It is currently October 20th, 2017, 1:28 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Global Warming?
PostPosted: January 21st, 2017, 3:46 pm 

Joined: July 26th, 2010, 12:26 pm
Posts: 274
Location: South Carolina
Just curious if anyone knows what kind of impact global warming is having on reptiles and amphibians? For years I have been going to the SC lowcountry in the winter to observe chorus frogs and salamanders (ambystoma). I don't really think temperatures are as important as precipitation in stirring up their activity. But the temps this year have been so high that I am a little worried. I have been doing this since 1988 and never seen nothing like it. So I went back and looked at historical weather for Savannah GA. (weather underground) and the results are pretty disturbing.

January 1988 January 2017
1. 75 1. 72
2. 61 2. 79
3. 46 3. 75
4. 48 4. 70
5. 46 5. 68
6. 48 6. 62
7. 37 7. 50
8. 33 8. 44
9. 36 9. 47
10. 43 10. 63
11. 48 11. 72
12. 51 12. 75
13. 57 13. 76
14. 41 14. 76
15. 45 15. 75
16. 48 16. 72
17. 66 17. 75
18. 61 18. 77
19. 71 19. 78
20. 66 20. 78
21. 64 21. 73
22. 54 22. 75 (predicted)

As you can see that is quite a difference. There have already been 6 record highs this month. And, every record high in January has been set since 2007. Not only am I wondering what kind of impact this is having on amphibians but reptiles as well. How can an animal properly hibernate and is this what is causing the belly infections that has been killing many snakes in SC for the past several years? I will find out tomorrow how the amphibians are doing, definitely enough rain to bring them out.


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming?
PostPosted: January 21st, 2017, 5:10 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 1:38 pm
Posts: 968
I don't have a lot of time to get into it now, but here is a brief answer to your question.

There are hypotheses saying that chytrid's effect on amphibians is worsened by the changing climate, the difference in climate make various amphibians more susceptible. As I'm sure you know chytrid is responsible for drastic declines and extinctions in certain species.

Drought conditions which are becoming more and more frequent may have huge effects on desert reptiles and amphibians who depend on a rainy season to reproduce or help them get the reserves that they need to survive the rest of the year.

High elevation herps will certainly be effected, they may be able to shift their elevational range higher and higher, but there is only a finite distance they can go. I believe this elevational shift has already been documented in certain herp species and has certainly been seen in cloud forest birds.

I could go on but I'm out of time, and I'm sure some other folks will happily chime in.


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming?
PostPosted: January 21st, 2017, 5:28 pm 
User avatar

Joined: March 19th, 2011, 6:43 pm
Posts: 1785
L


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming?
PostPosted: January 21st, 2017, 7:05 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:41 pm
Posts: 568
How about the other years in between? This is meaningless really. I could probably find a another year other than 1988 since records have been taken and find the opposite outcome.

Below average temps beginning Friday for about a week is forecast as well. I wouldn't get too worried about it.

I love herping South Carolina, Effingham County, GA some great roads.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming?
PostPosted: January 21st, 2017, 7:43 pm 

Joined: July 26th, 2010, 12:26 pm
Posts: 274
Location: South Carolina
rpecora wrote:
How about the other years in between? This is meaningless really. I could probably find a another year other than 1988 since records have been taken and find the opposite outcome.

I love herping South Carolina, Effingham County, GA some great roads.


1988 is when I first started herping in the winter months. I thought I had stated that. I also stated that all records have been set since 2007 so you will not find an opposite outcome. But, you can give it a try. Go to weatherunderground.com and look for "history". Type in any year you wish.

Let me make this clear, I did not start this as some sort of debate on global warming. I personally do not care what you believe. I just wanted some answers to my questions or to have a grown up conversation with people who are also worried about the future of our planet.


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming?
PostPosted: January 21st, 2017, 8:01 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:41 pm
Posts: 568
Quote:
Fair enough, but this is what I read:

So I went back and looked at historical weather for Savannah GA. (weather underground) and the results are pretty disturbing.

January 1988 January 2017
...


I am more worried with over development than climate change. The impact of over development will have a much more lasting and permanent affect than climate change and may just contribute more to climate change than the causes being chastised for it today. If you drain the swamp and build on it or grow crops on it, then you've decimated almost for ever the life that inhabits it. It's all a natural evolution of events that cannot be prevented without impeding the reproduction of the human race. We are all doomed in the end without epidemics and war.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming?
PostPosted: January 22nd, 2017, 12:50 am 
User avatar

Joined: September 12th, 2010, 1:20 pm
Posts: 220
Location: Jersey, UK
rpecora wrote:
I am more worried with over development than climate change. The impact of over development will have a much more lasting and permanent affect than climate change and may just contribute more to climate change than the causes being chastised for it today. If you drain the swamp and build on it or grow crops on it, then you've decimated almost for ever the life that inhabits it. It's all a natural evolution of events that cannot be prevented without impeding the reproduction of the human race. We are all doomed in the end without epidemics and war.


Agreed, but epidemics and war are unlikely to have any lasting long term impact - we need hard limits on human reproduction that are maintained into perpetuity. Climate change is clearly real and happening but I agree the comparison posted, in isolation, is as good as meaningless. I also agree that habitat loss will have a much more immediate and drastic impact on species.

For what its worth, quite a lot of literature on climate change and reptiles (and mammals as well) seems to point to increased frequency of extreme temperature days as being the real killer, rather than a generalised increase in overall levels. For example during heat wave conditions some animals can effectively go into shock and burn huge amounts of reserves. They can withstand the odd day like this but rapidly start to suffer if you get two or three in quick succession.


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming?
PostPosted: January 22nd, 2017, 12:46 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:57 pm
Posts: 144
Location: Davis/Santa Cruz
Climate change is impacting different groups of herps differently and will continue to do so as we shift towards warm and dry. As mentioned above, for amphibians this may mean higher rates of chytrid or less precipitation, but rising temperatures are a serious issue for reptiles as well. There's a number of different papers, including a broad one by sinervo, assessing lizards from all over the world that concluded that about 1 in 5 species may be extinct in the next 60ish years due to increased temperatures. These aren't just high profile species either; same study already reports localized extinctions of many mexican sceloporus species at low elevation sites they inhabited in recent decades. While some herps like it hot, higher temps restrict activity for the majority of species which limits time for foraging and reproduction. Viviparous species are at greater risk because females need to eat, but also keep embryos in an extremely narrow temperature range that is much more restricted than their normal body temp fluctuations. Mountainous species will also be at greater risk as they will eventually reach the upper extents of elevation and have no more more range shifting left to do.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming?
PostPosted: January 22nd, 2017, 2:17 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:41 pm
Posts: 568
Quote:
Agreed, but epidemics and war are unlikely to have any lasting long term impact.

The natural culling of populations isn't suppose to be lasting or we and the rest of what's left of life wouldn't be here now.

Quote:
Climate change is impacting different groups of herps differently and will continue to do so as we shift towards warm and dry.
What evidence do you have to support that?

Are you saying that because of climate change the earth will be warm and dry? When? Why not cool and wet? The climate has been changing and has been since the planet's existence no disagreement from me. So far we cannot predict what will happen, and we certainly haven't found the solution to stop it from happening. What we need to do is find the solution to exist if and when the extreme befalls us. Remember it wasn't long ago that scientists predicted another ice age was imminent. Maybe I'm just getting old but in the decades to come the youngsters are going to look back and say to themselves how could I have been so gullible.

Evolution happens. Extinctions will happen no matter what we do, that's life. We can do what we can to prevent what we can why not. When the cost of disrupting millions of human lives with silly regulations (cow farts, really) and taxes becomes the solution I'm against it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming?
PostPosted: January 22nd, 2017, 9:21 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 11th, 2010, 4:21 pm
Posts: 533
indeed. Overall the earth will be warming, but localized effects need to be looked at on a case by case basis. Overall it sounds like we will see more erratic weather patterns. With living things it is not the average that kills it is the maximum/minimum temperatures. It isn't the avg amount of precipitation so much as the sporadicity of it that can cause issues.

That data is interesting, but I would be hesitant to jump to conclusion on a single dataset of that sort.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming?
PostPosted: January 23rd, 2017, 12:41 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:41 pm
Posts: 568
Quote:
Overall the earth will be warming...

How do you know that?

Of maximum minimum that didn't stop the Burmese Python problem in the southeast. While it did have and effect when they had that wicked cold spell a few years ago it didn't wipe them out to the best of my knowledge. So, I'm not all to sure about that with herps in general. Reptiles are survivors.

Precipitation may be the one thing that trumps. All life needs water. The drought in CA the last 4-5 years hasn't seemed to have reduced the number of herps I've seen year after year though. Now the last month we've been getting a lot of rain throughout the state. I don't recall the scientists predicting it, but they did predict it last year when it did't happen. Be ready for the earthquakes now. In Jan 1993 we had a lot of rain and afterwards we had a slew of some pretty nice quakes. Boy are we due.

What data have you seen that you refer to?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming?
PostPosted: January 23rd, 2017, 6:15 am 

Joined: July 26th, 2010, 12:26 pm
Posts: 274
Location: South Carolina
I was a little worried that the higher temps would effect the breeding habits of Chorus Frogs and other winter breeding herps. My trip to the Savannah area yesterday proved to be one of the best ever for me. In protected areas, the frog calls were deafening. Outside of the protected areas I occasionally heard a frog or two in some roadside ditches. Sadly, I noticed more deforestation in the area from my last visit. There was even a lot of deforestation in the WMA's, which I had thought they were protected from that. Well, all we can do about GW or habitat loss is talk about it. The best and easiest cure for both issues is birth control, that's not going to happen. To the greedy people who run our planet, more people = more money! Not to mention the freedom fighters would have a field day with any kind of population control.

Now, if someone could tell me how to locate calling frogs during the day I would really appreciate it! There is nothing more aggravating than having hundreds of frogs calling all around you and spotting none. It is a little easier to spot them at night with lights. But, a four hour drive needs to be started soon after dark.

What I heard, from most to least:
Southern Chorus
Brimley's Chorus
Ornate Chorus
Spring Peeper
Spadefoot Toad
Southern Leopard

What I saw, from most to least
Marbled Salamander
Spadefoot Toad
Ornate Chorus
Bull Frog
S. Cricket Frog
S. Leopard Frog


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming?
PostPosted: January 23rd, 2017, 8:38 am 

Joined: September 8th, 2011, 5:12 pm
Posts: 314
Location: Oxford, MS
rpecora wrote:
Are you saying that because of climate change the earth will be warm and dry? When? Why not cool and wet? The climate has been changing and has been since the planet's existence no disagreement from me. So far we cannot predict what will happen, and we certainly haven't found the solution to stop it from happening. What we need to do is find the solution to exist if and when the extreme befalls us. Remember it wasn't long ago that scientists predicted another ice age was imminent. Maybe I'm just getting old but in the decades to come the youngsters are going to look back and say to themselves how could I have been so gullible.


Please don't tell me you're bringing up the very widely debunked story about global cooling from the 1970s? That was largely a sensationalist headline that had little scientific backing. Global warming, in contrast, has loads of scientific backing. This isn't some obscure hypothesis that a new outlet caught onto. This is real and happening. If you have doubts, go to Google Scholar and type in Anthropogenic Climate Change. You'll get nearly half a million papers on the subject.

The earth is a dynamic system, and you're correct in that all of the earth will not all be warm and dry. There are certain areas predicted to see increased temperatures and drier weather and other areas of the world are predicted to have cooler and wetter weather. But as a whole system, the earth is and will continue to warm. Again, if you question it, I point you to the aforementioned Google Scholar results.

Quote:
Evolution happens. Extinctions will happen no matter what we do, that's life. We can do what we can to prevent what we can why not. When the cost of disrupting millions of human lives with silly regulations (cow farts, really) and taxes becomes the solution I'm against it.


Evolution happens over the course of many generations. Consequently, it is very rare for us to observe it directly. The problem with your flippant response is that, yes, extinctions happen, but mass extinctions like what we're seeing are a problem because remaining species cannot evolve fast enough to adapt to loss of particular players in their local ecosystems. I suggest you look at the rivet hypothesis for greater clarity. At some point, an ecosystem will not be able to sustain the losses and will collapse. We see that in a number of ecosystems when species are removed or extirpated (see the kelp forests, for example).

The cost of doing nothing is far and away more costly and more disruptive than any regulations currently being put forth. Your callous response to cow farts shows that you do not understand that 1) methane is many times more effective at trapping heat than CO2, 2) cow biology being ruminants means they're constantly releasing methane (through burping and manure more than farting), and 3) there are 1.3-1.5 billion cows on the planet. Please do a little research before disregarding a thing.

As to the OP's original question, extremes in any regard cause problems. The current weather is concerning because if it's warm enough to get things moving and then cools down, herps are not able to adapt well to that. If it got warm and stayed warm, it would probably not be as problematic as extreme fluctuation. The real issue if it got warm early and stayed warm is the risk of food and other resources not being on the same clock as the herps. Salamanders may start breeding very early, but how do their larvae fair if their food resources do not also time their reproduction at the same time. We see problems with this because light (which is another cue for plants and animals) remains unchanged regardless of climate change, while temperature and precipitation will change.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming?
PostPosted: January 23rd, 2017, 9:38 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 10:14 pm
Posts: 3297
Location: San Antonio, TX
dthor68 wrote:
I was a little worried that the higher temps would effect the breeding habits of Chorus Frogs and other winter breeding herps.


Of course the issue here is whether winter breeding herps are adapted to breeding at cooler seasons for physiological reasons (i.e. can't breed if temps are above X°) or whether it is temporal partitioning of the habitat (or both). If it is physiological then they may be in trouble, if not, they may be able to adapt to the increased competition?

In areas where they are moisture limited, they may be in trouble as well. Of course, other areas will get more moisture which may be good for some species, but it could also introduce competition that didn't exist previously?

Quote:
Sadly, I noticed more deforestation in the area from my last visit. There was even a lot of deforestation in the WMA's, which I had thought they were protected from that. Well, all we can do about GW or habitat loss is talk about it.


Be glad you live in an area that has protected habitat. I live in a state that has very little of it (relative to the size of the state). My concern with the lack of protected areas for amphibians also goes to the effects of noise pollution on breeding amphibians. There are several recent studies showing that anthropogenic noise may interfere with the breeding of some species. So even if a pond is fence off, if you put a road (or oil machinery) nearby it might inhibit reproduction.

Quote:
Now, if someone could tell me how to locate calling frogs during the day I would really appreciate it! There is nothing more aggravating than having hundreds of frogs calling all around you and spotting none. It is a little easier to spot them at night with lights.


The problem with locating small species during the day is twofold.
1. They can see you and shut up as soon as you approach.
2. It makes it very hard to see the reflections off the bodies and particularly the movement of their vocal sacs which for some Pseudacris is the only way I can spot the little buggers!
It does help to know where the species usually calls from (low branch, down in the grass, in the open, etc.), but even then it is hard to find them in the day.

Solution...rely on recording them for documentation rather than photos. I documented almost 1000 amphibian choruses last year and got photos from less than 200 of them.


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming?
PostPosted: January 23rd, 2017, 3:13 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:41 pm
Posts: 568
Before I get into this I am certainly no expert. I do have some sense of what's going on and try to view the evidence objectively, but lacking creativity I fail sometimes to understand convoluted yet meaningful intent. When I say evidence it's just reports from both sides trying to make a case. The real evidence is the data which is reported to be suspect.

While you may regard certain things stated as flippant you know more than half the country probably feels the same way. I apologize for the lack the eloquence that got you riled up.

Quote:
Of course the issue here is whether winter breeding herps are adapted to breeding at cooler seasons for physiological reasons (i.e. can't breed if temps are above X°) or whether it is temporal partitioning of the habitat (or both). If it is physiological then they may be in trouble, if not, they may be able to adapt to the increased competition?

In areas where they are moisture limited, they may be in trouble as well. Of course, other areas will get more moisture which may be good for some species, but it could also introduce competition that didn't exist previously?
I agree with that.

Quote:
Global warming, in contrast, has loads of scientific backing.

Loads of false conclusions, that's why it was changed from global warming to climate change. The data just doesn't support global warming and .00000001 degree Celsius increase in the planets temperature doesn't justify the boondoggle that is climate change, IMO. Green energy hasn't proven to be the solution and not without it's own drawbacks. We can go back 150 years and live that way which may help but will never happen. The elites will never part with their toy's and whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Now get working on getting 50-60 gallons a mile or more on gas powered vehicles around the world and you might be on to something. That would save a lot of oil and a lot less drilling wouldn't it? Some serious innovation needs to happen before we get rid of our gas machines and change the culture.

I'm not a denier, I'm a skeptic and the data on CO2 has holes. Like I said the ice caps were supposed to have been gone by now due to PDO data from 1999 and greenhouse gasses, a deadly combination, riiiiight. Weather events aren't any worse than they ever have been. Another fallacy. With promoting this fear on us they wanted to change society and create a new world and create a new industry of green energy. A failed solution to an artificial problem. Not an artificial happening, climate changes, it's just not the problem that they want to fear you to believing it is. At least it hasn't been proven to be so. Furthermore, I'm not going read through a half million papers on purported biased science, one way or the other. I would have to have access to all the data sets to see for myself. To the best of my knowledge those data sets aren't readily available. A half million Summations don't count.

Being that we've been coming out of an ice age the past few thousand years I guess, yeah the climate has probably warmed up since and has changed a bit. As the earths climate balanced off of that last ice age we have the planet we have now and has pretty much been this way the last thousands of years. It will take another catastrophic event to have large scale impact on the planet no matter what we do. No matter what we do now, that catastrophic event will happen and that's that. That's when the next mass extinction will happen.

That cell phone and many other electronics we pay through the nose for, made from raw earth materials (speaking of extinction) aren't helping animal life. The human population has more than doubled in the last 50 years and as such we've raped the earth for our own means, the natural order of things. Habitat destruction and invasive species are primarily which has caused the demise in local populations of animal life as well as extinction of others. Global warming/climate change since the late 1990's has now been added to the end of every sentence in regards to the decline or loss of wildlife populations. We have reportedly lost approx. 1.5 vertebrate species per year the last 50 years which is a decline from the 50 years prior. We must have been doing something right. Nature takes it's course no matter what we do given the increase in human population or you could argue that the rate should be higher, but why isn't it.

Reportedly the sixth wave of mass extinction is projected to wipe out as much as 75% of all wildlife in the next 300-400 years. Somehow I don't see that happening. Will this be the next scare to create another boondoggle, who knows.

Please don't misunderstand me. I haven't really taken a serious interest until recently and what I believe is based on the past two decades being skeptical because on it's face it doesn't make sense. Hence my reply. If you have a solution to steadying climate change forever then I'm all ears as that would be best.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming?
PostPosted: January 23rd, 2017, 3:52 pm 

Joined: September 8th, 2011, 5:12 pm
Posts: 314
Location: Oxford, MS
rpecora wrote:
Loads of false conclusions, that's why it was changed from global warming to climate change. The data just doesn't support global warming and .00000001 degree Celsius increase in the planets temperature doesn't justify the boondoggle that is climate change, IMO. Green energy hasn't proven to be the solution and not without it's own drawbacks. We can go back 150 years and live that way which may help but will never happen. The elites will never part with their toy's and whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Now get working on getting 50-60 gallons a mile or more on gas powered vehicles around the world and you might be on to something. That would save a lot of oil and a lot less drilling wouldn't it? Some serious innovation needs to happen before we get rid of our gas machines and change the culture.


You clearly do not understand why climate change is more commonly used over global warming. It's not because of false conclusions. It's because the Earth is a dynamic system and while on the whole, the Earth will warm, there will also be spots that cool. Climate change more accurately encompasses these since people, clearly, do not understand how averages work. You're being ridiculous if you think that 97% of scientists are wrong.

Quote:
I'm not a denier, I'm a skeptic and the data on CO2 has holes. Like I said the ice caps were supposed to have been gone by now due to PDO data from 1999 and greenhouse gasses, a deadly combination, riiiiight.


You do understand that the Arctic ice cap is pretty much gone, right? And there are massive ice shelves in Antarctica that are about to break off? And that Greenland is increasingly more green? And you are clearly a denier.

Quote:
Furthermore, I'm not going read through a half million papers on purported biased science, one way or the other. I would have to have access to all the data sets to see for myself. To the best of my knowledge those data sets aren't readily available. A half million Summations don't count.


It is notoriously difficult to get biased science published. Suggesting such clearly shows your lack of understanding of the scientific process. That said, most journals have requirements of data accessibility, either directly through the journal or by contacting the authors. Feel free to ask authors for their data. But as a self-proclaimed nonexpert, I doubt you'd know how to analyze the data.

Quote:
Being that we've been coming out of an ice age the past few thousand years I guess, yeah the climate has probably warmed up since and has changed a bit. As the earths climate balanced off of that last ice age we have the planet we have now and has pretty much been this way the last thousands of years. It will take another catastrophic event to have large scale impact on the planet no matter what we do. No matter what we do now, that catastrophic event will happen and that's that. That's when the next mass extinction will happen.


The Pleistocene ended 11,000 years ago. That's when the ice age ended. Not a few thousand years ago. And comparing prior interglacial periods to this one, we see that this is an anomaly in terms of rate of warming. The catastrophic event is climate change. We're seeing huge amounts of effects more and more commonly. Look at the die off of the Great Barrier Reef. It's survived hundreds of thousands of years, but we're seeing unprecedented die offs because of a warming and increasingly acidic ocean.

Quote:
That cell phone and many other electronics we pay through the nose for, made from raw earth materials (speaking of extinction) aren't helping animal life. The human population has more than doubled in the last 50 years and as such we've raped the earth for our own means, the natural order of things. Habitat destruction and invasive species are primarily which has caused the demise in local populations of animal life as well as extinction of others. Global warming/climate change since the late 1990's has now been added to the end of every sentence in regards to the decline or loss of wildlife populations. We have reportedly lost approx. 1.5 vertebrate species per year the last 50 years which is a decline from the 50 years prior. We must have been doing something right. Nature takes it's course no matter what we do given the increase in human population or you could argue that the rate should be higher, but why isn't it.


I have no idea where you got your numbers but I'm pretty sure they're incorrect.

Quote:
Reportedly the sixth wave of mass extinction is projected to wipe out as much as 75% of all wildlife in the next 300-400 years. Somehow I don't see that happening. Will this be the next scare to create another boondoggle, who knows.


So here are the options, then. If we do nothing, and scientists are wrong, great. But if they're right, we lose a lot of wildlife forever. There's no coming back from that. If we actually try to mitigate the losses, if scientists are wrong, then we have a better planet with more robust protections for animals. If scientists are right, then we can actually mitigate losses. So, really, is there an option here?

Quote:
Please don't misunderstand me. I haven't really taken a serious interest until recently and what I believe is based on the past two decades being skeptical because on it's face it doesn't make sense. Hence my reply. If you have a solution to steadying climate change forever then I'm all ears as that would be best.


There are plenty of solutions being offered by scientists, but the key is aggressive solutions and aggressive regulations. Addiction to beef and addiction to oil are two massive contributors that need to be tackled.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming?
PostPosted: January 23rd, 2017, 4:23 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:41 pm
Posts: 568
MonarchzMan wrote:
rpecora wrote:
Loads of false conclusions, that's why it was changed from global warming to climate change. The data just doesn't support global warming and .00000001 degree Celsius increase in the planets temperature doesn't justify the boondoggle that is climate change, IMO. Green energy hasn't proven to be the solution and not without it's own drawbacks. We can go back 150 years and live that way which may help but will never happen. The elites will never part with their toy's and whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Now get working on getting 50-60 gallons a mile or more on gas powered vehicles around the world and you might be on to something. That would save a lot of oil and a lot less drilling wouldn't it? Some serious innovation needs to happen before we get rid of our gas machines and change the culture.


You clearly do not understand why climate change is more commonly used over global warming. It's not because of false conclusions. It's because the Earth is a dynamic system and while on the whole, the Earth will warm, there will also be spots that cool. Climate change more accurately encompasses these since people, clearly, do not understand how averages work. You're being ridiculous if you think that 97% of scientists are wrong.

Quote:
I'm not a denier, I'm a skeptic and the data on CO2 has holes. Like I said the ice caps were supposed to have been gone by now due to PDO data from 1999 and greenhouse gasses, a deadly combination, riiiiight.


You do understand that the Arctic ice cap is pretty much gone, right? And there are massive ice shelves in Antarctica that are about to break off? And that Greenland is increasingly more green? And you are clearly a denier.

Quote:
Furthermore, I'm not going read through a half million papers on purported biased science, one way or the other. I would have to have access to all the data sets to see for myself. To the best of my knowledge those data sets aren't readily available. A half million Summations don't count.


It is notoriously difficult to get biased science published. Suggesting such clearly shows your lack of understanding of the scientific process. That said, most journals have requirements of data accessibility, either directly through the journal or by contacting the authors. Feel free to ask authors for their data. But as a self-proclaimed nonexpert, I doubt you'd know how to analyze the data.

Quote:
Being that we've been coming out of an ice age the past few thousand years I guess, yeah the climate has probably warmed up since and has changed a bit. As the earths climate balanced off of that last ice age we have the planet we have now and has pretty much been this way the last thousands of years. It will take another catastrophic event to have large scale impact on the planet no matter what we do. No matter what we do now, that catastrophic event will happen and that's that. That's when the next mass extinction will happen.


The Pleistocene ended 11,000 years ago. That's when the ice age ended. Not a few thousand years ago. And comparing prior interglacial periods to this one, we see that this is an anomaly in terms of rate of warming. The catastrophic event is climate change. We're seeing huge amounts of effects more and more commonly. Look at the die off of the Great Barrier Reef. It's survived hundreds of thousands of years, but we're seeing unprecedented die offs because of a warming and increasingly acidic ocean.

Quote:
That cell phone and many other electronics we pay through the nose for, made from raw earth materials (speaking of extinction) aren't helping animal life. The human population has more than doubled in the last 50 years and as such we've raped the earth for our own means, the natural order of things. Habitat destruction and invasive species are primarily which has caused the demise in local populations of animal life as well as extinction of others. Global warming/climate change since the late 1990's has now been added to the end of every sentence in regards to the decline or loss of wildlife populations. We have reportedly lost approx. 1.5 vertebrate species per year the last 50 years which is a decline from the 50 years prior. We must have been doing something right. Nature takes it's course no matter what we do given the increase in human population or you could argue that the rate should be higher, but why isn't it.


I have no idea where you got your numbers but I'm pretty sure they're incorrect.

Quote:
Reportedly the sixth wave of mass extinction is projected to wipe out as much as 75% of all wildlife in the next 300-400 years. Somehow I don't see that happening. Will this be the next scare to create another boondoggle, who knows.


So here are the options, then. If we do nothing, and scientists are wrong, great. But if they're right, we lose a lot of wildlife forever. There's no coming back from that. If we actually try to mitigate the losses, if scientists are wrong, then we have a better planet with more robust protections for animals. If scientists are right, then we can actually mitigate losses. So, really, is there an option here?

Quote:
Please don't misunderstand me. I haven't really taken a serious interest until recently and what I believe is based on the past two decades being skeptical because on it's face it doesn't make sense. Hence my reply. If you have a solution to steadying climate change forever then I'm all ears as that would be best.


There are plenty of solutions being offered by scientists, but the key is aggressive solutions and aggressive regulations. Addiction to beef and addiction to oil are two massive contributors that need to be tackled.
You need to do better than that.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming?
PostPosted: January 23rd, 2017, 5:25 pm 

Joined: September 8th, 2011, 5:12 pm
Posts: 314
Location: Oxford, MS
rpecora wrote:
You need to do better than that.


Spoken like a true denier, not a skeptic.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming?
PostPosted: January 23rd, 2017, 6:08 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:41 pm
Posts: 568
Quote:
Spoken like a true denier, not a skeptic.
You lost me at "97% of scientists", and "If we do nothing, and scientists are wrong, great." "There are plenty of solutions being offered by scientists, but the key is aggressive solutions and aggressive regulations. Addiction to beef and addiction to oil are two massive contributors that need to be tackled." You are spouting what you've been told without any objectivity or verity. Addiction to beef say's it all. You have no valid argument here. I'm open to being wrong, you aren't and that's the problem.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming?
PostPosted: January 23rd, 2017, 6:22 pm 
User avatar

Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Posts: 3948
Location: San Francisco, California
Rpcora dont let a succinct combination of words ie; addiction to beef, bounce against a wall of rhetorical impression.

The impacts of factory farming are heavy weight impacts and the money involved in its systematic discretion to the public on all levels keep that discretion carefully and powerfully poised.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming?
PostPosted: January 23rd, 2017, 7:16 pm 
User avatar

Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Posts: 3948
Location: San Francisco, California
The most un-useful thing to do if wanting to examine something clearly is to allow oneself to belong to an ideology, or be fearful of "looking" like one of those who have an ideology that one does not like or want to be associated with by a valued peer group.

Especially when sincerely examining anything that is very important.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming?
PostPosted: January 23rd, 2017, 7:30 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:41 pm
Posts: 568
Kelly Mc wrote:
Rpcora dont let a succinct combination of words ie; addiction to beef, bounce against a wall of rhetorical impression.

The impacts of factory farming are heavy weight impacts and the money involved in its systematic discretion to the public on all levels keep that discretion carefully and powerfully poised.
I don't fault anyone for doing what they want. We should be free to choose. I would have to guess though I don't really know that most vegans choose choice for abortion and choose life for cattle. Kind of strange if true. But I'm sure some vegans don't eat meat for other reasons too. Everything we eat, meat or not has a life cycle and in most cases killed in it's prime before we consume it. Systematic discretion, you mean showcasing meat in all the supermarkets is discretion. Get rid of the impact of factory farming and then what? Really what are the options otherwise? Meat in all forms will always be the norm, that's one part our civilization and cultural staples that is natural about humans. Would the human race have survived if it didn't eat meat to begin with? Will we evolve, who knows, anything is possible.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming?
PostPosted: January 23rd, 2017, 7:52 pm 

Joined: September 8th, 2011, 5:12 pm
Posts: 314
Location: Oxford, MS
rpecora wrote:
Quote:
Spoken like a true denier, not a skeptic.
You lost me at "97% of scientists", and "If we do nothing, and scientists are wrong, great." "There are plenty of solutions being offered by scientists, but the key is aggressive solutions and aggressive regulations. Addiction to beef and addiction to oil are two massive contributors that need to be tackled." You are spouting what you've been told without any objectivity or verity. Addiction to beef say's it all. You have no valid argument here. I'm open to being wrong, you aren't and that's the problem.


When you go do the doctor and he recommends a surgery, and you want a second opinion, and a second doctor agrees, and you do this 98 more times, and only three doctors say don't get the surgery, are you really going to listen to those three doctors over the other 97? I swear scientists are the only professionals out there who are so vilified for not knowing how to do their jobs, even though they more often than not, have decades of experience. Ignoring experts, especially a whole lot of experts, whether they're scientists, surgeons, plumbers, electricians, or whatever is just straight up idiocy, especially when you preface your criticisms of them by saying "I'm not an expert!"

I'm not some random guy who picks cherry picks stuff off of facebook and parrots it elsewhere. I actually am a scientist, and I'd wager I know how to be more objective than most people, since, you know, it's my job. I'd also bet I am far more critical of evidence presented to me than most people.

Do you know how much land is used for grazing just in the US? 41.4%. That's just grazing, not cropland. Not only that, but beef is a horribly inefficient source of protein. But you're so caught up in your denialism that you can't even admit beef is a problem. You don't even have to bring in climate change into the equation to see that beef is a global problem, and yes, a global addiction. We're losing millions of acres of rainforest to clear-cutting for cattle grazing, but you're so obstinate you can't even admit beef is a problem.

rpecora wrote:
I don't fault anyone for doing what they want. We should be free to choose. I would have to guess though I don't really know that most vegans choose choice for abortion and choose life for cattle. Kind of strange if true. But I'm sure some vegans don't eat meat for other reasons too. Everything we eat, meat or not has a life cycle and in most cases killed in it's prime before we consume it. Systematic discretion, you mean showcasing meat in all the supermarkets is discretion. Get rid of the impact of factory farming and then what? Really what are the options otherwise? Meat in all forms will always be the norm, that's one part our civilization and cultural staples that is natural about humans. Would the human race have survived if it didn't eat meat to begin with? Will we evolve, who knows, anything is possible.


No, we should not be free to choose when that choice comes at the cost of others or of the future of the planet. No where did I say we need to be vegan, nor did I say we had to cut out meat. What I am saying is moderation is key and necessary. Americans have an addiction to meat. It's part of our culture. But in my world travels, it's easy to see how extreme it is in the US. Cutting consumption of meat would go a long way in solving the problem. We do not need give up meat, and I'd argue we should not since we've evolved to eat meat, but we do not need to have as much as we currently do.

Now, maybe be open to an alternative viewpoint, eh? Be just a little bit open-minded.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming?
PostPosted: January 23rd, 2017, 8:34 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:41 pm
Posts: 568
MonarchzMan wrote:
rpecora wrote:
Quote:
Spoken like a true denier, not a skeptic.
You lost me at "97% of scientists", and "If we do nothing, and scientists are wrong, great." "There are plenty of solutions being offered by scientists, but the key is aggressive solutions and aggressive regulations. Addiction to beef and addiction to oil are two massive contributors that need to be tackled." You are spouting what you've been told without any objectivity or verity. Addiction to beef say's it all. You have no valid argument here. I'm open to being wrong, you aren't and that's the problem.


When you go do the doctor and he recommends a surgery, and you want a second opinion, and a second doctor agrees, and you do this 98 more times, and only three doctors say don't get the surgery, are you really going to listen to those three doctors over the other 97? I swear scientists are the only professionals out there who are so vilified for not knowing how to do their jobs, even though they more often than not, have decades of experience. Ignoring experts, especially a whole lot of experts, whether they're scientists, surgeons, plumbers, electricians, or whatever is just straight up idiocy, especially when you preface your criticisms of them by saying "I'm not an expert!"

I'm not some random guy who picks cherry picks stuff off of facebook and parrots it elsewhere. I actually am a scientist, and I'd wager I know how to be more objective than most people, since, you know, it's my job. I'd also bet I am far more critical of evidence presented to me than most people.

Do you know how much land is used for grazing just in the US? 41.4%. That's just grazing, not cropland. Not only that, but beef is a horribly inefficient source of protein. But you're so caught up in your denialism that you can't even admit beef is a problem. You don't even have to bring in climate change into the equation to see that beef is a global problem, and yes, a global addiction. We're losing millions of acres of rainforest to clear-cutting for cattle grazing, but you're so obstinate you can't even admit beef is a problem.

rpecora wrote:
I don't fault anyone for doing what they want. We should be free to choose. I would have to guess though I don't really know that most vegans choose choice for abortion and choose life for cattle. Kind of strange if true. But I'm sure some vegans don't eat meat for other reasons too. Everything we eat, meat or not has a life cycle and in most cases killed in it's prime before we consume it. Systematic discretion, you mean showcasing meat in all the supermarkets is discretion. Get rid of the impact of factory farming and then what? Really what are the options otherwise? Meat in all forms will always be the norm, that's one part our civilization and cultural staples that is natural about humans. Would the human race have survived if it didn't eat meat to begin with? Will we evolve, who knows, anything is possible.


No, we should not be free to choose when that choice comes at the cost of others or of the future of the planet. No where did I say we need to be vegan, nor did I say we had to cut out meat. What I am saying is moderation is key and necessary. Americans have an addiction to meat. It's part of our culture. But in my world travels, it's easy to see how extreme it is in the US. Cutting consumption of meat would go a long way in solving the problem. We do not need give up meat, and I'd argue we should not since we've evolved to eat meat, but we do not need to have as much as we currently do.

Now, maybe be open to an alternative viewpoint, eh? Be just a little bit open-minded.
You are still not offering any big picture or long term solutions to the problem if it is a problem. Cut meat consumption really. I'm willing to bet there were more cattle roaming america in the early 1900's than there are today.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming?
PostPosted: January 23rd, 2017, 8:48 pm 
User avatar

Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Posts: 3948
Location: San Francisco, California
Rpcora your response about cows roaming america is a perfect illustration of how important it is for the beef&dairy industries to maintain distal and protective in presentation.

You are a perfect customer.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming?
PostPosted: January 23rd, 2017, 9:07 pm 
User avatar

Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Posts: 3948
Location: San Francisco, California
Instead of simply not liking the idea
that factory farming is harmful, look into it.

Investigate it and find out what it actually is.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming?
PostPosted: January 23rd, 2017, 10:48 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:41 pm
Posts: 568
You're right I wasn't taking the term seriously. I don't know how it has anything to do with global warming but as for the process it's worth a look.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming?
PostPosted: January 24th, 2017, 4:34 am 

Joined: July 26th, 2010, 12:26 pm
Posts: 274
Location: South Carolina
What about the huge increase in fungal infections on snakes, could that be a product of GW? The fungal infections occur during hibernation. It is if the snakes have spent the winter in to wet of an environment. Winters in SC have always been wet, so why is this now becoming a problem? Could the much warmer temperatures be keeping the snakes from going into a complete state of hibernation thus allowing the fungal infection to occur?


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming?
PostPosted: January 24th, 2017, 5:42 am 

Joined: September 8th, 2011, 5:12 pm
Posts: 314
Location: Oxford, MS
rpecora wrote:
You are still not offering any big picture or long term solutions to the problem if it is a problem. Cut meat consumption really. I'm willing to bet there were more cattle roaming america in the early 1900's than there are today.


I am offering big picture and long term solutions, you're not accepting them. Reduction of cattle serves multiple purposes. It reduces methane production which contributes to climate change. It frees up grazing land to regenerate and be reclaimed by natural ecosystems. Allowing tree growth helps remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

And you're also just talking out of your ass when you say there were more cattle in the US in the early 1900s. That is an easily searchable and verifiable fact. And you're wrong.

Image

Maybe, instead of being dismissive, you should actually open you eyes.

dthor68 wrote:
What about the huge increase in fungal infections on snakes, could that be a product of GW? The fungal infections occur during hibernation. It is if the snakes have spent the winter in to wet of an environment. Winters in SC have always been wet, so why is this now becoming a problem? Could the much warmer temperatures be keeping the snakes from going into a complete state of hibernation thus allowing the fungal infection to occur?


It probably will increase. This sort of early weather immuno-compromises snakes allowing easier infection for them. Same deal with chytrid spread.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming?
PostPosted: January 24th, 2017, 10:15 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm
Posts: 401
The attack on the cattle industry and trying to tie it to "Climate change" represents nothing more then the piggy backing of activist groups. One using the other to further their own agendas. The liars can get away with so much more when they back each others lies up.

The subject of some forum discussion has been biologist Dave Prival who specializes in studying Arizona twin spotted rattlesnakes. Dave loves to scream out climate change at every chance. Below are of some Dave's inconsistences.

Quote:
their (Twin Spotted Rattlesnake's) primary prey, Yarrow’s spiny lizards. Although the lizards are abundant, the snakes have experienced a slow but undeniable decline.


No they haven't. Prival admits in his own research that there is no decline. In fact every study conducted shows the twin spotted rattlesnake to be doing vey well.

Quote:
climate change has already taken a toll. Less rain means fewer spiny lizards to eat,


Prival admits the lizards are abundant but try's to put his own spin on it. Privals own research shows that at his study site he encounter's many gravid females, the snakes breed annually. Years ago in true alarmist fashion he claimed the snakes were most likely to breed once every two years. Also the young at his study site grow rapidly. This is only possible when food and cover are abundant and the snakes are well fed.

Quote:
rising temperatures force the snakes to move higher up. Now that they’ve reached top elevations, there’s nowhere else for them to go.

He estimates that perhaps 70 twin-spotteds still dwell on this slope, down from an estimated 86 in 2009.


True 70 is less then 86 but the average number of snakes Prival counts at his study site is 68. So his most recent estimate is higher then then the average number counted in years past. Also He is finding them in the same locations he has always found them.

Quote:
The combination of overhunting and climate change led to the extinction of many North American species during the last major period of temperature increase 10,000 years ago (Martin 1967; Diamond 1997).


I'm sure Prival likes that theory (it fits his and many others agenda) more then the one about a comet three miles wide traveling at 135,000 miles an hour that blew up over Canada with the force of a million nuclear bombs. Causing fires, a giant shock wave and a nuclear winter that blocked out the sun. That theory supported by dozens of scientist . The Megafauna extinction debate is just that, a debate but Prival distorts this truth for his own personal wants.

Ernie Eison


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming?
PostPosted: January 24th, 2017, 11:54 am 
User avatar

Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Posts: 3948
Location: San Francisco, California
If you dont mind me saying so, you should post in the Herpetoculture forum about captive care. Veterans of large collections have insight that is unattainable by any other means including current curriculum of veterinary sciences and biological academia.

In other genres deeply engaged work focus of 25 + years is considered being a Master of the field. You have been doing it even longer by more than a decade, I surmise.

This is a good Forum, people come here to get serious input, and this includes the Herpetoculture section, not the childlike tea parties of other "Herp Clubs" and perfunctory attention span facebook pages.

Just a suggestion.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming?
PostPosted: January 24th, 2017, 12:17 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:56 pm
Posts: 282
Location: SW USA
Quote:
The attack on the cattle industry and trying to tie it to "Climate change" represents nothing more then the piggy backing of activist groups. One using the other to further their own agendas. The liars can get away with so much more when they back each others lies up.


LOL
Image


The real issue with climate change and wildlife will be adequate movement corridors that allow species to shift their range (for those species able to do so) when conditions are no longer supportive


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming?
PostPosted: January 24th, 2017, 1:23 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 8:49 pm
Posts: 1121
These debates seem to harden folks positions.

I wonder rpecora, what evidence would convince you that anthropogenic climate change is real?

On the other side of the coin, what would convince you monarchzman, that the climate is not changing or that its part of a natural cycle?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming?
PostPosted: January 24th, 2017, 4:18 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:56 pm
Posts: 282
Location: SW USA
Chicxulub crater - interesting to read about the after effects and how these types of events affect climate....


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming?
PostPosted: January 24th, 2017, 4:30 pm 

Joined: September 8th, 2011, 5:12 pm
Posts: 314
Location: Oxford, MS
Bryan Hamilton wrote:
These debates seem to harden folks positions.

I wonder rpecora, what evidence would convince you that anthropogenic climate change is real?

On the other side of the coin, what would convince you monarchzman, that the climate is not changing or that its part of a natural cycle?


I would have to see similar trends in past glacial cycles in terms of CO2 in the atmosphere and rate of warming. But the problem for me is that there is almost an insurmountable amount of evidence showing anthropogenic climate change happening.

I'd compare it to evidence for evolution. Finding an animal we can't get to fit in the tree of life, that doesn't disprove evolution, it means we don't understand yet where it fits. Evidence of climate change, in terms of rate of rise, absent humans would be the best evidence that what we see mirrored today is natural and not anthropogenic, but to date, the ice core data we have do not support that.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming?
PostPosted: January 24th, 2017, 5:35 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:41 pm
Posts: 568
Quote:
And you're also just talking out of your ass when you say there were more cattle in the US in the early 1900s. That is an easily searchable and verifiable fact. And you're wrong.

Image

Maybe, instead of being dismissive, you should actually open you eyes.
Nice try the fact is there are less cattle today than there has been in the last 60 years. Your chart only accounts for beef cattle. There are almost 90M head of cattle in the U.S.

https://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2016/01_29_2016.php

I see who you are now.


Thanks Bryan, I am going to take some time and put some pensive energy into this before I reply. I will probably have more questions than answers. For example why is it that the rate of increase in global temperature is roughly 9.5º C less with more CO2 in the atmosphere than compared to previous ages. When using statistics it's not uncommon to cherry pick them and use them in comparison to others to try to prove a point. Politicians and media pundits are masterful at this. As in the attempt of the beef table above though no mastery there. All of the statistical data if having any verity must be utilized to have any credibility.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming?
PostPosted: January 24th, 2017, 5:49 pm 

Joined: September 8th, 2011, 5:12 pm
Posts: 314
Location: Oxford, MS
rpecora wrote:
Nice try the fact is there are less cattle today than there has been in the last 60 years. Your chart only accounts for beef cattle. There are almost 90M head of cattle in the U.S.

https://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2016/01_29_2016.php

I see who you are now.


That link doesn't support your assertion that there were fewer cattle 100 years ago, only that there were 90M head of cattle.


Quote:
Thanks Bryan, I am going to take some time and put some pensive energy into this before I reply. I will probably have more questions than answers. For example why is it that the rate of increase in global temperature is roughly 9.5º C less with more CO2 in the atmosphere than compared to previous ages. When using statistics it's not uncommon to cherry pick them and use them in comparison to others to try to prove a point. Politicians and media pundits are masterful at this. As in the attempt of the beef table above though no mastery there. All of the statistical data if having any verity must be utilized to have any credibility.


No one argues that it warmer in the past. The problem, which you apparently don't understand, is the rate of increase. We're seeing rates of increase that, in the past, happened over millennia, not decades. This is related to the OP's original question. The rate of warming is the problem, not that it is warm.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming?
PostPosted: January 24th, 2017, 5:58 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:41 pm
Posts: 568
I qualified it by saying 60 years. Peaking in the mid 70's. It appears that you are in denial and wont even admit you were wrong. It's clear that you lack the capacity to be objective.

I never said it was warmer in the past. I'm trying to grasp cause and effect. For a scientist, all due respects, your grasp on communication seems dull, and I'm not educated.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming?
PostPosted: January 24th, 2017, 6:03 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm
Posts: 401
There is no proof that humans, cattle or God is causing any sort of Climate change. When the word evidence is thrown around the source of that evidence must first be considered. What do the providers of the evidence have to gain based on their findings. The one thing that is certain is that the Climate Change issue has been big business and a lot of people are cashing in. The faster that ball can be kept rolling the better for business. Its provided radical activist groups fantastic opportunity's to attack whoever it is they want to go after. Its provided politician's an excuse to try and take more control over your life. For scientist its career opportunity's as long as they do their sponsor's bidding. The Climate Change "issue" is full of contradiction's. When politics is so closely tied to science and activism. Your chance's of getting a straight answer from anyone are about as good as your chance's of finding Miley Cyrus's shame.

A popular cry is that Gila monsters face a major threat from climate change. What is siad is that,

Climate change is going to create an environment that is to hot and arid for the survival of these relatively small burrowing lizards that are so well adapted to desert life. But according to the climate experts at the USGS. Climate change will create an environment that is favorable for a giant tropical terrestrial constrictor that is so strongly tied to water scientist refer to it as a semi aquatic snake species . The map shows this wet tropical climate will expand all across the Gilas range. Talk about contradiction.

Image

Ernie Eison


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming?
PostPosted: January 24th, 2017, 6:12 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:41 pm
Posts: 568
WSTREPS wrote:
There is no proof that humans, cattle or God is causing any sort of Climate change. When the word evidence is thrown around the source of that evidence must first be considered. What do the providers of the evidence have to gain based on their findings. The one thing that is certain is that the Climate Change issue has been big business and a lot of people are cashing in. The faster that ball can be kept rolling the better for business. Its provided radical activist groups fantastic opportunity's to attack whoever it is they want to go after. Its provided politician's an excuse to try and take more control over your life. For scientist its career opportunity's as long as they do their sponsor's bidding. The Climate Change "issue" is full of contradiction's. When politics is so closely tied to science and activism. Your chance's of getting a straight answer from anyone are about as good as your chance's of finding Miley Cyrus's shame.

A popular cry is that Gila monsters face a major threat from climate change. What is siad is that,

Climate change is going to create an environment that is to hot and arid for the survival of these relatively small burrowing lizards that are so well adapted to desert life. But according to the climate experts at the USGS. Climate change will create an environment that is favorable for a giant tropical terrestrial constrictor that is so strongly tied to water scientist refer to it as a semi aquatic snake species . The map shows this wet tropical climate will expand all across the Gilas range. Talk about contradiction.

Image

Ernie Eison
If that's the case posed by the USGS then it reaffirms my skepticism.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming?
PostPosted: January 24th, 2017, 6:35 pm 

Joined: September 8th, 2011, 5:12 pm
Posts: 314
Location: Oxford, MS
rpecora wrote:
I qualified it by saying 60 years. Peaking in the mid 70's. It appears that you are in denial and wont even admit you were wrong. It's clear that you lack the capacity to be objective.

I never said it was warmer in the past. I'm trying to grasp cause and effect. For a scientist, all due respects, your grasp on communication seems dull, and I'm not educated.


You said the early 1900s, which I demonstrated to be false. The 1960s are not the early 1900s. You made an assertion, and I countered it. You tried to change said assertion, but that does not mean the first assertion was correct. I'm not wrong here because I'm not talking about the 1970s. I'm talking about the early 1900s when you said cattle production was higher. You're trying to move the target to make your assertion correct.

And, FYI, if you're trying to communicate something, it is not the audience's fault for not understanding what you're saying. The fault lies with the communicator. It was not clear that you were getting at cause and effect. Nor is it clear where you're getting your numbers from. Again.

So to be clear, you admit you're not an expert. You admit you're not educated. And yet you still question thousands of scientists' conclusions on climate change when they are experts (each, more often than not, with decades of experience) and very well educated? On what basis? That you don't understand the science they're doing? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing that you do not understand how your computer works. Do you question that it works? Do you question that the people who made your computer know what they're doing? If you don't do these things with other things you don't understand, why on earth do you do it for climate change?

And I will grant that scientists, as a whole, are not the best at communicating their research in terms that the lay public can understand, but come on, the criticism that climate scientists must endure about their work from non-experts is absolutely ridiculous.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming?
PostPosted: January 24th, 2017, 7:05 pm 

Joined: September 8th, 2011, 5:12 pm
Posts: 314
Location: Oxford, MS
rpecora wrote:
WSTREPS wrote:
There is no proof that humans, cattle or God is causing any sort of Climate change. When the word evidence is thrown around the source of that evidence must first be considered. What do the providers of the evidence have to gain based on their findings. The one thing that is certain is that the Climate Change issue has been big business and a lot of people are cashing in. The faster that ball can be kept rolling the better for business. Its provided radical activist groups fantastic opportunity's to attack whoever it is they want to go after. Its provided politician's an excuse to try and take more control over your life. For scientist its career opportunity's as long as they do their sponsor's bidding. The Climate Change "issue" is full of contradiction's. When politics is so closely tied to science and activism. Your chance's of getting a straight answer from anyone are about as good as your chance's of finding Miley Cyrus's shame.

A popular cry is that Gila monsters face a major threat from climate change. What is siad is that,

Climate change is going to create an environment that is to hot and arid for the survival of these relatively small burrowing lizards that are so well adapted to desert life. But according to the climate experts at the USGS. Climate change will create an environment that is favorable for a giant tropical terrestrial constrictor that is so strongly tied to water scientist refer to it as a semi aquatic snake species . The map shows this wet tropical climate will expand all across the Gilas range. Talk about contradiction.

Image

Ernie Eison
If that's the case posed by the USGS then it reaffirms my skepticism.


Ernie doesn't really understand science. He thinks that all scientists are money-grubbing con-men.

Case in point, he is very much misrepresenting the graph displayed here. The study for this graph was investigating cold-induced mortality in Burmese pythons after a cold snap in Florida in 2010. The scientists thought that these cold snaps might help limit the snake's range. They compared the temperature of the native range of Burmese Pythons to temperatures here and how that range would change under climate change projections. These maps represent suitable temperature ranges for the Burmese Python. Yes, there are a number of factors that can affect the pythons' ability to spread, but that's not what the authors were looking at, despite what Ernie is misrepresenting. The authors caution that extreme adaptability could allow the snake to invade further areas once thought to be unsuitable to them. And that is not without precedent. Cane Toads were not thought to be able to spread as far west in Australia as they have, but they have proven very adaptable, even to very arid conditions originally thought to be unsuitable to them.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming?
PostPosted: January 24th, 2017, 7:18 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:41 pm
Posts: 568
Quote:
You tried to change said assertion
I didn't try I did change the assertion.

Yes I'm just a lay person of below average intelligence. Doesn't mean I am going to take everything someone says at face value without some thought.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming?
PostPosted: January 24th, 2017, 7:33 pm 
User avatar

Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Posts: 3948
Location: San Francisco, California
Ernie has an ideology. It probably has its origins or was set afire by the python ban. Some time before the python ban though the boom that was happening in the reptile trade was showing signs of waning, and many factors influenced that, which I wont outline here on this thread. But I saw it happening too.

Ernie will sometimes cite science if it conforms with his utilitarian anthropocentric interests in animals, but otherwise sees all studies that are not supportive of his interest in the pet reptile trade, as fake.

It probably has to do with being afraid of not having money, as other peoples money are also a topic of intense interest and bitterness.

And yes, it is true now, that if one has spent their entire lives focused on reptiles it is becoming more and more difficult to find full, satisfying work without an academic background.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming?
PostPosted: June 20th, 2017, 8:56 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:19 am
Posts: 1981
Location: Redding, CA
Bryan Hamilton wrote:
These debates seem to harden folks positions.

I wonder rpecora, what evidence would convince you that anthropogenic climate change is real?

On the other side of the coin, what would convince you monarchzman, that the climate is not changing or that its part of a natural cycle?


I use to deny climate change, acknowledging it was real was an instant sentence to mockery among the conservative and libertarian circles I was in. Peer pressure on this issue is very real. And now I have lost some of those friends, even been called things like snowflake, but the trruth is more important than what my friends think of me.

It was debates that led me to realize how damn arrogant I was to believe I knew better than scientists who actually are trained to analyze the data, and woke me up to the reality of what was happening.

There may even be some old posts of mine in this forum where I am a denier, I don't know if I saw the light before or after joining.

Anyway, these debates can be frustrating and seem to harden people, but even though it is anectdote - please see me as an example where they do bear fruit, because we need scientists engaging deniers (whether they call themselves deniers or not) - it does help.


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming?
PostPosted: June 20th, 2017, 5:22 pm 
User avatar

Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Posts: 3948
Location: San Francisco, California
Something stupid happens when information is filtered through human paradigms of social/political consequences.

Its somehow more clarifying to lift human belief systems and motivations away from subject. I see it with perceptions about animals too, people are so involved with other people they cant get that influence out of their perspective. Even with some factor that would be the exactly the same if humans ceased to, or never existed. Thats how habituated to each other we are.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming?
PostPosted: June 23rd, 2017, 1:37 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm
Posts: 401
Quote:
I am not a scientist but I have faith in science and have loved the concept of the scientific method since it was first explained to me. A tested hypothesis to explain something to the exclusion of other explanations with peer review is a beautiful way to reduce bias that humans tend to have.


That's completely delusional. Only someone who is blind (uneducated) to the truth could actually believe that is what really takes place in the working world of science. Most if not all of the peer reviewed scientific analysis involving climate change is based on untestable hypothesis. Like much of what passes for science in the biological world. Analysis must be testable, or there is no science. Its naïve (moronic) to believe that because a paper is "peer reviewed" that it must be scientifically sound and unbiased in its findings. But that's exactly what the believers think. The earth's climate may be changing (as it always has) and so what. Junk science has always preyed and profited on the stupid and the gullible (the masses) and used the paid for media to manipulate them into doing their bidding. It is no coincidence how wealthy many of the worlds major advocates of climate change have become by pushing their fear mongering agenda. And its also no coincidence that the money comes from blaming climate change on humans and by promoting their solutions to the "problem" they promote . These savior's certainly are not living like they demand everyone else to live and none of the "believers" say a word about it. Its not climate change but he truth that scares them. The truth scares all snowflakes because the truth disproves their entire agenda.


Ernie Eison


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming?
PostPosted: June 23rd, 2017, 3:27 pm 
User avatar

Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Posts: 3948
Location: San Francisco, California
Hopefully with our intricate abstractions and artificial motivations we WILL have the lifespan of snowflakes in the big picture of our time on Earth and good riddance, because we've sucked being here.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: