Global Warming Junk Science (Not El Nino)

Discussion in 'Nonsense Anything Boards' started by BiggestT, Jun 10, 2014.

  1. BiggestT

    BiggestT I've posted enough I should edit this section

    Location:
    Fullerton
    Name:
    SM
    Boat:
    Salsipuedes & Czech Mate
    • Messages:
      (11,312)
    • Likes Received:
      (3,425)
    In another thread on El Nino, I posted that I read a lot on the science relating to so called Global Warming, err Climate Change. I mentioned that the so-called Global Warming Consensus is bogus and is really a chorus of scientist aiming at drowning out the real science in the area.

    Well here's a good example where a real scientist completely debunks some examples of bad science which has been cited many times over amongst the Global Warming Consensus:

    http://landscapesandcycles.net/fabr...g-climate-doom---part-3--extreme-weather.html

    Fabricating Climate Doom - Part 3: Extreme Weather Extinctions Enron Style
    Adapted from the chapter Deceptive Extremes in Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism by Jim Steele

    An Illusion of Extreme Climate Disruption
    “While clearing larvae were starving in response to destruction of their hosts, survival in the outcrop was higher than previously recorded: an estimated 80% of larval groups survived.” 1
    C. D. Thomas, University of Leeds, United Kingdom
    In Part 1, I documented how Camille Parmesan’s 1996 paper (heralded as proof that global warming was forcing butterflies northward and upward) had misread landscape change for climate change, how she failed to publish that “extinct” populations had now recovered and refused to provide the data to permit replication of her iconic paper. In Part 2, I documented how Parmesan hijacked the conservation success story of the Large Blue and the detailed conservation science of Jeremy Thomas in order to again blame global warming for expanding the range of endangered UK butterflies. In Part 3, I document how Parmesan kept half the evidence “off the books” to suggest extreme weather, supposedly caused by rising CO2, was causing population extinctions in the Sierra Nevada, and our top climate scientists then embraced and spread that myth.
    In her paper Impacts of Extreme Weather and Climate on Terrestrial Biota2 Parmesan wrote, “Here, evidence is brought forward that extreme weather events can be implicated as mechanistic drivers of broad ecological responses to climatic trends. They are, therefore, essential to include in predictive biological models, such as doubled CO2 scenarios.” To demonstrate the destructive power of extreme weather, Parmesan and company detailed a sequence of events that caused the extinction of a Sierra Nevada population of Edith’s checkerspot butterfly. However unlike Parmesan’s 1996 paper,3 it was no longer global warming at low elevations that caused the population’s extinction. She now blamed climate change for unusually cold weather at higher elevations. The authors wrote:
    “Twenty years of studies at one site in the Sierra Nevada of California have implicated three extreme weather events in carving a pathway to extinction of a whole set of E. editha populations at 2400 m.
    “The first catastrophe occurred in 1989 when low winter snowpack led to an early and unusually synchronous adult emergence in April (as compared to the usual June flight). So early, in fact, that flowers were not yet in bloom and most adults died from starvation. Just one year later another relatively light snowpack again caused adults to emerge early. Adult butterflies, adapted to summertime conditions of warmth and sun, suffered many deaths during a “normal” May snow-storm. Each of these events decreased the population size by an order of magnitude…
    “The finale came but 2 years later in 1992 when (unusually low) temperatures of ?5° C on June 16, without the insulating snowfall, killed an estimated 97% of the Collinsia (host) plants….The butterflies had already finished flying and left behind young caterpillars that were not killed directly but starved in the absence of hosts. As of the latest census (1999), these sites remained extinct.”
    Parmesan and her colleagues argued that CO2 warming had triggered cold events, which disrupted the “synchrony” between the weather, the butterflies and their food plants. Unlike Jeremy Thomas who was seeking to save an endangered species, Camille Parmesan was not interested in the details required for successful conservation. She was looking to support her global warming theory admittedly “searching for a climate fingerprint rather than critiquing each study”.4 And she knowingly omitted contradictory details and failed to mention that the other half of her observed population had prospered during those same events.
    I say that she knowingly omitted the details because her future husband, Mike Singer, and C.D. Thomas wrote the research papers from which Parmesan manufactured her extreme weather story;5,6 when written, Parmesan served as their field assistant. Although weather is involved in each and every wildlife boom or bust, her reported extinctions had everything to do with how land use had changed the butterflies’ “microclimates”.
    Parmesan directed the reader’s attention to just one of two neighboring populations. Both populations were literally within a stone’s throw of each other and normally they would be considered two halves of the same population equally affected by global warming. Yet only one half went extinct while simultaneously the other “natural” half survived. In fact by all accounts, the natural half didn’t just survive the “extreme weather”, it thrived!
    In the early 1960s, only the “natural” half ever existed. As far as we know, it had always inhabited the rocky outcrops where the Sierra Nevada’s thin, glaciated soils prevented dense forest growth and permitted sufficient sunny patches for the caterpillars to warm their bodies. In contrast, the extinct population had just recently colonized habitat created in the 1960s after the US Forest Service had expanded logging into higher elevations. The logging opened the canopy to the warmth of the sun and created new microclimates.
    Parmesan’s extinction story was a very selective retelling of the referenced study, “Catastrophic Extinction of Population Sources in a Butterfly Metapopulation”6 and a second companion paper.5 The caterpillars of the surviving natural population had fed mostly on a hardy perennial plant, which easily survives the Sierra Nevada’s erratic weather. The half-population that went extinct uncharacteristically fed on a fragile annual species, Collinsia torreyi, that typically invades logged areas. The checkerspot in the Sierra Nevada rarely laid its eggs on Collinsia, because normally it was not a reliable food source.
    But recent logging near their natural habitat changed all that. Not only did logging open the forest floor to more sunlight, it also exposed deeper soils that had been enriched from the logging debris and burn-piles. That human disturbance created the just-right conditions for the annual Collinsia to survive for much longer periods. Serendipitously it also created a novel butterfly-plant synchrony. A longer-lived and more abundant Collinsia could now sustain the full development of hungry caterpillars.
    With the life cycles of Collinsia and the checkerspot temporarily in synchrony, Collinsia suddenly became a valuable food resource. The butterflies from the outcrops opportunistically colonized the logged area and created the new second population. However this serendipitous food supply had simply prompted a boom and bust, not unlike the nearby ghost towns during the Sierra Nevada gold rush days.
    While Parmesan indicted climate change in “the grand finale” during which frost killed 99.9% of the annual Collinsia, she omitted the crucial detail that the frost had little effect on the perennial food plants that sustained the natural population. More importantly, Parmesan also omitted that she had observed survival for the natural population “was higher than previously recorded, an estimated 80% of larval groups survived”.5,6
    The deadly logged landscape had altered the microclimate and thus the timing of the caterpillars’ emergence from diapause. (Diapause is a period of inactivity and reduced metabolism similar to hibernation) In the Sierra Nevada, the checkerspot caterpillars diapause throughout the winter, snuggled safely under the soil and surface debris. Over the millennia, the caterpillar has evolved an instinctual sensitivity to the critical weather cues that triggered the safest time to emerge from their subsurface retreat. However, logging had opened the forest canopy, changing the pattern of snowfall accumulation, snow melt and forest-floor vegetation. Just as one centimeter of taller grass had cooled the subsurface for the Large Blue’s ant hosts, the recently logged forest floor was also heated differently. That sent the wrong signal to the diapausing caterpillars. Extreme weather affects adjacent locations equally; however, it is the different microclimates that determine how the animals respond.
    Parmesan never told her readers that the natural population thrived or that the natural population maintained their synchrony with both the weather and their food plants. By re-constructing only half of the details, and with the apparent blessings of Dr. C.D. Thomas and her husband Dr. Singer, Parmesan metamorphosed a story of nature’s adaptability and resilience into another story of climate catastrophe. Such blatant sins of omissions are a very serious offense, and this “scientific” paper should be retracted. The peer review process failed to detect an obvious distortion of the truth that was readily noticed by anyone who read the original study. To date, a modest 243 papers have cited her paper2 as another consensus evidence of catastrophic climate change caused by extreme weather. However when our leading climate scientists uncritically embraced her story, it was referenced by thousands more. 8
    Seeking Extreme Weather and Biological Calamities
    “overall in the United States there is a slight downward trend in the number of these extremes despite an overall warming in the mean temperature, but with cooling in the southeastern United States” 8
    “The number of deaths related to tornadoes, hurricanes, and severe storms have either decreased or remained unchanged over the past 20 years.” 8
    Dr. David Easterling, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    D.R. Easterling from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Thomas Karl, now the director of National Climatic Data Center and G.A. Meehl, the Senior Scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research were advocates looking to support CO2-caused warming. In their 2000 paper Climate Extremes: Observations, Modeling and Impacts, Easterling et al. wrote, “if there are indeed identifiable trends in extreme climatic events it would add to the body of evidence that there is a discernible human affect on the climate.” Apparently feeling a need to promote a greater sense of urgency, Easterling, Meehl, and Karl uncritically embraced any research that linked rising CO2 levels with extreme climate events and biological tragedy, and to that end they had invited Parmesan to coauthor their paper.
    To raise our concerns about climate extremes, the first few paragraphs of Easterling’s paper listed the death and destruction caused by recent hurricanes and asked if the extreme events were natural or caused by humans. However they then reported that through the 1990s damage from extreme events had actually declined reporting, “The number of deaths related to tornadoes, hurricanes, and severe storms have either decreased or remained unchanged over the past 20 years.” 8
    Heat stress was also declining; they reported that the number of days with extreme temperatures over 90.5°F and over the 90th percentile threshold peaked during the droughts of the 1930s and 1950s. They concluded, “Thus, overall in the United States there is a slight downward trend in the number of these extremes despite an overall warming in the mean temperature, but with cooling in the southeastern United States (emphasis added).” 8 In an earlier paper Easterling also reported that maximums had not increased in Russia and China.9
    A 2013 State of Knowledge Paper paper by 27 climate scientist has confirmed that for the contiguous USA, heat waves and droughts are still less common than in the 1930s and 50s as their graphs below depict. Although the authors offered mixed interpretations and caveats, the data was clear and they wrote, “For the conterminous United States (Fig. 1) the highest number of heat waves occurred in the 1930s, with the fewest in the 1960s. The 2001-10 decade was the second highest but well below the 1930s.
    [​IMG]
    Easterling and Parmesan’s paper had also reported, “Examination of drought over the 20th century in the United States shows considerable variability, the droughts of the 1930s and 1950s dominating any long-term trend. Recent investigation of longer term U.S. Great Plains drought variability over the past 2000 years with the use of paleo-climatic data suggests that no droughts as intense as those of the 1930s have occurred since the 1700s. However, before the 16th century some droughts appear to have occurred that were of greater spatial and temporal intensity than any of the 20th-century U.S. droughts.”8
    Similarly the 2013 State of Knowledge paper wrote, “each decade has experienced drought episodes that covered 30% or more (by area) of the contiguous United States. The 1930s and 1950s had the worst droughts, with 31.7% and 15.6%, respectively, of the U.S. experiencing their driest period on record. By comparison, during the first decade of the twenty-first century (2001-10) 12.8% and for 2011 8.3% of the U.S. experienced their record drought.” (see their graph below)
    [​IMG]
    As shown in the graph below from 2013 State of Knowledge paper, mega-droughts far worse than the 30s and 50s happened over a thousand years ago based on reconstructed from tree ring data from 800 to 2000 AD.
    [​IMG]
    Twenty-seven climate scientists concluded “decadal variations in the number of U.S. heat and cold waves do not correlate that closely with the warming observed over the United States. The drought years of the 1930s had the most heat waves, while the 1980s had the highest number of cold waves.” 7
    Although the data from both papers clearly showed no unusual increase in extreme weather, we must still be cautious about interpreting any extreme weather data. As Easterling lamented, “lack of long-term climate data suitable for analysis of extremes is the single biggest obstacle to quantifying whether extreme events have changed over the 20th century.”8 And he confessed that great caution needs to be taken when comparing extreme weather events warning, “investigators have often used quite different criteria to define an extreme climate event. This lack of consensus on the definition of extreme events, coupled with other problems, such as a lack of suitable homogeneous data for many parts of the world, likely means that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to say that extreme events in general have changed in the observed record (emphasis added).”8
    Yet despite the lack of any evidence of unusually extreme weather and the lack of reliable data, Easterlng and Parmesan’s paper ironically marked the beginning of an era in which every weather event would soon be translated into “unprecedented extremes” caused by CO2 climate change, and again Parmesan’s butterfly effect was again instrumental in promoting biological doom.
    With scant evidence that climate change had caused any increase in extreme weather they emphasized Parmesan’s extinctions writing, “Several apparently gradual biological changes are linked to responses to extreme weather and climate events.” They repeated Parmesan’s earlier fairly tale that climate change was forcing butterflies northward and upward, even adding imaginary data, “In western North America, Edith's Checkerspot butterfly has shifted its range northward (by 92 km) and upward (by 124 m) during this century.” Did Parmesan not tell our top climate scientists that there was never any such migration? Yet they continued “drought, "false springs," and midsummer frost, have been directly observed to cause extinction of local populations of this butterfly. Thus, the gradual northward and upward movement of the species' range since 1904 is likely due to the effects of a few extreme weather events on population extinction rates.”
    Did Parmesan also not tell them the natural populations in unlogged habitat had experienced their greatest survival during her purported “extreme weather” event? Did Easterling, Karl and Meehl not know Parmesan’s paper kept half the evidence off the books? Or did their CO2 advocacy turn a blind eye to bad science? Despite no increase extreme weather and no real biological catastrophe, the paper Climate Extremes: Observations, Modeling and Impacts is cited by over 1,650 papers to build a consensus and the public is bombarded with fear mongering that we should “Be Very Afraid”. What I fear most is how the politics of climate change has defiled good science and good environmental science!
    Adapted from the chapter Deceptive Extremes in Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism by Jim Steele

    And here's another article by Jim Steele addressing some more half baked science by Global Warming Religious Fanatics:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/23/the-aaass-lost-climate-integrity/


    An extract for our resident ocean temperature taker (who still hasn't provided his data):

    "As the PDO persisted into its cool phase during the new millennium, warm-water fish like sardines declined moving southward and the more cold-loving anchovies and smelts increased by an order of magnitude.9 The natural regime shift hypothesis was confirmed. It is also noteworthh the AAAS did not mention that the consensus derived from Argo data, now reports the upper 300 meters of the oceans have not warmed or cooled since 2003." 13


    The Lost Climate Integrity of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
    Posted on March 23, 2014 by Anthony Watts
    “What We Really Know” and What the AAAS Failed to Mention.
    Guest essay by Jim Steele,
    Director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University
    Climate scientist Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr. recently posted that the AAAS has ignored “the recent recognition of the heightened importance of natural climate forcings and feedbacks” and condemned AAAS media release as “an embarrassment to the scientific community.”
    It is not just natural climate forcings that the AAAS ignored. As a biologist who has studied the impacts of regional climate change on wildlife in California’s Sierra Nevada for 3 decades, the AAAS’s simplistic and misleading discussion of extinctions and ecosystem collapse is simply shameful fear mongering. I agree wholeheartedly with Dr. Pielke. It is an embarrassment to the scientific community.
    All my red flags (marked with icons) were raised when the AAAS woefully wrote “As the world has gotten hotter, many of the world’s plants and animals, on land and in the oceans, have begun moving toward the poles. Where possible, some terrestrial species are moving up mountainsides, and marine species are moving to deeper depths and higher latitudes. These changes are happening on every continent and in every ocean”.
    To “inform the public” about their fearful conclusions, they cited 2 outdated peer-reviewed articles1,2 written by Camille Parmesan, who not surprisingly was one of the 13 scientists writing the AAAS’ media release. The section on “Ecosystem Collapse” also refers to a 2013 report by the National Research Council titled “Abrupt Impacts of Climate Change: Anticipating Surprises,” which not so coincidentally cites the same 2 Parmesan papers purporting climate caused “extinctions” and “ecosystem collapse”. If we peruse those papers, we find that one of those 2 papers1, cites 11 other Parmesan papers, creating a consensus where Parmesan agrees with Parmesan. Not only are the AAAS’s argument very inbred, they are outdated and contradicted by more recent peer-reviewed studies. Below are the most salient examples from Parmesan’s 2 suspect publications showing how they have shaped the AAAS’ narrative on climate change and biological catastrophes.
    1. In one cited example from 1996,3 she claimed the Edith Checkerspot (Euphydryas editha) was moving northward and upward from Mexico to Canada, consistent with global warming. This paper had evoked great fears and was touted by over 500 consensus scientists as proof of global warming disruption, and got her invited to the White House.
    [​IMG] Although the AAAS authors gallantly profess that they write because it is “increasingly urgent for the public to know,” Parmesan did not take this opportunity to inform the public about the good news: Many of the populations she had declared extinct in 1996 have now fully recovered. She also failed to mention that only the statistical average moved northward and upward because the urban sprawl in southern California decimate souther populations and dominated the statistics. Actual butterflies never moved. The preponderance of evidence by several experts indicates landscape changes, not climate change, were the driving force of the extirpated populations. Read more here.
    2. In another paper,4 she had claimed global warming was causing extreme weather that resulted in butterfly extinctions, and that was the mechanism driving butterflies upward and northward.
    [​IMG]Again she never reported the good news, (either originally or in this AAAS report), In their natural habitat the butterflies had thrived better than ever during the same supposed “extreme weather”. However to create the illusion of a climate catastrophe, she only published that butterflies just 10 meters away in a recently logged area were extirpated by the mountain weather, a logged area in which the food plants and the microclimate had been drastically changed. Due to such a sin of omission, I requested an official retraction but the editors of the AMS excused the deception of telling such half truths. Was the refusal to retract bad science affected by political pressure because Parmesan’s papers have been the foundation of so many biological climate catastrophe stories like this AAAS media ploy??? Read more here.
    3. The AAAS cited Parmesan’s IPCC paper, “A Globally Coherent Fingerprint of Climate Change Impacts across Natural Systems”,2 in which she reported that her model could distinguish between ecological disruptions due to landscape change versus climate change, and she argued that the evidence was clear that a multitude of species were undergoing a pole-ward expansions due to climate change.
    [​IMG]First she failed to mention that the very species she used as a definitive example of climate change was moving northward as it recovered thanks to conservation efforts. More efficient animal husbandry had reduced grazing and the extermination of most of England’s rabbits by an introduced virus had caused the grasslands to become overgrown. The shaded grasslands had extirpated warmth‑loving butterflies, relegating them to southern England. To save them from extinction, conservationists mowed critical habitat and encouraged more grazing, and soon warmth‑loving butterflies expanded northward. But the good news was metamorphosed into a climate catastrophe, and perpetuated by the AAAS. Read more here
    4. In “Ecological and Evolutionary Responses to Recent Climate Change” cited by the AAAS, Parmesan relayed the story of another climate disruption, “In the most-extreme cases, the southern edge [of a butterfly’s range] contracted concurrent with northern edge expansion. For example, the sooty copper (Heodes tityrus) was common in the Montseny region of central Catalonia in the 1920s, but modern sightings are only from the Pyrenees, 50 km to the north. Symmetrically, H. tityrus entered Estonia for the first time in 1998, by 1999 had established several successful breeding populations.”
    [​IMG]Again she failed to mention that southern Montseny population was ironically extirpated due to conservation efforts not climate change. The Montseny region had been designated a natural preserve and grazing was prohibited. As a result the Sooty Copper lost its warm open grasslands as it converted to shady forest and shrub land. More disturbing was Parmesan altered her story. She had originally reported5 that the Sooty Copper’s northern expansion had been documented “first” in Estonia by 1942 – not 1998.
    5. Again in “Ecological and Evolutionary Responses to Recent Climate Change” cited by the AAAS, Parmesan had argued global warming was causing amphibian extinctions writing, “Documented rapid loss of habitable climate space makes it no surprise that the first extinctions of entire species attributed to global warming are mountain-restricted species. Many cloud-forest-dependent amphibians have declined or gone extinct on a mountain in Costa Rica.”

    [​IMG]Despite the AAAS’ stated intentions “that it is important and increasingly urgent for the public to know”, Parmesan and the AAAS did not report that virtually every shred of evidence has attributed those amphibian extinctions to a novel chytrid fungus spread by the pet trade and researchers. Amphibian extinctions were occurring in a pattern exactly opposite to global warming theory. Population of amphibians species were thriving in warmer habitat, but extirpated in cooler high elevations, or during the winter. Despite the consensus that virtually all amphibian deaths can be attributed to lost habitat or the spread of the deadly chytrid fungus, Parmesan continues to argue climate change killed the Golden Toad and other amphibians.6 If amphibian extinctions were truly their concern, this would be a good time for the AAAS to warn the public that moving tadpoles and frogs from one place to another spreads the disease and is a much bigger problem than climate change.
    [​IMG]6. Again in “Ecological and Evolutionary Responses to Recent Climate Change” cited by the AAAS, Parmesan argued Adelie Penguins were being decimated by climate change highlighting that “Adelie Penguins have declined by 70% on Anvers Island. “
    [​IMG] The AAAS and Parmesan chose not to inform us of more good news of penguins nd climate change. Across 95% of coastline, the number of Adelie penguins has multiplied.10 Parmesan’s cherry-picked data focused on declines from just 5% of the Antarctic coastline, a coastline which is most sensitive to cycles of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and El Nino. Changes in the wind’s direction caused shifting patterns of snow accumulation, and the populations unaffected by heavier snow still remained on Anvers Island. At Dumont D’urville, Adelies increased “between 1984 and 2003 at a rate of 1.77% per year.” In the Ross Sea, home to 30% of the world’s Adelie penguins, populations tripled between the 1960s and the mid-1980s.16
    7. In both papers cited by the AAAS,1,2 Parmesan had reported marine life was moving northward due to global warming. She wrote, “Decades of ecological and physiological research document that climatic variables are primary drivers of distributions and dynamics of marine plankton and fish”

    [​IMG]Parmesan had cited papers that had indeed reported dramatic shifts in marine communities, but she failed to report that those authors had suspected or predicted those “climatic variables” were natural cycles. She and the AAAS failed to share with the public recent research that has now verified those natural cycles.
    For example in both Parmesan papers she had cited the paper “Seventy Years’ Observations of changes in Distribution and Abundance of Zooplankton and intertidal Organisms in the Western English Channel in relation to Rising Sea Temperature,” in which she implied it was a fingerprint of CO2 warming. However the author had actually warned that northward movement could be cyclic writing, “To fully prove the effects of global warming, future changes in the marine biota must exceed those recorded in the 1950s and 1960s.”
    To date the northward extension of cod and other well documented marine organisms have yet to reach the northern extent observed earlier in the 20th century.
    Both papers also cited “Changes in an Assemblage of Temperate Reef Fishes Associated with a Climate Shift.” However the authors never attributed the changes to CO2 warming as Parmesan again implied. The authors reported that before 1976, there was no warming trend in the California Current, and ocean temperatures fluctuated around a lower average. Then after 1976, temperatures jumped higher and then fluctuated around a new higher average, but with no further warming trend. Holbrook cautioned, “The steep abundance declines on all levels were events that are not obvious predictions from present models of climate change.” In contrast to Parmesan’s interpretation, the authors suggested the climate shift was cyclical and they predicted the California Current would revert to cooler temperatures. They concluded the following decades “would provide a natural ‘test’ of our hypotheses” And indeed their prediction has come true.
    Scientists have now documented the effects of Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) reported “the transition between the strong El Niño event in 1997–1998 and the 1998–1999 La Niña was possibly the most dramatic and rapid episode of climate change in modern times.” Mean summer ocean temperatures off the coast of Oregon decreased by 2°F beginning in 1999. Temperatures at some locations off the California coast fell by nearly 18°F between 1998 and 1999, and coastal sea levels were the lowest in at least 65 years. As the PDO persisted into its cool phase during the new millennium, warm-water fish like sardines declined moving southward and the more cold-loving anchovies and smelts increased by an order of magnitude.9 The natural regime shift hypothesis was confirmed. It is also noteworthh the AAAS did not mention that the consensus derived from Argo data, now reports the upper 300 meters of the oceans have not warmed or cooled since 2003.13
    8. In the paper cited by the AAAS, Parmesan reinforced her illusory claim about global warming driving butterflies northward and upward by cherry-picking a Eric Beever paper that claimed global warming was driving the pika upward. She reported “in the Great Basin of the western United States, 7 out of 25 re-censused populations of the pika were extinct since being recorded in the 1930s.” She failed to mention that the paper only represented a small group of previously known populations, located in isolated habitat and not readily re-colonized, and in all sites vegetation was heavily grazed.

    [​IMG][​IMG]We now know far more about the pika, and again the AAAS failed to convey the good news that would assuage any climate fears. There are now more known pika populations than ever before, and they are being found in hotter habitats and at lower elevations. “In total, 19% of the currently known populations are found at lower elevations than ever documented by any study during the early 1900s”14 Even 2 of Beever’s original “extinct” populations have now returned.
    Dr. Andrew Smith is one of the world’s leading pika experts and he recently testified against listing the pika as endangered by global warming writing, “I grimace at the hyperbole of the current PR campaign to make the pika an endangered species, as I similarly decry the loss of scientific objectivity and/or the failure of those embarking on this campaign to recognize that the USFWS, State of California and IUCN have all objectively not listed the pika as endangered.”
    9. Again in “Ecological and Evolutionary Responses to Recent Climate Change” cited by the AAAS, Parmesan had reported that, “polar bears have suffered significant population declines at opposite geographic boundaries. At their southern range boundary (Hudson Bay), polar bears are declining both in numbers and in mean body weight (Stirling et al. 1999).”

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]Again Parmesan and the AAAS avoided telling the public the good news. They failed to mention that in same paper (Stirling et al. 1999), polar bears had nearly tripled since the 1980s when hunting stopped, and by 1987 had reached the region’s carrying capacity of between 900 and 1100 bears. Despite predictions that the bears should have declined to just 600 by now, the most recent survey reveals the bears are still at carrying capacity with more than 1000 bears.15 All indicators show the productivity of the Arctic food web has improved from phytoplankton, to cod to ringed seals to bears. Although Parmesan cited another Stirling paper,12 she failed to mention that he reported it is heavy ice causing food web declines, “Heavy ice conditions in the mid-1970s and mid-1980s caused significant declines in productivity of ringed seals, each of which lasted about 3 years and caused similar declines in the natality of polar bears and survival of subadults, after which reproductive success and survival of both species increased again.”
    And they failed to update us on more good news that since 1997 the condition of polar bears in the Hudson Bay has been steadily improving
    [​IMG]
    As the Inuit steadfastly argue, “It is the Time of the Most Polar Bears,” and as Daniel Shewchuk, Nunavut’s Minister of Environment, wrote in 2010 “No known environmental or other factors are currently posing a significant or immediate threat to polar bears overall.”
    Far from alleged ecosystem collapse due to global warming, the biological icons of climate catastrophe have either recovered and are now thriving, or their demise has been clearly due to non-climatic factors like the introduced chytrid fungus and landscape changes, or the their fluctuations have been caused by changing weather associated with natural cycles. The AAAS report fails to honestly relay “What We Know” regards the climate and the state of our ecosystems. They simply rehashed outdated stories to promote fear of ecosystem collapse. The report would be more accurately titled, “What Alarmists Want You to Believe”.
    Dr. Pielke nailed it. The AAAS report as “an embarrassment to the scientific community.”
    Segments of this essay are Adapted from several chapters in Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism by Jim Steele
    Literature Cited
    1. Parmesan, C. (2006). Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics, 37, 637669.
    2. Parmesan, C. and Yohe, G. (2003). A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature, 421, 37-42.
    3. Parmesan C. 1996. Climate and species’ range. Nature 382:765–66
    4. Parmesan C, Root TL, Willig MR. 2000. Impacts of extreme weather and climate
    on terrestrial biota. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 81:443–50
    5. Parmesan C, Ryrholm N, Stefanescu C, Hill JK, Thomas CD, et al. 1999. Poleward
    shifts in geographical ranges of butterfly species associated with regionalwarming. Nature 399:579–83
    6. Parmesan, C., et al. (2011) Overstretching attribution. Nature Climate Change, vol. 1, April 2011
    7. Holbrook, S., et al., (1997) Changes in an Assemblage of Temperate Reef Fishes Associated with a Climate Shift. Ecological Applications, vol. 7,p. 1299-1310
    8. Southward, A. et al. (1995) Seventy Years’ Observations of changes in Distribution and Abundance of Zooplankton and intertidal Organisms in the Western English Channel in relation to Rising Sea Temperature. J. Thermal Biology. vol. 20, p. 127-155.
    9. Peterson,W., and Schwing,F., (2003) A new climate regime in northeast pacific ecosystems. Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 30, p. 1896, doi:10.1029/2003GL017528
    10. Ainley, D., et al., (2010) Antarctic penguin response to habitat change as Earth’s troposphere reaches 2°C above preindustrial levels. Ecological Monographs, vol. 80, p. 49–66
    11. Stirling, I. et al. (1999) Long-term Trends in the Population Ecology of Polar Bears in Western Hudson Bay in Relation to Climatic Change. Arctic vol . 52, p. 294-306.
    12. Stirling, I. (2002) Polar Bears and Seals in the Eastern Beaufort Sea and Amundsen Gulf: A Synthesis of Population Trends and Ecological Relationships over Three Decades. Arctic, vol. 55, p. 59-76
    13. Xue, Y., et al., (2012) A Comparative Analysis of Upper-Ocean Heat Content Variability from an Ensemble of Operational Ocean Reanalyses. Journal of Climate, vol 25, 6905-6929.
    14. A. Smith, C. Millar, R. Westfall and D. Hik. (2009) North American pikas: population status, thermal environments, and periglacial processes. 2009 Meeting of the American Geophysical Union
    15. Atkinson, S. (2012) Western Hudson Bay Polar Bear Aerial, 2011. Government of Nunavut, Department of the Interior.
    16. From the chapter “Top Ten Reasons Why Rising CO2 Has Not Harmed Adelie Penguins, in in Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism by Jim Steele
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2014
    tap likes this.
  2. abdiver7777

    abdiver7777 abdiver7777

    Location:
    So Cal
    Name:
    Sir2you
    Boat:
    No Name........
    • Messages:
      (2,890)
    • Likes Received:
      (587)
    Ya know when you wrestle with a pig you just get dirty and it annoys the pig........
     
  3. capnjackv

    capnjackv Member

    Location:
    San Diego, San Pedro
    Name:
    Jack
    Boat:
    Viking 57,Hatteras 52, Viking 65, Proline 27
    • Messages:
      (426)
    • Likes Received:
      (29)
    Never changes with the libtards. The truth has no meaning to them if it doesn't support the agenda.
     
  4. BiggestT

    BiggestT I've posted enough I should edit this section

    Location:
    Fullerton
    Name:
    SM
    Boat:
    Salsipuedes & Czech Mate
    • Messages:
      (11,312)
    • Likes Received:
      (3,425)
    I enjoyed Jim Steele's book. A must read for those who wish to be enlightened on the whole climate change issue.

    I thought these articles had a bit for everyone, including the stuff on the cold phase of the PDO, anchovy vs sardine regime, no warming of ocean temps since 2003, etc. We were in a cold phase of the PDO well into the 1970s and remember back then the Alarmists were screaming about a pending ice age. Then came the warm phase of the PDO, El Ninos and guess what the Alarmists are screaming about now? They want us all to drive Nissan Leafs and eat Tofu Burgers. Frankly, they can scream and rant all they want, man will never have a significant impact on the climate on a global scale. Local, yes through increased development, deforestation, etc., but not globally.
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2014
  5. BloodyL

    BloodyL Throwing everything I got

    Location:
    Placentia
    Name:
    Mick
    Boat:
    The Beach
    • Messages:
      (1,169)
    • Likes Received:
      (238)
    Yep
    I remember the same people warning about Global Cooling in the seventy's
     
  6. capnjackv

    capnjackv Member

    Location:
    San Diego, San Pedro
    Name:
    Jack
    Boat:
    Viking 57,Hatteras 52, Viking 65, Proline 27
    • Messages:
      (426)
    • Likes Received:
      (29)
    I pointed that out to a libtard "friend" of mine in a global warming debate and his reply was "oh yeah the ice age is coming." He is an educated guy. Scary.
     
  7. fishmanbh

    fishmanbh World Class Shark Fishing

    Location:
    San Diego and Los Angeles
    Name:
    Brian
    Boat:
    www.worldclasssharkfishing.com
    • Messages:
      (872)
    • Likes Received:
      (60)
    Haha Jack you used it... "LIBTARD". Thats not politically correct...
     
  8. BiggestT

    BiggestT I've posted enough I should edit this section

    Location:
    Fullerton
    Name:
    SM
    Boat:
    Salsipuedes & Czech Mate
    • Messages:
      (11,312)
    • Likes Received:
      (3,425)
    Yeah, I refrain from using "tard", "retard", etc. I have a nephew who's autistic.
     
  9. Gil Marlin

    Gil Marlin World Peace? Visualize Using Your Turn Indicator

    Location:
    Laguna Percebu Baja Norte
    Name:
    Scott
    Boat:
    19.655' Aluminum
    • Messages:
      (25,458)
    • Likes Received:
      (2,950)
    We (humans) pollute and we over harvest... we are a part of the problem. While we cannot control the weather, we can control to some degree our impact on nature...
     
    BajaGringo and plj46 like this.
  10. thegrau

    thegrau Newbie

    Location:
    Mission viejo
    Name:
    Ron
    Boat:
    Robalo R220
    • Messages:
      (172)
    • Likes Received:
      (9)
    That's why the global warming hoax is so successful; it's hard to argue against taking better care of the earth. Too bad most people don't read past the bumper stickers for their information.
     
  11. Gil Marlin

    Gil Marlin World Peace? Visualize Using Your Turn Indicator

    Location:
    Laguna Percebu Baja Norte
    Name:
    Scott
    Boat:
    19.655' Aluminum
    • Messages:
      (25,458)
    • Likes Received:
      (2,950)
    earth.jpg
     
    BajaGringo likes this.
  12. capnjackv

    capnjackv Member

    Location:
    San Diego, San Pedro
    Name:
    Jack
    Boat:
    Viking 57,Hatteras 52, Viking 65, Proline 27
    • Messages:
      (426)
    • Likes Received:
      (29)
    Ok well I will just call them commies then.
     
  13. Sea Esta

    Sea Esta Captain

    Location:
    Laguna Beach.......... San Quintin B.C.N
    Name:
    Roy
    Boat:
    MAKO Home Port San Quintin Baja
    • Messages:
      (441)
    • Likes Received:
      (28)
    If we (humans) cant even cap Fukushima, what makes these assholes think they can take on something as big as climate change.
     
  14. Bigeasy

    Bigeasy yeah, yeah!

    Location:
    Vallejo, CA
    Name:
    Eric W.
    Boat:
    Tunacious 238 Coastal Twin 150-E
    • Messages:
      (1,539)
    • Likes Received:
      (281)
    :appl:

    I agree with you Gil Marlin!
     
  15. BajaGringo

    BajaGringo Say what???

    Location:
    San Quintin, Baja Mexico
    Name:
    Ron
    Boat:
    Dos Amigos
    • Messages:
      (105)
    • Likes Received:
      (190)
    Great point!

    As someone who was educated and formally worked in nuclear power production, I think a much better point to be made is that we should avoid nuclear power production at all cost. I know first hand how wonderful it is when it works, but with a single human error it can quickly become a nightmare. Especially with breeder type / U238 reactors...
     
  16. talltale

    talltale Member

    Location:
    yucaipa
    Name:
    chris
    Boat:
    23.5 trophy "Tonetta T"
    • Messages:
      (729)
    • Likes Received:
      (142)
    This is kinda along the same lines.... Has anyone noticed how much longer it is staying light after sundown these days? Tonight there was still faint light to the west at 9pm. The only explanation would be a shift in the earths axis. I am not an alarmist but this is weird.
     
    BajaGringo likes this.
  17. PCH

    PCH El Nino 2015!!!!!!

    Location:
    North San Diego
    Name:
    Paul
    Boat:
    Gregor 20
    • Messages:
      (2,147)
    • Likes Received:
      (1,124)
    ^ it's a full moon tonight so that's why it is brighter out.

    Biggest T, I have dissagreed with a lot things you have vomited out on this website over the years but this time my fellow BD'er, your spot on. We think a like on this one.
     
    BajaGringo likes this.
  18. 26grumpy

    26grumpy who hooked who

    Location:
    Anaheim Hills
    Name:
    Joe
    Boat:
    Freefrom Boats Club
    • Messages:
      (9,341)
    • Likes Received:
      (3,705)
    Spot on.

    What's really funny is it wouldn't be that hard (with a little help from mass media and corrupt world leftists) to dupe people in to believing humans are the cause of the tilt. All the people (Americans only) have to do is give me their $$ and the tilt will revert.

    Um....how much house can I buy in Montecito with $500 million???
     
    BajaGringo likes this.
  19. talltale

    talltale Member

    Location:
    yucaipa
    Name:
    chris
    Boat:
    23.5 trophy "Tonetta T"
    • Messages:
      (729)
    • Likes Received:
      (142)
  20. Tues

    Tues Not my job...

    Location:
    Saluki
    Name:
    Likes
    Boat:
    Penis
    • Messages:
      (6,204)
    • Likes Received:
      (42)
    98% of the science community believes our climate has been changing over the past 100 years.

    But I guess, I rather believe some one on Blood Decks.

    Steve: Your constant argument, over and over and over again...do you or your wife have a direct lobby to this? Jesus fucking christ, get over it...
     
    nate likes this.

Share This Page