Artic Melting...Not Just a Puddle Under Your Fridge

Trigg said:
Thanks for posting this sight. I think people need to realize that we have only had reliable data about environmental changes for about 50 years. We really don't know what is normal and what isn't. 100 years ago no one knew what was going on that far north, since it was so dangerous to get there.

Except for the people who've lived there for thousands of years. The Inuit had a strong oral tradition, however the Thule had a written record. You think there would have been some mention of weather disruptions in there? The lack of an anthropological evidence for such changes, though not entirely conclusive, is certainly suspect.
 
Mariner said:
I do indeed rant to anyone I know about gas mileage. My car gets 43mpg running on biodiesel.

Talking about Kennedys flying private planes is a bit cruel, don't you think?

Eightball--I don't understand the type of extreme anti-environmentalist position that you take. Do you forget that it was a Republican president, Teddy Roosevelt, who established the major national parks? Would you really be happy if Yosemite and Yellowstone were paved over?

Just to take a tiny example, 96% of California's original redwoods are gone. The very tallest one was cut down just for fun, not even for commercial use. I say Thank God for the environmentalists who saved the last 4%. You really want a California without redwoods?

When you take aim at the spotted owl protection, it seems you don't appreciate how ecosystems work as wholes, not as individual animals. We're part of the ecology whether we like it or not.

Do you enjoy breathing car fumes? Do you like it that you can't eat the fish from your local lake because some coal company resists regulation to force it to clean its soot? Are you thrilled that GE filled the Hudson River with PCBs? Does a strip mine look like a postcard from heaven to you? Without regulation, much of which results from environmental activism, we'd be living in a capitalism-created cesspool.

Take a look at how the few remaining wild places are experiencing soaring visitors--people need wildness. Have you never visited a place saved by an environmentalist and felt even a moment of gratitude?

Mariner.

Dude, go into the forrest and build a society with an economy as large as America's. Then you can worry about a fucking red-tree-less-California. Try practicing the policy of people over beasts and inanimate plant life. And who really gives a fuck about an owl. Shit dies.

I think Tupac said it best, "That's just the way it is."
 
NE : It's spelled 'Arctic', not Artic.


As most of you know, I'm here in Alaska and I can report from this area that the weather has been strange, but it's getting colder again. There's natural fluctuations of earth's climate, from hot areas to cold areas in the graph. Last winter was a kickass winter with cold temps and lots of snow, I loved it. In '99, I personally experienced -64 F for a week. Both weeks outside of that -64 week were minus 30. I didn't shut my truck off for a week, and ended up getting roughly 60 miles for a tank of gas, best money I ever spent. Anyone that shuts their vehicle down in those sorts of temperatures are really rolling the dice.

How many times has the earth gone through ice ages? What caused those, Woolly Mammoth farts?

It's a natural cycle! The earth heats up, then gets colder than hell, this is common knowledge.

It was warmer in the 1400s than it is today. Do you attribute that to all the blacksmiths in England making armor? Pfffft!

I'll go digging in my archives regarding the Global Warming bullshit tomorrow (I just got home after being away all summer) and will provide some context on Man's impact on the warming trend in the Big Picture. Very good reading.

The global warming scare is a farce, IMHO.

But the argument is certainly NOT decided, I don't care what your viewpoint is. To confidently speak of man causing global warming is irresponsible at best.
 
Here's some interesting reading :

Krill the Messenger

A headline in the November 4, 2004 edition of The Los Angeles Times screams “Antarctic Food Chain in Peril, Study Finds.” That’s because Usha Lee McFarling’s story sounds an alarming note. “Krill — the heart of the rich Antarctic food chain nourishes whales, seals and penguins — have declined by more than 80% in the last 25 years in key ocean regions, according to a new study that links the loss to warming temperatures.” McFarling explains how higher temperatures result in “diminished ice cover in some parts of the waters surrounding Antarctica.” This is important, she writes, because “krill larvae require sea ice to survive the winter [and] without sea ice, the larvae starve.”

McFarling bases her article on a study published in the November 4th edition of Nature magazine. In his study, lead researcher Angus Atkinson of the British Antarctic Survey relates the observed decline in krill to sea ice conditions and uses a couple of figures to illustrate their relationship. The first (Figure 1) depicts the history of the krill population (as sampled from capture nets) in the southwest sector of the Atlantic Ocean, a region Atkinson defines as lying just off the tip of the Antarctic Peninsula, that thin arm of Antarctica that extends toward the southern tip of South America. It is one of the most productive regions for krill in the southern Atlantic. Krill numbers certainly appear to have declined since the mid-to-late 1970s.


Figure 1. Temporal history of krill density in the southwest Atlantic sector of the Southern Ocean, 1976-2003 (source: Atkinson et al., 2204).


In order to ascertain whether sea ice conditions are associated with the observed decline in krill, Atkinson goes on to relate krill density to the duration of ‘fast-ice’ (that is, ice connected to the shoreline) as measured the previous winter at the South Orkney Islands, a small island chain near the middle of the study region. He postulates winter ice to be prime larvae over-wintering grounds. In other words, the more fast-ice ice there is, the greater number of krill larvae will survive the winter, leading to a larger krill population the following summer. He illustrates the relationship using Figure 2.


Figure 2. Relationship between winter ice duration at the South Orkney Islands and krill density (number per square meter). The longer there is ice, the more krill there are (source: Atkinson et al., 2004).


There does appear to be strong correlation between the previous winter’s sea ice duration and krill density. Taken together, these two figures leave the impression that the declining krill population is related to declining sea ice duration. Of course, it goes without saying that the decline in sea ice duration is related to global warming. As Atkinson describes it, the region around the Antarctic Peninsula is “one of the world’s fastest-warming areas” (without a tie-in to global warming, results like these likely would not rate a banner headline in a leading newspaper).

But it requires one final figure to conclusively demonstrate the relationship between krill decline and sea ice loss — one showing the temporal history of winter fast-ice duration at the South Orkneys. But wait a minute! Where is it? Isn’t this Atkinson’s key research finding? Try as we might, we don’t find anything that illustrates a recent decline in sea ice duration around the South Orkneys. That seems odd. We searched for the missing data on the Internet and after a couple of hours, we located it and publish it as Figure 3. You’ll quickly see why Atkinson didn’t incorporate the history of fast-ice duration in his article. There was no change in the duration in ‘fast sea ice’ at the South Orkneys between 1975 and 2000. That’s the time associated with the steep decline in krill density.

How can declines in sea ice related to global warming be responsible for decimation of the krill population when winter sea ice duration is not declining at the locus of the relationship?


Figure3. The history of winter ice duration observed at South Orkney Islands, 1975-2000 (source: Clarke and Harris, 2003).


Once we scented blood in the waters off Antarctica, like orca we drove in for the kill. The record of sea ice duration at the South Orkneys begins in 1903. Figure 4 represents the complete record and shows sea ice conditions to be variable from year to year. However, since about 1960, the multi-year average is pretty constant.


Figure 4. The history of winter ice duration observed at South Orkney Islands, 1903-2000 (source: Clarke and Harris, 2003).


Contrast what’s been happening since 1960 with what took place early in the 20th century. In the early decades, winter sea ice duration averaged about 200 days per year (and even longer around 1930). It rapidly declined to the late 1950s, averaging little more than 100 days per year. If krill are as sensitive to sea ice variations as Atkinson and his colleagues believe, we can’t imagine how they survived the first half of the 20th century!

But, of course, we can imagine it. Krill adapt to changing conditions. They might do so by relocating elsewhere in the Southern Ocean. Most of the Southern Ocean actually is experiencing increases in sea ice extent and duration. Perhaps the krill alter the depth at which they live in the water column. Maybe some other mechanism is involved.

Steve Nicol, a krill expert from the Australian Antarctic Division, was incredulous when McFarling got hold of him for comment. “Could we really have lost 900 million tons of krill [from a biomass that was once estimated at 10 billion tons] without anyone noticing?,” he responded. “I don’t think so. You would expect to see most of the predators in decline, and this doesn’t appear to be happening.” Interesting observation, but insufficient to ‘stop the presses’ and keep The L.A. Times from becoming the latest victim of Nature’s peer-reviewers neglecting (or at least failing) to ask the right questions. Perhaps they and the Nature editorial staff simply choose to look the other way when there’s an opportunity to publicize another “fear global warming” message. This has been a continuing and disturbing pattern at Nature.

References:
Atkinson, A., Siegel, V., Pakhomov, E., Rothery, P., 2004. Long-term decline in krill stock and increase in salps within the Southern Ocean. Nature, 432, 100-103.

Clarke, A., Harris, C.M., 2003. Polar marine ecosystems: major threats and future change. Environmental Conservation, 30, 1-25.

Cavalieri, D.J., Parkinson, C.L., Vinnikov, K.Y., 2003. 30-year satellite record reveals contrasting Arctic and Antarctic decadal sea ice variability. Geophysical Research Letters, 30, doi:10.1029/2003GL018031.

http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/wca/2004/wca_27a.html
 
Here's some great quotes from Environmentalists bent on saving us from ourselves :

“I think if we don’t overthrow capitalism, we don’t have a chance of saving the world ecologically.
I think it is possible to have an ecological society under socialism.
I don’t think it’s possible under capitalism.”

Judi Barri of Earth First!
Quoted by Walter Williams, columnist
with Heritage Features Syndicate, State Journal Register, June 25 1992.

We are special interest, one-issue tree huggers.
That interest being the preservation of the ecological integrity of the planet. And we have a quite specific and quite radical case to make (get ready, this is planet-saving 101). We demand: a massive and enlightened redistribution of the world’s wealth and land; a drastic reduction in the developed world’s rate of consumption; democratic cooperation to deal with those elements of environmental stewardship that require it; and reducing to local stewardship, local economics and local democracy those that don’t. Needless to say, you won’t find a corporate executive outside the Body Shop, Ben and Jerry’s, Tom’s of Maine or the like who even knows what I am talking about here.

Andre Carothers, reason three why "environmentalists" shouldn't take money from corporations, in his column Unwelcome Saviors - Five Reasons to Oppose Corporate Sponsorship of Earth Day, published in the April 1995 hardcopy edition of “E The Environmental Magazine”

"We reject the idea of private property."
-- Peter Berle, (former) president, National Audubon Society, Board member, Sierra Club

"We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects - We must reclaim the roads, and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers, and return to wilderness, millions of tens of millions of acres of presently settled land."
-- Dave Foreman, Earth First!

"The establishment of an American Soviet government will involve the confiscation
of large landed estates in town and country, and also,
the whole body of forests, mineral deposits, lakes, rivers and so on."
- William Z. Foster, National Chairman of the Communist Party USA, 1932

"I think all private property should be in the public domain.
We should get it all. Be unreasonable. You can do it.
Yesterday’s heresy is today’s common wisdom. So, I say, let’s take it all back."
- Brock Evans, VP, National Audubon Society
 
Why does it have to be either/or? Wouldn't we do well to set an example to the expanding economies of the rest of the world of how to have excellent economic growth AND respect for the environment? Isn't there a ton of money to be made if we develop the technologies for this rather than letting other countries take the lead (e.g. Toyota, which is now introducing its hybrid Lexus)?

There's no reason that Indians and Chinese won't aspire to American standards of living, but if they do it with an American level of wastefulness, we'll be in deep trouble. As biologist E.O. Wilson has pointed out, if every human had the same ecological "footprint" as every American, it would take four entire earths to satisfy the demand.

NightTrain--quoting extreme environmentalists' most extreme statements (many of which I disagree with) hardly disqualifies all environmentalism as nutty. There are extremists in any cause. The mainstream American supports better environmental standards than we have now. Bush supports worse.

Mariner.
 
I can only speak for myself, but I can tell you from personal experience that the vast majority of Alaskans are disgusted with environmentalists from California and the East Coast trying to dictate what we do with our State. Their bullying tactics (threatening boycotts & bad press) have finally run their course and have no power now that most residents here are familiar with their agendas.

Thanks for the link, Mariner. That's a nice piece from RFK, jr., I'll have to research that tomorrow. I wonder if Uncle Ted helped him with it, I detected quite a few attacks upon our Prez as I skimmed over it... I suspect there's quite a few holes in that piece.
 
yes, I think sometimes liberals can be do-good meddlers, e.g. in the case of Alaska, where the image of a pristine wilderness sometimes overcomes fairness towards the people that live there. Same with the South American rainforests, where we have to remember that people live there. I like the French photographer Salgado's work, because it reminds us of the people.

The NRDC is a pretty solid organization, as I think you'll find when you research them. RFK Jr. is a hands-on activist, less interested in politics than real-world results, e.g. cleaning up G.E.'s PCB mess in the Hudson River.

Mariner.
 
I don't know how many of you are aware that Russia signed the Kyoto Treaty.

Don't you find that the ultimate in hypocracy? The Russians were, and probably are the worst industrial polluters, yet the world will use their Kyoto signing as pressure on the U.S. to follow suit.

The U.S. is so far ahead of USSR/Russia in environmental friendly work, it's mind boggling!

I hope the U.S. never "Cow Tows", and signs that Kyoto/extortion Treaty.

If Al Gore were our Commander and Chief, we would all be commuting to work on Roller Blades.

Regards, Eightballsidepocket
 

Forum List

Back
Top