would appreciate sources or reports on that.

It was a surprise to me too, when I found it on the Woods Hole site several months ago. It made me realize immediately that the risks of climate change are orders of magnitude greater than I'd assumed. People worry about sea level rise. I'm more concerned about agriculture.

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html

http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/viewArticle.do?id=9986

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/Sudden_Climate_Change2.html

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/abrupt.html

 

[Astronuc]

It was a surprise to me too, when I found it on the Woods Hole site several months ago. It made me realize immediately that the risks of climate change are orders of magnitude greater than I'd assumed. People worry about sea level rise. I'm more concerned about agriculture.

. . . .

Thanks for the links. Interesting that many years ago, the mean sea level was 10 m higher than today.

I'll add these.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/grnhse.html

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/albedo.html

 

[Andre]

It was a surprise to me too, when I found it on the Woods Hole site several months ago. It made me realize immediately that the risks of climate change are orders of magnitude greater than I'd assumed. People worry about sea level rise. I'm more concerned about agriculture.

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html

http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/viewArticle.do?id=9986

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/Sudden_Climate_Change2.html

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/abrupt.html

Bill please, Jonathan Adams outdated and it is miles away from the truth. You can see that if you compare his Siberia with our Mammoth Siberia. Please tell me what is not clear in my PDF.

http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/refuting%20the%20Greenland%20paleo%20thermometer1.pdf

The alleged "ten-degrees-within-a-decade" was more about three feet of precipitation more per year.

 

[Ratzinger]

What is the purpose of this thread??

Are some poster implying here we all should carry on? That all the 12 billions living in 2050 could use energy like most US people do now and that would still be unnoticed by nature?


Does cutting more and more trees and using more and more energy lead to global warming? At one point it surely will. A majority says we already have reach that point. But even if we have not yet, we will get there, and that more sooner than later.

 

[Andre]

The purpose of this thread?

There is an IPCC report due tomorrow that is supposed to be going to tell us that there is 90% certainty that global temperatures are due to rise some 2-4 degrees by 2050 or something of that order of magnitude.

The question is, if this is baloney, it is.

But this requires exposure of those myths with facts and figures and exposing what has been ignored, where the shortcuts are, and what has been fantasized and which fallacies have been used.

Time for science to kick back in.

A completely different story is what mankind should do, to be best prepared for the foreseable future. And the most pertinent wrong thing to do is to base the required decisions and actions on a wrong perception of reality driven by unfounded fear.

 

[denverdoc]

Andre,

Please for my edification and perhaps of others, is what exactly are you so fearful of? After reading at least several dozen of your posts, I honestly still don't what your point is. That mankind is going to reckelessly endanger the species by making a conservative choice (by not going full tilt ahead with current course of action because the science is flawed)?

Maybe if I had better understanding of what consequences you envision by assuming AGW is real and basing some policy on this assumption, I might be more sympathetic and understanding of your POV.

 

[Andre]

Andre,

Please for my edification and perhaps of others, is what exactly are you so fearful of? After reading at least several dozen of your posts, I honestly still don't what your point is. That mankind is going to reckelessly endanger the species by making a conservative choice (by not going full tilt ahead with current course of action because the science is flawed)?

Maybe if I had better understanding of what consequences you envision by assuming AGW is real and basing some policy on this assumption, I might be more sympathetic and understanding of your POV.

My point? All I wanted 8 years ago is solving the riddle of the Mammoth mega fauna extinction. What followed was a complete personal overhaul of our interpretation of the geologic/biologic records of the Pleistocene, which ultimately lead to the understanding that the very base of the global warming (as in tipping points, flickering climates and catastrofic climate changes), the understanding of the ice cores, is seriously flawed. Posts and links to that are all over the place.

Now it would be nice if it was possible to really revise the material and build new hypothesis and test them, for instance:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=153634
http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/Pulsating-ice-age.pdf

But if the assumptions that lead to AGW are not right and the physics are not right then we should accept that AGW is not right. That's all there is to it. Therefore all measures that have the purpose to reduce CO2 emissions for climate are meaningless, as the minor changes in reradiation will probably only be clutter in the strong natural variations that brought us the Holocene Thermal Optimum, The Roman warm period, The medieval warm period and the Little ice age, for the last 10,000 years.

Again, how ethical is it to misuse the climate scare to enforce carbon reductions? If your perception of reality is wrong, your actions are bound to be wrong. What for instance, if we launched all kind of deflecting material into space to dim the sun, only to find out that we're heading to a new Maunder minimum and another little ice age? What good would it be to be able to say: "I told you so", if we perish anyway. Therefore I tell you now.

Doing things to preserve the future. Sure by all means. Of course we must get rid of the oil dependency. For very good reasons, you will allways be too late to react when it's clear that oil consumption is exceeding production and such. You don't want to be dependent on oil production of unstable regions. But alternate energy sources should not be considered for CO2 and climate, because that it no issue. The slogan should be: no-regret measures. You would regret that solar dimming shield dearly during a new maunder minimum or that you let the economy and the environment collapse because of the enforcement of inadequate "renewable" energy sources.

Just a clearer vision on reality. That's what it takes.


.

 

[edward]

Gimme a break Andre. Much of the recent ice core scepticism and GW scepticism is prmoted by Lyndon LaRouche. The guy has little credibility as a politician let alone science. Below is about all I came up with when I googled "ice core data flawed."

http://www.larouchepub.com/

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_10-19/2007-11/pdf/38_711_science.pdf

La Rouche's scientific information was provided by:

" Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski
Chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection
Warsaw, Poland "

 

[Art]

Gimme a break Andre. Much of the recent ice core scepticism and GW scepticism is prmoted by Lyndon LaRouche. The guy has little credibility as a politician let alone science. Below is about all I came up with when I googled "ice core data flawed."

http://www.larouchepub.com/

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_10-19/2007-11/pdf/38_711_science.pdf

I googled on ice core flawed and got 778,000 hits, many of which appear to be relevant to this discussion and for 'ice core data flawed' there were 555,000 hits. It seems you somehow inadvertently missed 554,998 of them.

 

[BillJx]

But if the assumptions that lead to AGW are not right and the physics are not right then we should accept that AGW is not right. That's all there is to it.

.

But Andre, what if it's you that's wrong?

 

[Evo]

But Andre, what if it's you that's wrong?

Since Andre is for cleaning up the environment and reducing pollution, as am I, I guess it wouldn't matter, would it? At least we'd see more factual claims and less wildly exagerrated "predictions of doom".

Unfortunately, we do live in a world of idiots that won't agree to reducing pollution unless we tell them the Earth is going to melt away eliminating all life. Then there are people that say "well, even if they (AGW's) are grossly exagerrating things, it can't hurt, right? Well, yes it can if they go down the wrong track. Being against the skewing of scientific data doesn't mean being against reducing pollution. Is that what you think?

I haven't seen anyone here saying that we shouldn't reduce pollution.

Do you oppose a better understanding of what is really being affected and how?

 

[edward]

I googled on ice core flawed and got 778,000 hits, many of which appear to be relevant to this discussion and for 'ice core data flawed' there were 555,000 hits. It seems you somehow inadvertently missed 554,998 of them.

How many of them did you read?? The first one I hit was a Lyndon LaRouche publication.
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/publi...11_science.pdf

Others had the word flawed in them. Several in particular were related to a Greenland ice core which was thought to have volcanic ash from one volcano when the ash was actually from a different volcano. That doesn't apply to the topic of Flawed ice core data in the context of this thread.

Also bear in mind that as you proceed through the google links fewer and fewer of them have all of the search terms.

So post a few that actually state that the most recent 2006 ice core data is flawed.

Also post a few that say that the glaciers and ice sheets aren't really melting

Is it GW you have a problem with or AGW? I don't think that anyone will state that the billions of tons of CO2 man has dumped into the atmosphere has had a zero effect on GW.

But then as I have stated before, regardless of GW or AGW it is time to move on to newer and cleaner energy technology.

 

[denverdoc]

My point? All I wanted 8 years ago is solving the riddle of the Mammoth mega fauna extinction. What followed was a complete personal overhaul of our interpretation of the geologic/biologic records of the Pleistocene, which ultimately lead to the understanding that the very base of the global warming (as in tipping points, flickering climates and catastrofic climate changes), the understanding of the ice cores, is seriously flawed. Posts and links to that are all over the place.

Now it would be nice if it was possible to really revise the material and build new hypothesis and test them, for instance:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=153634
http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/Pulsating-ice-age.pdf

But if the assumptions that lead to AGW are not right and the physics are not right then we should accept that AGW is not right. That's all there is to it. Therefore all measures that have the purpose to reduce CO2 emissions for climate are meaningless, as the minor changes in reradiation will probably only be clutter in the strong natural variations that brought us the Holocene Thermal Optimum, The Roman warm period, The medieval warm period and the Little ice age, for the last 10,000 years.

Again, how ethical is it to misuse the climate scare to enforce carbon reductions? If your perception of reality is wrong, your actions are bound to be wrong. What for instance, if we launched all kind of deflecting material into space to dim the sun, only to find out that we're heading to a new Maunder minimum and another little ice age? What good would it be to be able to say: "I told you so", if we perish anyway. Therefore I tell you now.

Doing things to preserve the future. Sure by all means. Of course we must get rid of the oil dependency. For very good reasons, you will allways be too late to react when it's clear that oil consumption is exceeding production and such. You don't want to be dependent on oil production of unstable regions. But alternate energy sources should not be considered for CO2 and climate, because that it no issue. The slogan should be: no-regret measures. You would regret that solar dimming shield dearly during a new maunder minimum or that you let the economy and the environment collapse because of the enforcement of inadequate "renewable" energy sources.

Just a clearer vision on reality. That's what it takes.
.

Ok at least I know we are in agreement about some of the issues. But I also see a cost into waiting for absolute certainty--which is what the rebublicans have been suggesting we do and in fact, we have been doing for quite a while now. And I am in fundamental agreement that science should never be distorted into a tool for propoganda. I guess that's the bottom line, if by waiting 10 years to clean up the science it risks crossing some line in the sand where it becomes run away process like a truck down a mountain road, we should start applying the breaks. You seem certain this is not the case. There OTOH are some very smart people saying it is, and with whom I can find no axe to grind, or Nobel to reap. Whats a conscientious person to do? I think that's the quandary many of us find ourselves in.

 

[Evo]

Ok at least I know we are in agreement about some of the issues. Whats a conscientious person to do? I think that's the quandary many of us find ourselves in.

Can't we agree to reduce pollution without polluting the science? Shouldn't we be agreeing on ways to clean up the environment? Should we care if some climatologist gets a tv segment and some notice in the news and more grant money and forget about focussing on the real problem at hand?

The most recent bit of two "scientists" trying to make a name for themselves was the recent "60 minutes" segment where two unknown researchers came forward with the devastating news that there was a 50% drop in the penguin population.

What they FAILED to mention was that this happened ONE TIME IN THE 1970's and HAS NEVER HAPPENED again, and that this was a fluke in a normal cycle and that the next cycle was normal and has been normal ever since and that the penguin population stabilized 30 years ago and has been increasing ever since.

Lies, lies and damned lies? When is this shameful behavior for recognition going to stop?

 

[denverdoc]

I think we are in agreement there. Personally I was under the impression that penguin flocks on at least a couple of the antarctic major "nesting" grounds were in trouble because of early thaws putting the eggs under water. This isn't true apparently? I heard this BTW on the radio months ago, don't watch much TV non news news.

 

[Evo]

I think we are in agreement there. Personally I was under the impression that penguin flocks on at least a couple of the antarctic major "nesting" grounds were in trouble because of early thaws putting the eggs under water. This isn't true apparently? I heard this BTW on the radio months ago, don't watch much TV non news news.

No, the majority of penguins are experiencing population increases, and specifically the ones these two people cited from 40 years ago as if it was happening today. There are a few species that are declining, but primarily because of the encroachment of krill fisheries in their natural feeding grounds. Also, there are some warming factors that could be involved, both natural and man made. But the fact is that these two people made a statement in order to gain fame that was so easily debunked, but how many people watching that tv show will ever know it was a lie? None?

 

[edward]

It is the thawing at top of the palnet that seems to be the most obvious.

March 27 (Bloomberg) -- A lack of ice floes in eastern Canada's Gulf of St. Lawrence, caused by higher temperatures, threatens to kill most of this year's harp seal pups, the International Fund for Animal Welfare said.

The gulf has had below-average amounts of ice in nine of the past 11 years, the environmental campaign group said in an e- mailed statement today. Mother seals give birth and rear their pups on the ice to prevent drowning. This year's shortage appears to be worse than in 2002, when 75 percent of harp seal pups died before the annual legal seal hunt, the IFAW said.

The pups need two weeks before they lean to swim.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=aoue5anTk4Sk&refer=canada

There is video of the situation on youtube, but most of it deals with the hunt itself and is a bit bloody.

You can do a google video search using the term "seal pups drowning" if you want to see it.

 

[russ_watters]

Since Andre is for cleaning up the environment and reducing pollution, as am I, I guess it wouldn't matter, would it? At least we'd see more factual claims and less wildly exagerrated "predictions of doom".

Unfortunately, we do live in a world of idiots that won't agree to reducing pollution unless we tell them the Earth is going to melt away eliminating all life. Then there are people that say "well, even if they (AGW's) are grossly exagerrating things, it can't hurt, right? Well, yes it can if they go down the wrong track. Being against the skewing of scientific data doesn't mean being against reducing pollution. Is that what you think?

I haven't seen anyone here saying that we shouldn't reduce pollution.

Do you oppose a better understanding of what is really being affected and how?

It is important to note that without global warming in the picture, there are far, far more critical air pollution problems in the world today. Global warming/carbon dioxide isn't the reason why Chinese have to wear masks in public to breathe and doesn't cause the smog that coats and dissolves our cities. Air pollution is killing people right now, and it does hurt if people ignore that fact in favor of chasing a problem that even if the worst predictions come true 100 years from now will not be killing people like other forms of air pollution are today.

Seriously - how bad will global warming have to get to kill three quarters of a million people a year? http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/EH28Ad01.html

That is why global warming talk annoys me so much and why quite frankly even if the predictions are true, it is still a fantasy. Even if true, it is still a diversion from bigger and more immediate problems. The reason why it is so politically attractive, though, is because it is all in the future. It makes politicians feel/seem proactive and caring when the truth of the matter is that they aren't because they are ignoring real deaths right now.

edit: Some more food for thought: One of the major concerns people seem to have is about coastal areas becoming uninhabitable. But they are using flawed (no) math/logic when analyzing just what that means. We are rebuilding New Orleans when by all logic it should have been abandoned. But if that's the way we feel about it, then that's the way we feel about it: we're not going to abandon any of our major coastal areas, no matter what any environmentalist says. But what about the cost of building 1000 miles of levees around Florida? Well frankly, if we want to keep Florida, it needs 1000 miles of levees right now (we're going to spend $10 billion repairing and upgrading the levees in New Orleans while the Katrina cleanup itself cost about $300 billion), but if the choices are to spend a hundred billion dollars on a levee system or spend a trillion dollars on reworking our entire energy production system while simultaneously cutting our GDP growth because of the added weight of more expensive energy, why does it make sense to do that?