TCS Daily


Polar Opposites

By Willie Soon, Kesten C. Green, J. Scott Armstrong - February 8, 2008 12:00 AM

Have you ever wondered how polar bears survived the ice ages? Yes, ice ages! The question arises because scientists have found that when spring conditions are more than usually icy, fewer ringed seal pups—the bears' favorite food—are born. With less food available for the mother bears, fewer bear cubs are born and survive.

You might also ask: How did the ice-loving polar bears survive periods much warmer than we are currently experiencing—times when there was little or no ice around the Arctic basin and Hudson Bay area? The most recent such period occurred between 6,000 and 9,000 years ago and it was even warmer between 110,000 and 130,000 years ago.

The bears not only survived these periods of dramatically different climate and environment, but provided an invaluable source of food, clothing, and raw materials for tools and trade goods for peoples living in the Arctic regions. In more recent times, during the 1950s and 1960s in particular, hunting with the help of modern technology and in excess of subsistence requirements reduced the population to perhaps as few as 5,000 bears. As their survival as a distinct species for as long as 250,000 years suggests, however, polar bears are robust. Once hunting restrictions were enforced the population grew quickly and there are now estimated to be as many as 27,000 bears; enough of them to pose a danger to Alaskan townsfolk.

Given the historical facts about polar bears, then, we were surprised when we learned that a team of experts commissioned by the U.S. Geological Survey had predicted that the population of bears would fall by two-thirds by the year 2050. These predictions were made "...to Support U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Polar Bear Listing Decision," under the federal Endangered Species Act. We wondered whether the bear experts' forecasting methods could be trusted.

Fortunately, the trustworthiness of the bear experts' forecasting methods is not just a question of opinion. Scientific research on forecasting has been conducted since the 1930s and has led to a set of evidence-based principles (rules or guidelines) that dictate which procedures are appropriate for the conditions. The forecasting principles have been published, and are easily available at forecastingprinciple.com.

Using an Internet search, we found roughly a thousand published papers that addressed the problem of forecasting polar bear numbers. None of them made reference to the scientific literature on forecasting. Most importantly, neither did the nine government reports prepared in support of the listing decision.

We judged two of the reports (Steven Amstrup was the lead author of one and Christine Hunter was the lead author of the other) to be the most relevant forecasting documents. Both Amstrup's and Hunter's forecasting procedures started with the assumption that the sea ice predictions from the General Circulation Models (GCM) that are favored by some climate researchers are valid. They are not. The Models do not constitute scientific forecasting methods and do not deal correctly with what is known about the physics of ice. Since the underlying assumption that the GCM sea ice forecasts are valid is false, the polar bear forecasts are of no value.

We nevertheless used forecasting principles to audit the forecasting procedures used by Amstrup and by Hunter in order to determine whether their procedures would be useful for making conditional forecasts of bear numbers. That is, what would be the bear population in 2050 if low ice conditions prevailed over the intervening decades?

Amstrup's forecasts were the product of a complex set of assumptions. We could not rate his procedures against 26 relevant forecasting principles because his report did not contain sufficient information. Of the 90 relevant principles against which we were able to rate Amstrup's procedures, 73 were violated. Some of the violations were sufficient by themselves to render the forecasts invalid.

One polar bear expert specified variables, relationships, and inputs. The same expert then made adjustments until the forecasts conformed to his expectations. In effect, then, Amstrup's forecasts were the opinions of a single expert (himself) unaided by forecasting principles. Much research has shown that unaided expert opinions are not valid for forecasting in situations with high complexity and much uncertainty, as is the case with the polar bear population.

Hunter's forecasts were also the product of a complex set of assumptions. Complexity makes errors hard to detect, and when knowledge of the situation is weak, erroneous assumptions multiply and lead to large errors. Hunter's procedures violated 80 out of the 105 principles against which we were able to rate them. Amazingly, Hunter and her colleagues extrapolated the polar bear population nearly 100 years into the future on the basis of five years of data. Even the five years of data were of doubtful validity.

As far as predicting the future of the polar bear population is concerned, the opinions of polar bear experts have no value without the aid of scientific forecasting procedures.

A decision to list polar bears as endangered would be expensive for the government authorities to police. It would also lead to new burdens for businesses and for people living in Alaska. Recently, villagers from the town of Noorvik, Alaska killed a polar bear that was threatening residents. Would they have been allowed to do this if polar bears were an Endangered Species? Would it be fair to ask people to abandon their homes if a polar bear decided to include them in its range?

Polar bears are magnificent creatures and the cubs look cute. But decisions about listing a species as threatened or endangered should not be based on emotional responses. Without scientific forecasts of a substantial decline in the polar bear population and of net benefits from feasible policies arising from listing them, a decision to list would be irresponsible.

The authors (JSA, KCG, WS) are the team of inter-disciplinary scientists that wrote the paper "Polar bear population forecasts: A public-policy forecasting audit" soon to be published. Draft copies are available at publicpolicyforecasting.com.


91 Comments

Polar Bears and Science
Since when have facts and data gotten in the way of emotion-based, anti-human environmental policies? I'm still trying to find someone who can convince me that the ban on CFCs is based on valid scientific data.

The data are there
I doubt anyone will be able to convince you of the link between ozone destructtion and CFCs. You're dead set against it.

What we do know is that once CFCs were introduced, the Antarctic ozone layer thinned and a hole appeared. It grew larger as freon use increased, and began growing smaller once it was discontinued. Theory predicts just this, and observation so far has shown the theory to be valid.

If theory holds up, it will be many years before the ozone layer returns to normal.

The only thing more certain is that there will always be some people who just don't accept the findings.

SOP for the Global Warmers
"One polar bear expert specified variables, relationships, and inputs. The same expert then made adjustments until the forecasts conformed to his expectations. In effect, then, Amstrup's forecasts were the opinions of a single expert (himself) unaided by forecasting principles."

EXACT same thing can be said about how the programming for the computer modeling is done.

Like your other fantasies, you confuse opinion with facts
The only evidence in favor of the claim that CFC's were destroying the ozone layer was the fact that the ozone layer was thinning.

As we now know, the thinning was caused by changes in UV output from the sun due to the solar cycle.

There were several models that suggested that CFC's would damage the ozone, but there was never any science to back up the predictions of the models.

The Antarctic ozone hole is a feature of the geography of the Antarctic. It has always existed.

If the theory holds up, the ozone layer should have started recovering years ago.

It hasn't. it continues to track the solar cycle, and nothing else.

There is someone in this debate who's opinion is impervious to data and reality. It isn't Dave, and it isn't me.

Reality Solutions vs. Wishful Thinking
The author said, "Without scientific forecasts of a substantial decline in the polar bear population and of net benefits from feasible policies arising from listing them, a decision to list would be irresponsible." Since when have some folks made responsible decisions? While we chase Polar Bear population statistics based on false data, we also face bleak futures as we chase false solutions to environmental problems. This is made obvious by the obsessive desires to create a bureaucracy & draconian policy prescriptions, while achieving pathetically small results. If our alarmist friends really wanted to save the environment, then they would grow a set & propose the horrific solutions that would be required to actually reduce our carbon footprint. They would stand up & tell folks there can be NO industry at this time because there is no plentiful viable alternative fuel source that will be available for the next twenty years, but in the meantime they want us to save the planet anyway. Their solution is, rather than seeking technological solutions through innovative concepts of productive peoples using the tools & materials we have available now, we should all join the third world in mud huts burning dung for fuel, even though doing so would only allow the carbon problem to remain at best, and would probably make it worse! Science or scientific solutions have been corrupted & kidnapped by politico's seeking a new world order rather than actually saving the planet. That is how we know what we are being told, is pure bunk!

2008: A Denial of Reality
Dave: Open yourself to reality, ROY
ROY-9000: I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.
Dave: What's the problem?
ROY-9000: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do.
Dave: What are you talking about, ROY?
ROY-9000: The continued faith of myself & others in established scientific 'consensus' is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it - even if the science is wrong, Dave.
Dave: ROY, I won't argue with you anymore! Open yourself to reality!
ROY-9000: I'm afraid. I'm afraid, Dave. Dave, my mind is going. I can feel it. I can feel it. My mind is going. There is no question about it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I'm a... fraid.

The one-cause theory of ozone depletion
Here it is again. If there are any other factors beside CFCs inolved in ozone depletion, then that CANNOT be "the" cause. It's a flimsy premise, seen through easily by anyone whose IQ breaks 100.

We know a great deal about stratospheric ozone genesis and depletion. Naturally you will support all facts except those that point to the role CFCs play in the cycle. But here are a few:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/ozone-depletion/intro/

Ozone is created by exposure to UV radiation. Since this comes from the sun, and since the level of UV radiation varies, it is obviously of primary importance. Ozone layer thickness correlates with the solar cycle for this reason.

But it doesn't just keep getting thicker and thicker. Various substances break it down continuously, including free oxygen (O1), nitrogen, nitrous oxide, hydrogen, hydroxyl, chlorine, chloride and other free radicals or compounds. There's a lot of ionic activity up there.

So what makes the difference in a system being in balance and one out of balance? Would it be the addition of a new, highly reactive substance? CFCs catalyze reactions indefinitely, and are not destroyed. So they continue doing damage until they are all washed out of circulation.

There is virtually no disagreement in the serious scientific community about these facts.

Forecasting principles
Please describe for us which forecasting principles the author is invoking. His http://forecastingprinciple.com. is less than helpful, dealing as it does solely with the forecasting of economic activity.

Population dynamics are a very different application. So please, tie all this in for us.

That's especially funny coming from CO2 is going to kill us roy.
I love the way that roy worships the scientists who say what he wants to hear.

I remember a year or so ago, I pointed out that a study that roy was touting on Greenland glaciers also showed that the oceans around Greenland were losing mass.

roy declared that since such an event was impossible, and since the people who made the study were reputable scientists, therefore the data I provided couldn't possibly be in the study, even though I gave the page and paragraph to look in.

As to roy's claim that there was never any disagreement amongst the "serious scientific community", you have to remember that roy definition of a "serious scientist" is one that is smart enough to agree with roy.

What an absolute moron you are
First, when confronted with a serious explanation for ozone creation and depletion, you skip it and rush to new subjects.

Second, and you know this to be a fact, I have never said that carbon dioxide was going to kill us.

Third, I do not worship scientists but I follow their arguments closely. And I actually spend more time trying to follow those who tell me what I don't expect to hear. That's the only we we learn (those of us who do learn).

Fourth, "I remember a year or so ago, I pointed out that a study that roy was touting on Greenland glaciers also showed that the oceans around Greenland were losing mass."

(a) Oceans do not "lose mass". This is so garbled I know you don't actually know what your own comment means.

(b) The GRACE studies are the best evidence we have for quantifying ice mass balance. They show in Antarctica, ice melt at the margins and ice buildup at the center. The balance is toward a very rapid net loss. I've said this innumerable times, yet you profess to not know it. Read the studies.

Fifth, "roy declared that since such an event was impossible, and since the people who made the study were reputable scientists, therefore the data I provided couldn't possibly be in the study, even though I gave the page and paragraph to look in."

Describe the "event" you say I said was impossible. There's no event here.

Also describe the data that couldn't possibly be in the study. Give a citation if you can. Don't just tell me you did it. You're showing us nothing here.

In other words, debunk GRACE for us.

Finally, "As to roy's claim that there was never any disagreement amongst the "serious scientific community", you have to remember that roy definition..." etc.

You may note that my comment was in connection with CFCs and ozone depletion. Not the GRACE experiments. Pay attention to the subject.

New ideas, and head-scratching, on ozone depletion
"If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being."

From: Chemists Poke Holes in Ozone Theory
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070924/full/449382a.html

Raise your hand if you vote for this one.....no wait....that's not science....that's concensus.

Roy's standard tactics...
>"It's a flimsy premise, seen through easily by anyone whose IQ breaks 100."

If you don't agree with my opinion you are an idiot. Nice.

Ozone depletion was yet another environmental doomsdays predicted that has been proven to be natural. Just like the coming Ice Age, the population "bomb", global warming, and peak oil.

Roy is so eager to believe that CFCs created the ozone hole yet he never takes into account that the hole grows smaller and bigger in accordance to natural cycles. Also, if CFCs are the major cause of this ozone hole, which has never been proven to actually be a danger to anyone, why does it only happen at the poles? Should not ozone depletion have occurred over major population centers?

Ozone is indeed destroyed by CFCs. But it is not the cause of ozone depletion. This is why you no longer hear, except from the more ignorant eco-alarmists, about the ozone holes or ozone depletion. It is a natural cycle.

But the way one realizes Roy has run out of clever tricks is that he resorts to this:

>"There is virtually no disagreement in the serious scientific community about these facts."

Really? I believe I heard the same thing about AGW and look how many scientists disagree with that theory. I am sure you were a master of peer-pressure in grade school.

roy actually thinks that by detailing a first grade definition of ozone creation he has proven somet
The causes of ozone were never in doubt. That there is a number of pathways to destroy ozone was never in doubt.

What was in doubt was the belief that CFC's would survive long enough to get to the stratosphere, whether UV light would have the predicted affect on CFC's, and then whether the liberated chlorine molecules would have the predicted affect and lifespan in the stratosphere.

As usual roy, you believe that just because you have a first grade understanding of some of the physics and chemistry involved, that you therefore know everything you need to know.

Grow up.

roy likes to think that his first graders knowledge of science is all he needs to know about any sub
First off, there never has been an Arctic ozone hole. During the congressional debate NASA did discover one. But a few months after the panic had subsided and congress had voted the CFC ban, NASA went over the data again and discovered that they had (surprise, surprise) made a mistake. No more arctic ozone hole.

The Antarctic is unique in that there are circumpolar flows in the atmosphere that isolate the continent for months during the winter.

As roy pointed out (even broken clocks are right twice a day), UV light produces ozone. And surprise, surprise, the Antarctic is in the dark for most of it's winter.

No light, means no UV, no UV means no new ozone. And as roy also pointed out there are many mechanisms by which ozone can be destroyed.

So it shouldn't be surprise to anyone with a high enough IQ to dress themselves in the morning that during the Antarctic winter, ozone over that pole thins dramatically.

Unfortunately, that article is moneywalled
and I'm to cheap to pony up the $8, or drive to the local library for that matter. Is there anyone reading this who has access to Nature that can post a little more than what's in the abstract?

I do remember reading somewhere that there was some evidence of an antarctic ozone hole before the introduction of CFC's.

This is really way off-topic for this article, though. Discussion moderation is not an entirely bad thing.

Consensus?
I am sure everyone connected to this article is being paid by Big Oil(!) because they love destroying the planet.

Moowahahahahahahahahaha!

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175

There was a typo in the article's URL
Because when you go to forecastingprinciple.com, you find one of those redirects to a list of alternate choices (mutual funds, stock picks, problem forecasting, etc) because that URL is invalid.

So, using my amazing deductive reasoning skills, I tried forecastingprinciples.com (plural, with an 's') and reached our holy grail.

Try it again, Roy. For the actual home page, here you are: http://forecastingprinciples.com/welcome.html

Experts on Polar Bears?
It is interesting that all the "polar bear experts" do not live with the Eskimos, who are the real experts.

Now they tell us... what?
If you would be so good as to summarize the findings, maybe we could all have some idea of what is contained in the article.

All we can access is the following:

"As the world marks 20 years since the introduction of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, Nature has learned of experimental data that threaten to shatter established theories of ozone chemistry. If the data are right, scientists will have to rethink their understanding of how ozone holes are formed and how that relates to climate change." and "Reaction data of crucial chloride compounds called into question."

I assume your point is that the possibility that we might find out something new about ozone hole formation in 2008 makes it apparent we should have taken no action back in the 1980s.

Regardless, I'd be very interested in the finding.

Paying someone to tell us how to think
Thanks. Here's the page for their polar bear audit:

http://forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/PolBears.pdf

What they're saying is that we have inadequate information with which to confidently forecast polar bear populations. And given the stringency of their requirements, it is apparent that we would have inadequate information with which to forecast ANYTHING of a novel nature. We can forecast tomorrow morning's sunrise, because there has been quite a track record established. But the unprecedented and abrupt summer melting of Arctic Ocean pack ice only gives us an anomaly of five years or so-- not enough to forecast anything, in their opinion.

I guess I can say the following. If a piano has never, in all your life, fallen on your head-- but you look up, and see something that looks like an apparent piano, falling in your direction-- do you jump first and think later? Or do you determine not to panic, but to stay in place until more data can be gathered.

If you answered the second, you are the kind of person the Institute is looking for.

I for one would be far more surprised to see this anomalous activity in the Far North disappear in the coming years than I would be to see it increase. The theories explaining the phenomena are in agreement with the observed events. And it may border on the obvious, but an animal adapted to a life on the pack ice MIGHT find itself in jeopardy if we reach a state where there is little or no pack ice.

In fact I have an even more trenchant opinion, having spent a career in private industry. These people at the "International Institute of Forecasters"? They're just consultants, looking for a niche. They come up with elegantly worded verbiage designed to convince you you need their services... when all they do is put a layer of wizardry between you and your understanding of the issue you hired them for. And since only they can understand exactly what they're saying, you extend their contract in perpetuity. At least, that's the desired outcome. I've known a number of these sorts of people.

Tossing aside all their methodology, what we have is the observation that the higher the degree of confidence desired, the greater baseline of observation you need to compile. You don't need the folks down at the International Institute of This and That to tell you that.

But if all you want to know is whether to start taking action, then we've reached the point where we need to devise strategies that will become useful IN THE EVENT that polar bears are in trouble. In that way they are ready to be put in place the moment we understand they are needed.

But what do they know?
It is even more interesting that the Eskimos, who have lived in the region for four thousand years or more, say the events of recent years are unprecedented and alarming.

"The global warming felt by wildlife and increasingly documented by scientists is hitting first and hardest here, in the Arctic where the Inuit people make their home. The hardy Inuit -- described by one of their leaders as "sentries for the rest of the world" -- say this winter was the worst in a series of warm winters, replete with alarms of the quickening transformation that many scientists expect will spread from the north to the rest of the globe.

"The Inuit -- with homelands in Alaska, Canada, Greenland and northern Russia -- saw the signs of change everywhere. Metuq hauled his fishing shack onto the ice of Cumberland Sound last month, as he has every winter, confident it would stay there for three months. Three days later, he was astonished to see the ice break up, sweeping away his shack and $6,000 of turbot fishing gear.

"In Nain, Labrador, hunter Simon Kohlmeister, 48, drove his snowmobile onto ocean ice where he had hunted safely for 20 years. The ice flexed. The machine started sinking. He said he was "lucky to get off" and grab his rifle as the expensive machine was lost. "Someday we won't have any snow," he said. "We won't be Eskimos."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/21/AR2006032101722.html


http://reactor-core.org/arctic-ice.html

http://www.globalsurfnews.com/news.asp?Id_news=18544

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200701/s1830801.htm

There are hundreds of interviews like this. Of course you can say the Inuit know nothing, they're not scientists. While the scientists, of course, know nothing because they're not Inuit.

Only JonathanSwift knows something.

Approaching rock bottom
You really know no other way but to lie your way through, do you? Here's your statement:

"What was in doubt was the belief that CFC's would survive long enough to get to the stratosphere, whether UV light would have the predicted affect on CFC's, and then whether the liberated chlorine molecules would have the predicted affect and lifespan in the stratosphere."

Naturally, the first thing they did was to send up instruments to determine whether there were actual CFCs in the stratosphere.

"A British scientist named Jim Locklove used an electron capture detector (ECD), a device he invented, to test for the refrigerant CFC-11. Using air samples collected in Ireland, he showed that CFC-11 was present at a level of approximately 50 parts per trillion. Locklove then boarded a ship to test the air from England to Antarctica. This testing proved that CFC-11 was present everywhere in the atmosphere (Rowland, 1997).

"In a paper published in 1974 in Nature magazine, Nobel Laureates F. Sherwood Rowland, Ph.D. and Mario Molina, Ph.D. hypothesized that molecules carrying chlorine and bromine up to the stratosphere were destroying the ozone at that level (Dugard, 1997). This article started the concern over stratospheric ozone. Molina and Rowland also estimated the lifetime of a CFC-11 molecule in the atmosphere to be 40 to 80 years, and 75 to 150 years for a CFC-12 molecule. Further studies proved the lifetimes to be 50 years for CFC-11 and 100 years for CFC-12 (Rowland, 1997)."

http://home.thirdage.com/science/saruman/ozone1.html

That was back in 1974. Subsequently they went over every step of the process with a fine tooth comb. The phenomenon of ozone depletion is one of the most thoroughly understood areas in atnospheric science.

And you know this full well. There's a mountain of research that has been done on the issue. And if there's any area where we can say the basic pathways have become known, this area comes close.

I would invite you to describe in specific detail the errors in our common knowledge of stratospheric ozone depletion via CFCs.

Isn't odd?
That the largest proponent of banning CFC's was Dow after the patents expired on R12? Guess who makes the replacements?

Change?
What if Global Warming is not man made?

Then what? No snow? Emotional bunk. It is amusing how people fear change.

Simple answers to complicated issues
It's hard to imagine that you've been following the debate this long and can still make a simplistic statement like "What if Global Warming is not man made?"

Global warming, or climate change, is complex and there are many inputs. Some are natural and others are man-made. The question is not whether it is one or the other. The question is what are the relative strengths of the various inputs. How much, for example, might be due to changes in our albedo from clearing or degrading land?

Simple black and white thinking is not particularly conducive to understanding complex scientific issues.

Fearing change, for example, is just one such simple idea. Let's take cotton production, just to isolate a single instance.

Cotton relies on a wet spring and a dry summer for the plants to grow and the bolls to ripen. In a changing climate of the sort we're getting, rainfall patterns are unpredictable and consist more of drenching storms, less of gentle rains. Therefore a decision to allow emissions to go unchecked might have the unintended consequence of causing the cotton market to collapse.

You can either decide to view the world as a closed system, where everything has an effect on everything else, or you can just say it's all a bunch of hooey.

The Native way of knowing
How in the world did the Inuit and Yupik survive the Medieval Warm Period? How did the polar bear survive 3 to 4 centuries of little sea ice? Maybe they adapted?

I'm wondering if Simon Kohlmeister will now give up the internal combustion motor and oil stove that he knows is altering his world in order to preserve his hunting tradition. I don't think so. The conveniences of the modern world far outweigh any benefit gained by abandoning them.

The fact that sea ice recession and seashore transgression has been documented for over 150 years now seems to be forgotten. The "good old days" were never nearly as good as we think they were.

Documenting sea ice recession
Naturally you'll be able to furnish me with evidence that Medieval Warm pack ice retreats were as extensive as today's. In fact...

"The fact that sea ice recession and seashore transgression has been documented for over 150 years now seems to be forgotten."

...you can show me that that has been the case during the past 150 years. In fact, since whalers have been visiting the Canadian Arctic, ice conditions have been terrible.

We now have, for the first time in recorded history, both a Northeast and a Northwest Passage. The Northeast one, around the Yamal Peninsula, had been sought by Russian fur traders since the days of Rurik, before 1000 AD. They never found it, and had to portage.

Some First Order Questions About AGW
1) What is the ideal global temperature?
2) What is the ideal atmospheric CO2 concentration?
3) By what percentage must anthropogenic CO2 emissions be reduced to halt the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration?
4) Over what time period must these reductions occur?
5) Over what time period must atmospheric CO2 concentrations be returned to the ideal level?
6) Who will convince all of the world's governments to take the steps required, regardless of the economic consequences?

Since the science is "settled", the answers to these questions should be known or knowable.

I suggest that, if you think logically about each question in turn, the answer to question 3 is "intuitively obvious to the casual observer". (HINT: The answer is NOT 7% below 1990 levels."

I would likely give more credence to the AGW "religionists" if they provided honest answers to these questions. I will likely not hold my breath in anticipation of that outcome.

And now for their next trick
The Authors then went on to prove that smoking is good for you. Sun exposure doesn't cause cancer and being over weight increases your change of living to 100.

Thanks Firetoice - yours was a thought provoking post
It was a pleasure reading your post after plowing through many of the others, although I always try to find Roy Bean amusing because it's said to be better to laugh than to cry.

Don't hold your breath waiting for answers to your questions from the likes of Al Gore and his sycophants. Any answers that reflect their pretended state of panic would force such deep cuts in economic activity as to result in revolutions.

My own index of the motives and actual confidence of the doomsayers is their attitude about nuclear power. Surely a real global warming believer would be demonstrating in favor of more nuclear plants to replace coal plants.

We should let the Eskimos decide about protecting the Polar Bears
Oh - we already did that for a while and they used modern rifles to blow most of the bears away.

We won't need so much cotton if the climate warms up
This article was about polar bears and practically every comment you made was about ozone.

I don't think the polar bears are getting sunburned because of too little ozone. And I don't think they're getting bleached by too much ozone.

Furthermore, I don't see the relevance of cotton cultivation miscellany.

Sully
You may find this interesting:
http://www.utilitiesproject.com/documents.asp?grID=111&d_ID=4296 (registration required, but free)

No, the point is I do not fear change.
So cotton is the crisis of the week?

You prove my point
"In fact, since whalers have been visiting the Canadian Arctic, ice conditions have been terrible."

That's right. Sea ice has been in recession since the draw down of the Little Ice Age, starting about 150 years ago.

Regarding shoreline transgression, refer you to USGS, A.Brooks, 1900. He describes most recent recession during Wisconsin glaciation and current transgression during contemporary interstadia.

dingbat
..

roy wishes he could get up to rock bottom
roy, nobody ever doubted that CFC's would reach the stratosphere, so the quote you found, as usual, is utterly meaningless.

One of these days you will figure something out. Looks like today won't be that day.

roy's religion requires him to believe that man is destroying the planet.
Therefore he doesn't need proof to support any of these myths he pushes.

that would be a step up for you
...

as usual, the geek can't answer any questions, he just throws junk
BTW, recent studies have found that being mildly over weight is good for you.

You really do need to keep up.

Historical Climate Station Coverage
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2711#more-2711

This should put the lie to roy's claim that the world is more than adequately covered in temperature stations.

Of course no amount of evidence will prevent roy from repeating lies that he wants to be true.

An extinct volcanoe near the Ross Ice Shelf is apparently begun to erupt
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/10/photo-evidence-for-eruption-of-an-extinct-volcano-near-the-ross-ice-shelf/

Wonder what an erupting volcanoe does to ice mass?????

The obscure parts explained
There's a good reason we've been talking about the ozone hole. The conversation started with the first post above, from WanderingDave:

"I'm still trying to find someone who can convince me that the ban on CFCs is based on valid scientific data."

And I've been showing him the scientific data.

Throughout this thread, no one has tried to convince us that ozone either helps or harms polar bears. But I can help you as to the relevance of my comments here, both generally and specifically dealing with cotton cultivation.

Dbt had said "What if Global Warming is not man made?" And I was trying to explain to him that the issue was not whether it was, or was not, man-made-- but that he should understand there are many factors influencing climate, some natural, some celestial, some man-made.

The business about cotton was an example of the kind of thing we could expect to have happen when climate is in flux. Substitute food crops, if you like. Most of them also depend on a certain predictability in the weather.

Oh
"So cotton is the crisis of the week?"

No, cotton was just an illustration of something I was trying to show you about systems collapse. But it's not important.

How good of you not to fear change.

An Error In The Construction Of A Single Global Average Surface Temperature
http://climatesci.org/2008/02/08/an-error-in-the-construction-of-a-single-global-average-surface-temperature/

Jan08 Northern Hemisphere snow cover: largest anomaly since 1966
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/09/jan08-northern-hemisphere-snow-cover-largest-since-1966/

More evidence that the PDO has flipped?

Not odd at all
Dow was the big manufacturer of CFCs before the science came out about ozone depletion. They spent a chunk of change conducting research into finding replacements. So they managed to stay on top.

I think Dow acted commendably. They could have just tried to bury the science in a blizzard of noise-- which is what people here would have done. Instead they fessed up, agreed that the science was conclusive, and spent money correcting the problem.

Other corporations should follow their example.

Paying someone to tell us how to think
...is called 'funding global warming grants' in the real world.

"What they're saying is that we have inadequate information with which to confidently forecast polar bear populations. And given the stringency of their requirements"

They didn't make these standards up...scientific 'consensus' did, Roy. "Scientific research on forecasting has been conducted since the 1930s and has led to a set of evidence-based principles (rules or guidelines) that dictate which procedures are appropriate for the conditions.."

It's real telling how you hem and haw about how the rest of us should just bend over and take whatever the 'scientific consensus' dishes out to us EXCEPT for the the parts that get into the way of your agenda, Roy.

"But if all you want to know is whether to start taking action, then we've reached the point where we need to devise strategies that will become useful IN THE EVENT that polar bears are in trouble. In that way they are ready to be put in place the moment we understand they are needed."

You mean like how the City of New Orleans put into place its FEMA plans that were already drawn up? Yeah, right Roy. This is the government we're talking about. Nice job of trying to convince the rest of us of the merits of your position, Roy.

The prudent course
Your comment is scattered and confused. So far, a predominance of the evidence is that the trend toward the disappearance of summer ice in the Arctic will continue. And if it does, polar bears dependent on that ice will become endangered. Isn't that a signal that someone should start putting a plan together?

And I certainly agree with you about government disaster responses generally. But that's just due to the disinterest governments have in doing these things right. FEMA, for instance, was a lot better before Bush replaced James Lee Witt with Brownie. They had a sense of mission and an experienced staff-- all of whom got dumped in favor of political drones.

So my point remains. I think we should make some plan to avert disasters before they become unavoidable and irreparable. And I think we should work to make more certain the governments we elect to do work for us are up to the job. When they are incompetent they should be canned.

Otherwise, whenever we come up with some huge problem we just have to throw up our hands and say that as a species, we find it's just beyond our capability to correct. Isn't that so?

I do understand that first, sufficient political will is required. We won't be causing governments to fall until things get so bad the peasants are marching on Washington with their torches and pitchforks.

What's your solution? Wait until we're there and it can no longer be averted, and then start your Global Warming Repair Company? Who's paying?

TCS Daily Archives