AHHHHahahaha!!!

mismos00 said:

Um, why are you arguing with these morons? Don't quote them science... science is a conspiracy, along with the news and 'facts'.

If you want to get a point across to these inbreeds try quoting people out of context and pointing to meaningless anecdotes... or simply stating the opposite of what the general consensus is... They won't respond reasonably to any cogent arguments... they will just send you links from conspiracy web sites.

Intellectual dyslexics prefer sexy soap opera stories of grand world-wide conspiracy rather than sitting down and studying an issue like a grownup. Maybe it's laziness, maybe fear, maybe too much TV. I guess some of us will always need wild fantasies to satisfy their imaginations, rather than face the boring, everyday world honestly.

Click to expand...

Keenly said:

save the polar bears? polar bears are doing JUST fine thanks

their numbers have tripled... they can swim 200 miles in search of food


fuck no, we gotta save them becuase global warming is going to kill them all

Click to expand...

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Cotswolds.
Posts: 3,478
Gallery: https://www.rollitup.org/marijuana-pics/index.php?u=42085

​

CrackerJax said:

So pointing out the OBVIOUS to those actually paying attention is fear mongering?

How bout getting urself informed.

Don't be like Med Man.

Polar bears are NOT going extinct.[/QUOTE]

Ask the Experts: Are Polar Bear Populations Increasing?

Question: I'm confused about polar bear numbers. Some news reports state that polar bears should not be listed as a threatened species—they state that, in fact, their numbers are actually increasing. For example, the following paragraph appeared on the Fox News Web site:

"In the 1950s the polar bear population up north was estimated at 5,000. Today it's 20- to 25,000, a number that has either held steady over the last 20 years or has risen slightly. In Canada, the manager of wildlife resources for the Nunavut territory of Canada has found that the population there has increased by 25 percent."

If this is true, then why are scientists worried about population declines?

First, it's important to note that scientists lack historical data on polar bear numbers—they only have rough estimates. What we do know, though, is that in the 1960s, polar bear populations dropped precipitously due to over-hunting. When restrictions on polar bear harvests were put in place in the early 1970s, populations rebounded. That situation was a conservation success story ... but the current threat to polar bears is entirely different, and more dire.

Today's polar bears are facing the rapid loss of the sea-ice habitat that they rely on to hunt, breed, and, in some cases, to den. Last summer alone, the melt-off in the Arctic was equal to the size of Alaska, Texas, and the state of Washington combined—a shrinkage that was not predicted to happen until 2040. The loss of Arctic sea ice has resulted in a shorter hunting season for the bears, which has led to a scientifically documented decline in the best-studied population, Western Hudson Bay, and predictions of decline in the second best-studied population, the Southern Beaufort Sea.

Both populations are considered representative of what will likely occur in other polar bear populations should these warming trends continue. The Western Hudson Bay population has dropped by 22% since 1987. The Southern Beaufort Sea bears are showing the same signs of stress the Western Hudson Bay bears did before they crashed, including smaller adults and fewer yearling bears.

At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (Copenhagen, 2009), scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, eight are declining, three are stable, one is increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a decision. (The number of declining populations has increased from five at the group's 2005 meeting.)

Some members of the press take advantage of the complexity by stating that "polar bears are not in trouble—their numbers have doubled since the 1960s." That's a disingenuous statement, of course. It is true that polar bear populations rebounded after over-hunting was restricted, but that situation has nothing to do with the threat polar bears now face: the loss of the sea ice habitat essential to their survival.

Click to expand...

Woomeister said:

you love shooting your mouth off around here with no knowledge about the subject you speak...

12-29-2009, 11:17 PM
Woomeister

Mr.Ganja
Mr. Ganja

Join Date: Mar 2008

Location: Cotswolds.
Posts: 3,478
Gallery:

​

permalink

CrackerJax said:

So pointing out the OBVIOUS to those actually paying attention is fear mongering?

How bout getting urself informed.

Don't be like Med Man.

Polar bears are NOT going extinct.[/QUOTE]

Ask the Experts: Are Polar Bear Populations Increasing?

Question: I'm confused about polar bear numbers. Some news reports state that polar bears should not be listed as a threatened species—they state that, in fact, their numbers are actually increasing. For example, the following paragraph appeared on the Fox News Web site:

"In the 1950s the polar bear population up north was estimated at 5,000. Today it's 20- to 25,000, a number that has either held steady over the last 20 years or has risen slightly. In Canada, the manager of wildlife resources for the Nunavut territory of Canada has found that the population there has increased by 25 percent."

If this is true, then why are scientists worried about population declines?

First, it's important to note that scientists lack historical data on polar bear numbers—they only have rough estimates. What we do know, though, is that in the 1960s, polar bear populations dropped precipitously due to over-hunting. When restrictions on polar bear harvests were put in place in the early 1970s, populations rebounded. That situation was a conservation success story ... but the current threat to polar bears is entirely different, and more dire.

Today's polar bears are facing the rapid loss of the sea-ice habitat that they rely on to hunt, breed, and, in some cases, to den. Last summer alone, the melt-off in the Arctic was equal to the size of Alaska, Texas, and the state of Washington combined—a shrinkage that was not predicted to happen until 2040. The loss of Arctic sea ice has resulted in a shorter hunting season for the bears, which has led to a scientifically documented decline in the best-studied population, Western Hudson Bay, and predictions of decline in the second best-studied population, the Southern Beaufort Sea.

Both populations are considered representative of what will likely occur in other polar bear populations should these warming trends continue. The Western Hudson Bay population has dropped by 22% since 1987. The Southern Beaufort Sea bears are showing the same signs of stress the Western Hudson Bay bears did before they crashed, including smaller adults and fewer yearling bears.

At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (Copenhagen, 2009), scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, eight are declining, three are stable, one is increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a decision. (The number of declining populations has increased from five at the group's 2005 meeting.)

Some members of the press take advantage of the complexity by stating that "polar bears are not in trouble—their numbers have doubled since the 1960s." That's a disingenuous statement, of course. It is true that polar bear populations rebounded after over-hunting was restricted, but that situation has nothing to do with the threat polar bears now face: the loss of the sea ice habitat essential to their survival.

Click to expand...

hey woo, fuck the bears. its fucking freezing here. a polar bear could now live anywhere on the east coast all the way down to georgia.

the temps have been dropping for the past decade, a fact btw, and they show no signs of getting warmer.

so take your stupid idiotic global warming crap and pound it up someone elses ass. the people that are paying attention, NOT the ones at the global warming church, know that this is total unmitigated crock of bullshit. you have been called out by the facts and we wont ever believe you or al the lying dickhead gore.

honey....fire up the oil furnace, im fucking freezing.

Click to expand...

ginjawarrior said:

lol what science? the sattelite data showing no increase in sun output?
or the easily replicated scientific experiment showing the correlation between co2 concentration and temperature?

Click to expand...

jeff f said:

Woomeister said:

you love shooting your mouth off around here with no knowledge about the subject you speak...

12-29-2009, 11:17 PM
Woomeister

Mr.Ganja
Mr. Ganja

Join Date: Mar 2008​

Location: Cotswolds.
Posts: 3,478
Gallery:

​

permalink


hey woo, fuck the bears. its fucking freezing here. a polar bear could now live anywhere on the east coast all the way down to georgia.

the temps have been dropping for the past decade, a fact btw, and they show no signs of getting warmer.

so take your stupid idiotic global warming crap and pound it up someone elses ass. the people that are paying attention, NOT the ones at the global warming church, know that this is total unmitigated crock of bullshit. you have been called out by the facts and we wont ever believe you or al the lying dickhead gore.

honey....fire up the oil furnace, im fucking freezing.

Click to expand...

Jeff you seem to be very confused. I have indeed stated elsewhere that global warming is happening, as it is OBVIOUSLY. I have never stated that co2 is the cause though so carry on and burn your fire for all I care. You are an ignorant man that has probably never even left his own country and believes everything the media tells you. I bet you are an avid Fox news watcher!

Click to expand...

jeff f said:

well how about you just show us stupid idiotic knuckle draggers your fancy chart that shows the earth is getting warmer. how about that chart, oh wait, it doesnt exist, thats right i forgot.

you are a tool of chicken little

Click to expand...

Figure also available as PDF. (Last modified: 2009-12-16)
​

Global Annual Mean Surface Air Temperature Change


Line plot of global mean land-ocean temperature index, 1880 to present. The dotted black line is the annual mean and the solid red line is the five-year mean. The green bars show uncertainty estimates. [This is an update of Fig. 1A in Hansen et al. (2006)] January-Nobember (11 months) mean is used for 2009 data.
Figure also available as large GIF, PDF, or Postscript. Also available are tabular data.
(Last modified: 2009-12-16)

Our traditional analysis using only meteorological station data is a lin e plot of global annual-mean surface air temperature change derived from the meteorological station network [This is an update of Figure 6(b) in Hansen et al. (2001).] Uncertainty bars (95% confidence limits) are shown for both the annual and five-year means, account only for incomplete spatial sampling of data. January-November (11 months) mean is used for 2009 data.

Figure also available as large GIF, PDF, or Postscript. Also available are tabular data.
(Last modified: 2009-12-16)
Annual Mean Temperature Change for Three Latitude Bands


Annual and five-year running mean temperature changes for three latitude bands that cover 30%, 40% and 30% of the global area. Uncertainty bars (95% confidence limits) are based on spatial sampling analysis. [This is an update of Figure 5 in Hansen et al. (1999).]
Figure also available as large GIF, PDF, or Postscript, Also available are table.
(Last Modified: 2009-01-09)
Annual Mean Temperature Change for Hemispheres


Annual and five-year running mean temperature changes for the northern (red) and southern (blue) hemispheres.
Figure also available as large GIF, PDF, or Postscript, Also available are table.
(Last Modified: 2009-12-17)
Annual Mean Temperature Change for Land and Ocean


Annual and five-year running mean temperature changes for the land (green) and ocean (purple).
Figure also available as large GIF, PDF, or Postscript, Also available are tabular data.
(Last Modified: 2009-01-13)
Global Monthly Mean Surface Temperature Change


Line plot of monthly mean global surface tmperature anomaly. The black line shows meterological stations only; redle dots are the land-ocean temperature index, as described in Hans en et al. (1999). The land-ocean temperature index uses sea surface temperatures obtained from satellite measurements of Reynolds and Smith (1994).
[This is an update of Figure 8 in Hansen et al. (1999).]
Figure also available as large GIF, PDF, or Postscript. Also available are tabular data.
(Last modified: 2009-12-16)
Global Mean Surface Temperature vs. Year and Month


Also available as large GIF, or PDF.
(Last modified: 2009-12-17)
Annual Mean Temperature Change in the United States


Annual and five-year running mean surface air temperature in the contiguous 48 United States (1.6% of the Earth's surface) relative to the 1951-1980 mean.
[This is an update of Figure 6 in Hansen et al. (1999).]
Also available as large GIF, PDF, or Postscript. Also available are tabular data.
(Last modified: 2009-11-14)
Seasonal Mean Temperature Change


Temperature index change since 1950 at seasonal resolution, for the lobe (upper line) and for low latitudes (lower line). [This is an update of Figure 7 in Hans en et al. (1999).] Green triangles mark large volcanic eruptions. SST at Nino 3.4 is the 1 2-month running mean.
Also available as large GIF, PDF, or Postscript. Also available are tabular data.
(Last modified: 2009-12-17)
​

ginjawarrior said:

lol i know its a futile effort some people are truly blind when it comes to reality. but i didnt have much to do this afternoon so its passed a little of the time if nothing more

Click to expand...

jeff f said:

the temps have been dropping for the past decade, a fact btw, and they show no signs of getting warmer.

Click to expand...

CrackerJax said:

You all quote evidence you cannot produce.

You say CARBON is the culprit .. show me.

There's NO CORRELATION between carbon and temp's.

You'll have a much better time of it with thinking folks if you choose your battles more wisely.

Try Methane ... then you might get some agreement, with ppl who have actually looked into the data and not just swallowed what is told to you by media outlets.

Carbon science so far, has been corrupted and is falling into disrepute amongst scientists.

Wake up and smell the coffee of the deception that was brewed for your consumption.

It's the sun. It's the oceans. It ISN'T Carbon.

Besides all that the numbers defeat your premise easily. The atmosphere is 97% NON Carbon. 97%.... 3% is carbon.... whew!! But wait, it gets smaller, much smaller. Man's contribution to that 3% is about ... drum roll ... 3%! That makes MAN MADE Carbon in the atmosphere at a loose 0.09% Woah!!!! that's a BIG portion right? 0.09% man made carbon tilting the earth over on its side!!! Talk about leverage!!!

But wait, it gets EVEN smaller!! No way cracker, this is like a magik show!!
Oh, but it does.... let's say the entire world smokes Opium for the next 50 years (that's about what it would take) and we reduce our carbon emissions by 50%!! Impossible, but there is so little volume here, who cares?

So actually, man can "impossibly" reduce the carbon in the atmosphere by 0.045%

Does that sound like a crisis to you? It's not, unless you actually go through with the carbon tax scheme of wealth redistribution. then you'll have a crisis in 50 years, but it won't be the atmosphere.

Stay in skool kidz ... stay in skool.

Click to expand...

Woomeister said:

jeff f said:

Jeff you seem to be very confused. I have indeed stated elsewhere that global warming is happening, as it is OBVIOUSLY. I have never stated that co2 is the cause though so carry on and burn your fire for all I care. You are an ignorant man that has probably never even left his own country and believes everything the media tells you. I bet you are an avid Fox news watcher!

Click to expand...

well then you should not have a problem showing all us ignorant men the increase in global temp. got a chart? how about a thermometer? anything? bueller, bueller....

Click to expand...

jeff f said:

nice charts. explain what made the earth cooler from 1860 through 1940. how on earth did WE make it so dam cold?

btw a point 2 degree increase is just burning the place up huh? temps go down and temps go up....its on your chart....how would that happen?

FUCKING WEATHER YOU PROPAGANDIST.

Click to expand...

CrackerJax said:

Carbon is not the culprit and those graphs are already under fire. You do realize that the land based weather stations have been compromised by urban development and cannot be trusted.

You do realize that most of the earths temps have not been recorded with any accuracy and most of the data comes from North America and western Europe, right?

Highly urbanized zones to say the least.

It's time for a reality check. the current policies being pushed are corrupted and incorrect.

If we are going to do something (the USA has already done a lot of heavy lifting with it's pollution), let's make sure it's right and NOT a waste of TIME & MONEY. Let's understand the real dilemma, if there is one, before we go half cocked.

Methane can reduce the temps MUCH faster than Carbon can. MUCH MUCH faster.... it's worth pursuing just along that line of logic alone over Carbon.

Click to expand...

ginjawarrior said:

once we cleaned up the smog then the temps rose.

this has been brought to you by the number 2...

Click to expand...

Woomeister said:

Ha, love it Cj...You are pushing the methane theory along with me now! Good man.

Click to expand...

ginjawarrior said:

yes methane does need to sorted out too but that means telling people that beef burgers are off the menu. now people are plenty pissed off to find out that its gonna cost more to drive their 6 litre v8's imagine the outrage at them being told what to eat.
dont worry tho prehaps beef will fall off the menu

Click to expand...

jeff f said:

so cows farting is a real problem now? you are sick dude. ever been to a swamp? yes, they produce large amounts of methane. maybe we should drain the swamps and keep the beef.

i seriously cannot believe how gullable people are.

Click to expand...

we cant make the earth cooler or warmer. you arent God.

Click to expand...