Climate Change vs. Waterfowl Migration
- Thread starter Carl
- Start date
sean sutton
Active member
Al Gore invented the internet.
... and global warming...........
... and global warming...........
Mike Sheppard
Active member
Tod
I've given some thought to this and read your posts.
I think my problem with the whole global warming thing is that science and politics are so intertwined that it's hard to know what to believe.
1
o I think the earth is warming? ...yes if not I would be living on a glacier.2:do I think it is at least partly caused by human activities?....probably to some degree.
3:do I think this is a bad thing?...I have no idea and according to your post neither does the concensus.
3:am I willing to live in a shack and ride my bicycle to the site where my job used to be to lower my carbon footprint?...NO! Not without a whole lot more evidence of imminent disastor.
4:am I willing to let a coalition of politicians socialists, environmentalists, vegans, luddites, and 3rd worlddictators, each with their own agenda control our economy and nearly every aspect of my life in the name of saving the planet.?....HE'LL NO.
The sky has been falling for most of my life and this just looks like the latest version to me.
mike
Mark W
Well-known member
As far as the 17 or 18 year period without temperature change, I do not know where that data comes from. I’ve spent hours in the past looking in the primary literature for support for that statement and spent hours looking on the web. I found the statement that the earth’s temperature has been static repeated dozens of times, but the statement had never been referenced to a specific scientist, or more importantly, to a published paper in the literature.
Take a look at the earth temperature data provided by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/) and answer for yourself if you think that it is true that earth surface temperature as not changed in 18 years (or 100 years for that matter). The scientific consensus is that the temperature changes we are seeing are human caused, they are occurring faster than normal and they are occurring on top of the background changes that are natural. There are more figures to look at on the page I linked, but the one below is a good summary of earth surface air temperature since 1880.
[/font]
Global annual mean air surface temperature
T[/QUOTE]
I didn't know they had thermometers that accurate back over 130 years ago. Can you point one out that could accurately measure to the 0.1 degree?
Mark W
Last edited:
I didn't know they had thermometers that accurate back over 130 years ago. Can you point one out that could accurately measure to the 0.1 degree?
Mark W
[/QUOTE]
Mark, I won't recreate the methods used in the numerous papers to generate the figure, that is why I linked the source (as is proper). The figure is linked to the NASA website I linked, the source paper is Hansen et al. 2006 as indicated there and used a variety of previously published data and accepted methods. The paper is published in the The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), which holds one of the top spots as far as peer-reviewed science goes. It is all there is you want to try to pick it apart.
Bob, given how I make my living, I have a much better than average understanding of the science and don't think I exactly qualify for sheeple designation. I don't care much about the politics, but I do care about the science and its state and how it is presented. Did you see the figure of the number of papers published for vs against climate change? I've read the anti-climate change stuff and know that is not what they are presenting, they are presenting that there is a growing body of research against climate change. I don't see 24 in 14000 as a growing body. Did you pause to think 14000 vs 24? Does this mean anything to you? Does this agree with your understanding of the state of the science? The media whish is clearly liberal still presents it as a debate, when I see little debate in 24 vs 14000. What the 24 vs 14000 doesn't capture is that the best minds are in the 14000. There is an enormous body of literature that says the climate is changing and predicts what will happen given what we have seen and predict.
TimJ
Well-known member
It really doesn't matter what the facts are this was a flawed study and very closed minded IMHO.
Why only one reason for the change?
I see more and more water being kept artificially open even in very cold years. Street runoff, aerators, dams and warm water discharges all keep water running year around up north. There are also land use changes that are likely part of it. Heck there could even be a Canada goose effect. They plow through snow here no matter what the weather and I see more and more mallards hanging with them.
It just seems odd that this was done to find out how one possible cause is doing it all.
And how about a study on how much migration has changed in the past 150 years. It will be much more drastic then ducks being a couple weeks later now. Yep, we have changed how waterfowl migrate... Deal with it, I doubt it is going to change.
Carry on,
Tim
Why only one reason for the change?
I see more and more water being kept artificially open even in very cold years. Street runoff, aerators, dams and warm water discharges all keep water running year around up north. There are also land use changes that are likely part of it. Heck there could even be a Canada goose effect. They plow through snow here no matter what the weather and I see more and more mallards hanging with them.
It just seems odd that this was done to find out how one possible cause is doing it all.
And how about a study on how much migration has changed in the past 150 years. It will be much more drastic then ducks being a couple weeks later now. Yep, we have changed how waterfowl migrate... Deal with it, I doubt it is going to change.
Carry on,
Tim
Vince Pagliaroli
Well-known member
Has anyone considered the facts of much degraded habitat, plus the facts the birds get the hell scared out of them with all the early goose seasons, "Conservation" seasons, electronic callers, mojo/robo decoys, so on and so forth. If anyone thinks Increased Pressure has NO affect on the birds, and migration influences, they have not studied the birds we hunt. They ARE extremely sensitive to hunting pressure. There are fewer places for them to live, rest and feed, and all those places attract many many hunters when the populations are high as they are now. If yer out there every season for 50 years, ya don't need a darn graph to show you things have Changed, and not all because of Climate Change.
[/QUOTE]
Tod
I've given some thought to this and read your posts.
I think my problem with the whole global warming thing is that science and politics are so intertwined that it's hard to know what to believe.
1o I think the earth is warming? ...yes if not I would be living on a glacier.
2:do I think it is at least partly caused by human activities?....probably to some degree.
3:do I think this is a bad thing?...I have no idea and according to your post neither does the concensus.
3:am I willing to live in a shack and ride my bicycle to the site where my job used to be to lower my carbon footprint?...NO! Not without a whole lot more evidence of imminent disastor.
4:am I willing to let a coalition of politicians socialists, environmentalists, vegans, luddites, and 3rd worlddictators, each with their own agenda control our economy and nearly every aspect of my life in the name of saving the planet.?....HE'LL NO.
The sky has been falling for most of my life and this just looks like the latest version to me.
mike
[/QUOTE]
Mike, let me give you some responses that I think may be useful...
As for 1, yes climate exists outside of the impacts on humans, the climate has changed all over the place in the periods we can measure. The thing that has scientists concerned is that the temperature changes are occuring faster than they have in the past. These changes are thought to be related to CO2 emissions, since CO2 traps heat the earth is warming. CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are being emitted at an amazing rate and temps are going up faster than they have ever done before. This is a correlative relationship, but we do know that CO2 traps heat, that the recent increase is human-caused. Within the sciences, there is extremely little debate on this issue. There are no well-credentialed and active scientists (i.e., expert) that I've ever seen argue this point.
As for 2, that is where I'm at. The issue is what is a small change? The average person doesn't appreciate how minute changes in average temperature can impact the natural systems that surround
us. The range of plants and animals is one relevant to the initial post and an average of a degree shift in temp although it may not sound like a big deal has a big impact. Minute changes can drive ranges such that populations can go extinct or species. There are literally thousands of research papers addressing these ideas and few of them come away with the idea that the changes will be for the better.
As for 3, that is fine, but that isnt' the science. How you deal with the info is your choice and obviously that will dictate how you vote. The scientific coinsensus is that it is likely going to be bad. If you would like, I would be happy to find a couple things to read. Changes in temperature and climate will have impacts on wildlife, agriculture, and our checkbook. My feeling is that the impact on our checkbook will be negative if we work to fix it or not, but the benefit of working to fix it is a positive for the environment we all enjoy. There is a huge difference between saying I dont' believe the science and I dont' care about the science, those are two different issues.
Same with 4 as 3.
OK, now with the point about the sky falling your whole life – I appreciate that feeling. I agree with you, but let me point out what you are not appreciating, but you probably know.
Sky falling issue #1. DDT, the organochlorine insecticide that bioaccummulated in top predators birds (Bald Eagles, Osprey, Peregrine Falcon) and interfered with reproduction. DDT was causing these birds to go extinct in many parts of their range. Many states had none of these birds in the wild because of DDT, when they previously were present (sometimes abundant). Scientists figured out that it was DDT and it was banned. At the time there was an absolute shit-ton of debate – it was a huge fight. After the ban and a ton of effort and money the birds are back and we have lots of useful and important pesticides to replace DDT. There was a period when all three of these birds were extinct in my state, but now I see them all the time.
Sky falling issue #2. Acid Rain, caused by nitrogen and sulfur compounds (NOX and SOX) emitted when burning coal acidified large portions of pristine wilderness in Canada and the NE US. Pristine lakes far removed from human impact were becoming devoid of fish because of precipitation laden with NOX and SOX altered lake chemistry. After a ton of debate and fighting, regulations were put into place to reduce NOX and SOX in coal-fired plant emissions. The issue has improved and many lakes that were fishless have fish again.
Sky falling issue #3. Ozone hole, caused by use of CFCs. CFCs were widely used because of their many useful properties, but are now limited in use because high in the atmosphere they were causing a breakdown of the ozone layer. The fight was huge with arguments on both sides – once CfCs were banned the problem began to correct itself and now we all use solid deodorant, not spray.
Yes, the sky is always falling, because it is - we keep breaking stuff that has to be fixed, because we need to take to live, I accept that and I accept my impact because I see no other way. I do not believe that any of the above issues had anywhere near the consensus within the scientific community that climate change has. I have never seen anything that made me think that clamate change isn’t a big deal on many levels. It will affect the environment, our food supply and our checkbook, not matter what we do or don't
Tod
I've given some thought to this and read your posts.
I think my problem with the whole global warming thing is that science and politics are so intertwined that it's hard to know what to believe.
1
o I think the earth is warming? ...yes if not I would be living on a glacier. 2:do I think it is at least partly caused by human activities?....probably to some degree.
3:do I think this is a bad thing?...I have no idea and according to your post neither does the concensus.
3:am I willing to live in a shack and ride my bicycle to the site where my job used to be to lower my carbon footprint?...NO! Not without a whole lot more evidence of imminent disastor.
4:am I willing to let a coalition of politicians socialists, environmentalists, vegans, luddites, and 3rd worlddictators, each with their own agenda control our economy and nearly every aspect of my life in the name of saving the planet.?....HE'LL NO.
The sky has been falling for most of my life and this just looks like the latest version to me.
mike
[/QUOTE]
Mike, let me give you some responses that I think may be useful...
As for 1, yes climate exists outside of the impacts on humans, the climate has changed all over the place in the periods we can measure. The thing that has scientists concerned is that the temperature changes are occuring faster than they have in the past. These changes are thought to be related to CO2 emissions, since CO2 traps heat the earth is warming. CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are being emitted at an amazing rate and temps are going up faster than they have ever done before. This is a correlative relationship, but we do know that CO2 traps heat, that the recent increase is human-caused. Within the sciences, there is extremely little debate on this issue. There are no well-credentialed and active scientists (i.e., expert) that I've ever seen argue this point.
As for 2, that is where I'm at. The issue is what is a small change? The average person doesn't appreciate how minute changes in average temperature can impact the natural systems that surround
us. The range of plants and animals is one relevant to the initial post and an average of a degree shift in temp although it may not sound like a big deal has a big impact. Minute changes can drive ranges such that populations can go extinct or species. There are literally thousands of research papers addressing these ideas and few of them come away with the idea that the changes will be for the better.
As for 3, that is fine, but that isnt' the science. How you deal with the info is your choice and obviously that will dictate how you vote. The scientific coinsensus is that it is likely going to be bad. If you would like, I would be happy to find a couple things to read. Changes in temperature and climate will have impacts on wildlife, agriculture, and our checkbook. My feeling is that the impact on our checkbook will be negative if we work to fix it or not, but the benefit of working to fix it is a positive for the environment we all enjoy. There is a huge difference between saying I dont' believe the science and I dont' care about the science, those are two different issues.
Same with 4 as 3.
OK, now with the point about the sky falling your whole life – I appreciate that feeling. I agree with you, but let me point out what you are not appreciating, but you probably know.
Sky falling issue #1. DDT, the organochlorine insecticide that bioaccummulated in top predators birds (Bald Eagles, Osprey, Peregrine Falcon) and interfered with reproduction. DDT was causing these birds to go extinct in many parts of their range. Many states had none of these birds in the wild because of DDT, when they previously were present (sometimes abundant). Scientists figured out that it was DDT and it was banned. At the time there was an absolute shit-ton of debate – it was a huge fight. After the ban and a ton of effort and money the birds are back and we have lots of useful and important pesticides to replace DDT. There was a period when all three of these birds were extinct in my state, but now I see them all the time.
Sky falling issue #2. Acid Rain, caused by nitrogen and sulfur compounds (NOX and SOX) emitted when burning coal acidified large portions of pristine wilderness in Canada and the NE US. Pristine lakes far removed from human impact were becoming devoid of fish because of precipitation laden with NOX and SOX altered lake chemistry. After a ton of debate and fighting, regulations were put into place to reduce NOX and SOX in coal-fired plant emissions. The issue has improved and many lakes that were fishless have fish again.
Sky falling issue #3. Ozone hole, caused by use of CFCs. CFCs were widely used because of their many useful properties, but are now limited in use because high in the atmosphere they were causing a breakdown of the ozone layer. The fight was huge with arguments on both sides – once CfCs were banned the problem began to correct itself and now we all use solid deodorant, not spray.
Yes, the sky is always falling, because it is - we keep breaking stuff that has to be fixed, because we need to take to live, I accept that and I accept my impact because I see no other way. I do not believe that any of the above issues had anywhere near the consensus within the scientific community that climate change has. I have never seen anything that made me think that clamate change isn’t a big deal on many levels. It will affect the environment, our food supply and our checkbook, not matter what we do or don't
gary gibbs
Member
I believe that the theory and prediction of "global warming" is a misguided hoax promoted by conclusion jumping scientists.
I also believe the earth is not a sphere, but is actually flat, and that the earth is the center of our solar system and the sun revolves around us. Until we get much more conclusive evidence, I'm not going to change my position on this.
Gibby
I also believe the earth is not a sphere, but is actually flat, and that the earth is the center of our solar system and the sun revolves around us. Until we get much more conclusive evidence, I'm not going to change my position on this.
Gibby
Glad to have stirred this pot......
Some thoughts:
There is a huge difference between weather & climate, don't compare them. Weather is daily to weekly variations, climate is long term. In climate, its the long term trend that matters.
Sea Level Rise: Its happening, OR all the tide gages around the country are sinking. Either case: Bad news for coastal wetlands and coastal human infrastructure.
Arctic Melting and Glacial Retreat: Its real, clearly documented and happening. No disputing it, places the used to have ice now simply don't. Bad news if you live on the Alaskan coast or if you depend on glaciers for water. Very bad news if you are a polar bear.
Global CO2 concentration: Way up compared to prior to the Industrial Revolution and rising. Documented through ice cores and atmospheric sampling.
Global Temperature Trend over the last 100 Years: Going up. Look at the trend, not just recent years.
Whether or not man is causing all this? Like Todd noted, 99% of climate scientist say yes. But either way, if you believe we are causing it or not, things are changing and we best start adapting to it.
Some thoughts:
There is a huge difference between weather & climate, don't compare them. Weather is daily to weekly variations, climate is long term. In climate, its the long term trend that matters.
Sea Level Rise: Its happening, OR all the tide gages around the country are sinking. Either case: Bad news for coastal wetlands and coastal human infrastructure.
Arctic Melting and Glacial Retreat: Its real, clearly documented and happening. No disputing it, places the used to have ice now simply don't. Bad news if you live on the Alaskan coast or if you depend on glaciers for water. Very bad news if you are a polar bear.
Global CO2 concentration: Way up compared to prior to the Industrial Revolution and rising. Documented through ice cores and atmospheric sampling.
Global Temperature Trend over the last 100 Years: Going up. Look at the trend, not just recent years.
Whether or not man is causing all this? Like Todd noted, 99% of climate scientist say yes. But either way, if you believe we are causing it or not, things are changing and we best start adapting to it.
Bob M
Well-known member
You're using data from NASA scientists ? hahahahahaha
Are you kidding me.The only reason they believe in Global Warming is because Congress won't give them any more money because people stop caring about trips to the moon.LOL
You kill me.
Seriously I'm tired of worrying about things that will happen when Im dead.I'm going back to the simple life of retirement.
Stay Warm
Best
Bob
Are you kidding me.The only reason they believe in Global Warming is because Congress won't give them any more money because people stop caring about trips to the moon.LOL
You kill me.
Seriously I'm tired of worrying about things that will happen when Im dead.I'm going back to the simple life of retirement.
Stay Warm
Best
Bob
Pete McMiller
Well-known member
"I'm going back to the simple life of retirement"
You know, Bob, there is a lot to be said for that. Makes life a lot easier and less stressful - I'm with you on that.
You know, Bob, there is a lot to be said for that. Makes life a lot easier and less stressful - I'm with you on that.
Bob, The NASA scientists work is peer reviewed in the same way and venues as any other science. The temp data I posted is published in PNAS, one of the best journals on the planet with rigorous peer-review and has been out for a number of years - plenty of time for a thoughtful rebuttal from anyone if there was any problem with their work. That work is one of thousands of papers that indicate that the climate change is here and a problem.
If you don't care what happens after you are dead, that is another issue entirely. If you have no care for anyone or anything that will inhabit the earth in the future, I can see why would wouldn't care about this issue. That you don't care is different than it isn't happening.
Tod
Vince Pagliaroli
Well-known member
So it was not a Scientist that came up with DDT? Who coulda done such a thing, and I do believe that it is still in use in some countries, plus there was talk of using it again in the USA in certain areas.
Neither side is 100% sure, or correct. That's not how things work, the balance is 50/50 just like in all things. All I do know is that Nature always takes back what is hers, no matter how much humans try to stop it. Bickering will solve nothing, but to discuss things in healthy way, such as this, is Good. Please continue...
Neither side is 100% sure, or correct. That's not how things work, the balance is 50/50 just like in all things. All I do know is that Nature always takes back what is hers, no matter how much humans try to stop it. Bickering will solve nothing, but to discuss things in healthy way, such as this, is Good. Please continue...
Neal Haarberg
Active member
So I had a thought this last year in the early season about migrations. First I am not a biologist or a scientist that studies the weather. Yes weather does play into when birds will migrate but my thought had more to do with hunting pressure than weather. With more more hunting pressure in the earlier more weather freindly portions of the season. (I know a fair amount of hunters who don't hunt when it gets real cold, and it doesn't get that cold here) How many birds have been shot with the predisposition to migrate early and have not been able to pass that predisposition down to the next generation? So less ducks Early in the season. Therefore birds with a predisposition to migrate later in the season see less pressure and have a better chance of survival and passing this late migrating disposition to further generations. Hence a crapload of ducks flying south in February. Opening Weekend of Duck season hasn't changed for a long time as far as I know but I could be wrong and I'm sure somebody here knows. I guess if the migration of non game species is later also then that would throw that theory in the toilet. I don't know, just a thought.