Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 Next
Comments 16751 to 16800:
-
Matthew L at 11:01 AM on 2 December 2017There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere
Sorry for the typos. Keyboard on my phone is very small and editing a pain!
-
John Hartz at 10:58 AM on 2 December 2017There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere
Suggested supplemental reading:
How do you Spot a Climate Science Denial Blog? Check the Polar Bears
by Kyla Mandel, DeSmog UK, Dec 1, 2017 -
Matthew L at 10:57 AM on 2 December 2017There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere
Jeff H. Please name the "deniers" you are referring to. The three names I put forward stress repeatedly that they fully buy into greenhouse gas global warming. However they do not agree with the established view that it is as rapid or likely to be as catastrophic as most articles on sites such as this. They put forward reasonable arguments and are far from extreme. So far the worst predictions of imminent catastrophe have failed to materialise. The longer the ice in the Arctic fails to melt away, the polar bears thrive, coral atols fail to sink and agricultural yields continue to grow the more convincing their arguments become and the less convincing are the predictions of disaster by the end of the century. I am still worried that the worst might happen and still read the science but am a lot less worried than I was 20 years ago when so many predictions of doom were made that have failed to come to pass. I notice you failed to respond to my comment on the tendancy towards self justification, and cognitive dissonance in the scientific community when predictions fail. Ever read the book "Mistakes were made (but not by me)"? I think you should. When you cry "wolf!" and predict catastrophe you had befter be very certain it will happen or you are not to lose all credibility. Professor Peter Wadhams was once a despected scientist...
Moderator Response:[JH] Sloganeering snipped.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
Eclectic at 10:44 AM on 2 December 2017There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere
Quite right, FMeditor @ 13 et seq . . . CBDunkerson should more properly have used the term "disinformation" (rather than "misinformation").
I suppose MatthewL could tell us whether his source was Dr Crockford's blogsite or Mr Kummer's blogsite — but really the exact source of the disinformation is of little relevance to the basic question.
On Kummer's blogsite, as far as I have seen, the topics tend toward the partisan-political, by himself and subsidiary authors. The climate science denialism seems to be a minor personal side-issue for him. Nevertheless, Kummer doesn't hesitate to have his climate article (on polar bears & Crockford) bristling with non-sequiturs & other disinformation (e.g. the link to Crockford's publication list . . . thereby implying to the casual/superficial reader, that Crockford was an expert in the field and whose opinion was worthy of respect).
It appears that Crockford's expertise on the evolution of the polar bears . . . is about as relevant to today, as the evolution of the rhinoceros is to the current problems of the rhinoceros. Worse, Crockford's own apologism (against climate science) on her own blogsite shows the cherry-picking [Hudson Bay bears] and logical non-sequiturs, irresponsible risk-management & short-term thinking so typically unobjective and in short: unscientific.
Note particularly her denial of the progressive loss of arctic ice.
-
nigelj at 09:52 AM on 2 December 2017There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere
Ecletic says "Then we come to the reasons for Dr Crockford to be such an outlier in her opinions. The reek of Heartland Institute is strong."
Edidence of Crockfords very strong links to Heartland Institute here and anti climate science petitions she has signed here.
-
michael sweet at 08:46 AM on 2 December 2017There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere
Fmeditor:
Matthewl said:
"This paper smears an outstanding and eminent scientist in the field of Arctic Fauna."
The evidence he provided showed that Susan Crockford has never studied any living fauna in the Arctic. She has several papers on dogs and a few on archaelogical research in the Arctic. His statement "outstanding and eminent" has been shown to be false and therefor is misinformation.
Jeffh describes Steven Amstrup, Ian Stirling and Eric Post, researchers who are "outstanding and eminent". They have 1000 times more citations about arctic fauna than Susan Crockford. Since Susan Crockford has never observed fauna in the arctic, these researchers have an infinite more experience in the field than she does.
-
Wol at 07:09 AM on 2 December 2017There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere
Matthew L @ 10:
Seems to me that the gist of the piece is that polar bear numbers are a sort of proxy for temperatures.
Don't they call this a gish-gallop? Starting and then continuing an argument based on animal numbers is so far from having any conclusions - at least until centuries have passed - is merely a distraction. Her scientific credentials don't even enter into it.
-
FMeditor at 06:20 AM on 2 December 2017There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere
nigelj,
Re your: "Nobody said her publishing record is missinformation"
I gave a full quote of the comment by CBDunkerson, and replied using his own words. No paraphrase. No interpretation.
-
nigelj at 05:57 AM on 2 December 2017There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere
Just my view on polar bears, fwiw. Briefly I think polar bears are in trouble from declining sea ice. Polar bears use the floating sea ice, and sea ice is also important to seal populations, on which polar bears depend.
There is mixed evidence of whether polar bear numbers are declining overall right now because of so many influences, measuring accuracy, climate issues and hunting. But there is good evidence of declining populations of some seals here.
This is not rocket science. Species have some level of adaptability. Polar bears are probably still finding enough seals to get by. But in 20 years impacts will be much greater in terms of declining sea ice and seal numbers, and will stretch adaptability of polar bears. If seal populations declining now as seems apparent in at least some cases as above, directly from declining sea ice, they can only decine further. This is likely to impact on polar bears given its their food supply, and it's over a relatively short time frame of decades to a century. This is short in adaptation and evolutionary terms.
The issue is one where its too early to get a clear picture on polar bears partly because of changes in hunting, and its the projections that count most. Any 'reasonable' consideration paints a grim future for polar bears later this century.
-
nigelj at 05:12 AM on 2 December 2017There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere
FMeditor @13
"(2) Matthew's comment is factualy correct — not "misinformation." From this information Bart and Michael draw different *conclusions* about the relevance of her training and experience."
Nobody said her publishing record is missinformation, you are making a straw man argument. Its her views and findings that are questioned.
And yes they do draw different conclusions, but only one conclusion makes sense, namely M Sweets. Susan Crockfords research is broadly speaking in zoology, with nothing published in the peer reviewed literature on polar bears apart from some very brief comment piece, and almost nothing published related to climate change. Thefore its nonsensical for anyone to consider her an expert or authority on polar bears, and relation to climate change.
If you want to be an expert and taken seriously, you have to prove it to your peers, and the only convincing way is to publish research of substance specifically on polar bears, or do a Phd thesis on polar bears, otherwise claims of expertise are empty assertions, like some arm chair retired physics teacher claiming to be a leading expert on black holes on the basis of some blog post he wrote. No, an expert is someonelike S Hawking, who has offered some substantial proof he is an expert. Its no different for Susan Crockford.
-
FMeditor at 04:53 AM on 2 December 2017There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere
CBDunkerson,
My comment was about Michael L's first comment. His second comment appears to be his own analysis, perhaps based on reading Crockford's website.
It doesn't cite or quote anything in my post , or even seem related to it.
https://fabiusmaximus.com/2017/11/30/new-study-about-climate-science-debate/
-
FMeditor at 04:46 AM on 2 December 2017There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere
CBDunkerson
"Matthew L is likely getting his misinformation from this Larry Kummer piece."
(1) No, he didn't. He got that information from the "About" page on Susan Crockford's website, Polar Bear Science.
https://polarbearscience.com/about-2/
(2) Matthew's comment is factualy correct — not "misinformation." From this information Bart and Michael draw different *conclusions* about the relevance of her training and experience.
-
nigelj at 04:38 AM on 2 December 2017There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere
Matthew L @10
"The problem is that the uncertainties in the science are so huge (ECS between 1.5C and 4C per CO2 doubling according to IPCC) that it is quite possible to take a reasonable view at both ends of the spectrum. "
With respect this doesn't make too much sense. You cannot take a reasonable view at extreme ends of the spectrum, because that Sir is a contradiction in terms. A reasonable view in general terms is a rational and / or middle ground view.
Most research finds that climate sensitivity is moderate to high. A reasonable view is to take at least the centre ground and say climate sensitivity is at least moderate.
I think you could go further on the basis of published science, and also say it is likely to be moderate, could be high, and is unlikely to be low. Anything else that favours one end of the spectrum would be your opinion and personal bias on what end you favour.
Please also note the low sensitivity papers have also been heavily criticised, and recent temperaturess bring their methodology and findings further into question.
-
Jeff H at 03:55 AM on 2 December 2017There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere
As lead author of the Bioscience paper I will make three responses to Matthew L’s erroneous posts. First, our paper is about scientific ethics, not about Susan Crockford, and we set out to prove that blogs which deny AGW largely ignore the primary scientific literature. We proved that here using PCA. Polar bears are used as biotic proxies for AGW by climate change deniers, hence why we focused on these iconic mammals. In truth, the empirical literature is filled with studies showing the harmful effects of warming on soil, aboveground terrestrial and aquatic communities. This wealth of data is ignored by denier blogs because it would be impossible for them to counter this veritable tsunami of data. Moreover, since blogs are operated usually by people lacking formal training in the relevant fields, a deliberate attempt is made to focus on only a tiny subset of areas or fields.
Second, Susan Crockford has only 17 papers in her career on the ISI Web of Science (none since 2014); her work has been cited less than 200 times and her h-factor is 7. Moreover, she has conducted no primary research on polar bear biology or ecology. On this basis I would question whether she is an ‘outstanding and eminent scientist in the field of Arctic fauna’. To argue that she knows more about the survival of Arctic fauna than anyone else is absurd. Three of my co-authors, Steven Amstrup, Ian Stirling and Eric Post, by contrast, have a combined total of over 500 publications, 15,000 citations and vastly more expertise on Arctic ecology than Crockford.
Third, there are not two sides in discussions about AGW. There is one side whose conclusions are supported by the vast majority of the empirical data and another side whose arguments are not. Of course there are uncertainties over future projections of AGW, and deniers exploit these as much as possible to sow doubt. But there are many certainties as well, and scientists need to do a better job getting these across to the general public. Oreskes and Conway named their book, ‘Merchants of Doubt’ for a reason. Deniers will never win scientific debates, but that is not their aim. Their aim is to convince the public that the science is not settled. In tis way nothing will be done to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.
-
Matthew L at 02:18 AM on 2 December 2017There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere
She has done meta-analysis on research data on polar bear numbers which is compelling, if not peer reviewed. As a medic I am well aware of the problems with peer review and the lack of replicated results, so I do not dismiss any paper just because it is not peer reviewed.
There is nothing to suggest that global numbers of polar bears have declined in the last 40 years and plenty to suggest that they have grown. It may be difficult to disentangle growth due to a reduction in hunting with decline due to a reduction in habitat. However, to date, the former effect has evidently been stronger than the latter, despite a steady decline in Arctic sea ice. You are disingenous in your statement that polar bears are listed as endangered. This was done to protect them from dangerous men with dangerous guns, not gradual sea ice decline.
From what I can gather, most of the time when an unbiased assesment is done on Arctic fauna the results tend to be less alarming than the initial press would suggest. For instance the recent Fish and Wildlife Service assesment of walrus populations as not endangered following "analysis of the best available scientific information".
https://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/walrus/esa.htm
I do not know of Crockford's attitude on climate change, but as she is a highly qualified and published scientist who has worked extensively in the Arctic I very much doubt it is "anti-science" - any more than Judith Curry, Pielke Junior and Roy Spencer are "anti-science" or "deniers" (absolutely hate the use of that word). They are all highly qualified scientists in relevant fields of study who understand global warming and greenhouse gases but have come to a different view of the scientific evidence than taken on this blog - largely through empircal study and analysis rather than reliance on the wildly variable reuslts from General Circulation Models.
I am broadly on your side, fascinated by the science, but absolutely despair of the politics on both sides. The rampant and totally ludicrous millenial cult level alarmism (Manhatten under water by 2010, no Arctic ice by 2012, 5 million climate refugees by 2015 etc) in the press followed by ridiculous self justification and cognitive dissonance when the world does not end ("its worse than we thought!") just demolishes credibility . As for the "sky dragon slayers", I absolutely despair...
Blogs really are not the problem. The problem is that the uncertainties in the science are so huge (ECS between 1.5C and 4C per CO2 doubling according to IPCC) that it is quite possible to take a reasonable view at both ends of the spectrum. It would be better for sites such as this to climb down from the moral high ground and start looking at the effect that crying "wolf!" so often has on scientific credibility when the wolf does not appear.
Moderator Response:[JH] You are now skating on the thin ice of sloganeering which is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
Stephen Leahy at 02:10 AM on 2 December 2017There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere
My take on the paper/Crockford for Vice:
80 Percent of Climate Denier Blogs Reference This One Canadian Zoologist
A University of Victoria adjunct prof has become climate deniers’ go-to source on polar bears.https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/kzgq3y/climate-denier-blogs-spread-online-polar-bears-science
-
CBDunkerson at 01:08 AM on 2 December 2017There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere
Matthew L is likely getting his misinformation from this Larry Kummer piece.
-
mbryson at 01:05 AM on 2 December 2017New study uncovers the 'keystone domino' strategy of climate denial
Adam Smith was more philosopher than economist— as some of the quotes above would suggest, he was concerned with ethical, not just economic issues. (Incidentally, I've read that Smith concealed his work on 'Wealth of Nations' from his friend, David Hume, for fear that engaging with Hume would be overwhelming and make it impossible for him to complete the book.) But Nigel is certainly right- the 'free market' fundamentalism that invokes Smith and treatshis invisible hand as if it were some kind of infallible optimizer of outcomes is an absurd abuse of Smith's views.
-
Eclectic at 00:26 AM on 2 December 2017There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere
MatthewL @4 , as M. Sweet mentions — possibly you have not noticed it, but of those 29 scientific papers you mention, hardly any of them seem to be dealing with modern-day polar bear numbers (or, far more importantly, with the state of health of polar bear populations).
Polar bear numbers are notoriously difficult to assess accurately. Surveys suggest that numbers are growing in one region and static/declining in other regions. Part of the inaccuracy stems from the mobility of bears, and from the lack of volunteers "to bell the cat" with transponder collars. (The reason for the volunteer lack is unknown.)
What can be said for most populations (of any animals) in the wild, is that the biggest threat to them is loss of habitat. And considerable habitat loss is occurring for the polar bears. It would be a bold scientist indeed who would assert that the future looks tolerably good for polar bears particularly. And particularly worse for polar bears too, is that they are highly adapted to a rather specialised diet & annual cycle of feeding — and are far less omnivorous than their ursine relatives. So it's not looking good.
Worse again, some surveys report (as best as can be judged from a safe distance!) that there has been a decline in polar bear body weight. Even without a drop in absolute numbers as yet, this could indicate the approach of a sudden "crash" — which won't be verified until after it has happened.
Then we come to the reasons for Dr Crockford to be such an outlier in her opinions. The reek of Heartland Institute is strong.
Not to mention her anti-science attitude about climate change itself. (Never a good look, in the assessing of someone's objectivity in matters scientific.)
-
cRR Kampen at 23:33 PM on 1 December 2017There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere
"Perhaps what we ideally need is more politicians and leaders of business speaking out quite bluntly that climate denialists are talking misleading rubbish.", nigelj .
It is criminal.
I message quite bluntly on this. But you know, your and my allies won't have it - yet. I already used 5% of earth's atmospheric oxygen sighing over this.
-
michael sweet at 23:09 PM on 1 December 2017There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere
matthewl,
Thank you for the list. Looking it over I see that Susan Crockford has not written any peer reviewed articles on polar bears or their biology. She made two comments on others work on polar bear genetics. The majority of her work appears to be on domestic dogs. There is some material on archaeology and fossil animals.
What makes you think she is an expert on living Arctic mammals?
-
Matthew L at 20:31 PM on 1 December 2017There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere
This paper smears an outstanding and eminent scientist in the field of Arctic Fauna. Susan Crockford probably knows more about the survival of all forms of Arctic mamalian species than anybody else. I am sure the following list of her papers won't make it through your moderation however I will give it a try:
**Crockford, S. J. 2012. Annotated map of ancient polar bear remains of the world.
*Crockford, S.J. 2012. Archaeozoology of Adak Island: 6000 years of subsistence history in the central Aleutians. Pg. 109-145 in D. West, V. Hatfield, E. Wilmerding, L. Gualtieri and C. Lefevre (eds), The People Before: The Geology, Paleoecology and Archaeology of Adak Island, Alaska. British Archaeological Reports International Series, Oxford, pg 109-145. ISBN 978-4073-0905-7
*Nishida, S., West, D., Crockford, S. and Koike, H. 2012. Ancient DNA analysis for the sea otter (Enhydra lutris) from archaeological sites on Adak, Aleutian Islands. Pg. 147-165 in D. West, V. Hatfield, E. Wilmerding, C. Lefèvre, L. Gualtieri (eds.), The People Before: The Geology, Paleoecology and Archaeology of Adak Island, Alaska. Oxford, British Archaeological Reports, International Series 2322, ISBN 978-4073-0905-7.
*Wilson, B.J., Crockford, S.J., Johnson, J.W., Malhi, R.S. and B.M. Kemp. 2011. Genetic and archaeological evidence for a former breeding population of Aleutian Cackling Goose (Branta hutchinsii leucopareia) on Adak Island, central Aleutians, Alaska. Canadian Journal of Zoology 89: 732-743. http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/journal/cjz
**Crockford, S.J. and G. Frederick 2011. Neoglacial sea ice and life history flexibility in ringed and fur seals. pg.65-91 in T. Braje and R. Torrey, eds. Human Impacts on Seals, Sea Lions, and Sea Otters: Integrating Archaeology and Ecology in the Northeast Pacific. U. California Press, LA.
*Baichtal, J.F. and Crockford, S.J. 2011. Possibility of kelp during the LGM in SE Alaska and implications for marine mammals. Poster 5-12, 19th Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, Tampa, FL. Nov. 28-Dec.2.
**Crockford, S.J. 2008. Be careful what you ask for: archaeozoological evidence of mid-Holocene climate change in the Bering Sea and implications for the origins of Arctic Thule. Pp. 113-131 in G. Clark, F. Leach and S. O’Connor (eds.), Islands of Inquiry: Colonisation, Seafaring and the Archaeology of Maritime Landscapes. Terra Australis 29 ANU E Press, Canberra. http://epress.anu.edu.au/ta29_citation.html
**Crockford, S. and Frederick, G. 2007. Sea ice expansion in the Bering Sea during the Neoglacial: evidence from archaeozoology. The Holocene 17(6):699-706.
*Crockford, S.J., Frederick, G. & Wigen, R. 2002. The Cape Flattery fur seal: An extinct species of Callorhinus in the eastern north Pacific? Canadian Journal of Archaeology 26(3):152-174. http://www.canadianarchaeology.com/publications.lasso
Martinsson-Wallin, H. & Crockford, S.J. 2001. Early human settlement of Rapa Nui (Easter Island). Asian Perspectives 40(2):244-278. (Includes an analysis of fish remains & a comprehensive list of modern Rapa Nui fishes). http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/asi/
Crockford, S.J. 1997. Archaeological evidence of large northern bluefin tuna, Thunnus thynnus, in coastal waters of British Columbia and northern Washington. Fishery Bulletin 95:11-24. http://fishbull.noaa.gov/
Domestication, speciation and evolution papers
Crockford, S.J. and Kusmin, Y.V. 2012. Comments on Germonpré et al., Journal of Archaeological Science 36, 2009 “Fossil dogs and wolves from Palaeolithic sites in Belgium, the Ukraine and Russia: osteometry, ancient DNA and stable isotopes”, and Germonpré, Lázkičková-Galetová, and Sablin, Journal of Archaeological Science 39, 2012 “Palaeolithic dog skulls at the Gravettian Předmostí site, the Czech Republic.” Journal of Archaeological Science 39:2797-2801. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440312001537**Crockford, S.J. 2012. Directionality in polar bear hybridization. Comment (May 1) to Hailer et al. 2012. “Nuclear genomic sequences reveal that polar bears are an old and distinct bear lineage.” Science 336:344-347. Follow link and click on “# comments” under the title http://comments.sciencemag.org/content/10.1126/science.1216424
**Crockford, S.J. 2012. Directionality in polar bear hybridization. Comment, with references (May 1) to Edwards et al. 2011. “Ancient hybridization and an Irish origin for the modern polar bear matriline.” Current Biology 21:1251-1258. to view comments, go through the host website, http://www.Cell.com and find the paper at the Current Biology website. http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2811%2900645-2#Comments
Ovodov, N.D., Crockford, S.J., Kuzmin, Y.V., Higham, T.F.G., Hodgins, G.W.L. and van der Plicht, J.. 2011. A 33,000 year old incipient dog from the Altai Mountains of Siberia: Evidence of the earliest domestication disrupted by the Last Glacial Maximum. PLoS One 10.1371/journal.pone.0022821. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0022821
Crockford, S.J. 2009. Evolutionary roots of iodine and thyroid hormones in cell-cell signaling. Integrative and Comparative Biology 49:155-166.
**Crockford, S.J. 2006. Rhythms of Life: Thyroid Hormone and the Origin of Species. Trafford, Victoria [for a general audience, polar bear evolution discussed];
**Crockford, S.J. 2004. Animal Domestication and Vertebrate Speciation: A Paradigm for the Origin of Species. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Victoria (Canada), Interdisciplinary Studies. [filed at the National Library under Zoology; polar bear evolution discussed] Pdf available, just ask.
**Crockford, S.J. 2003. Thyroid rhythm phenotypes and hominid evolution: a new paradigm implicates pulsatile hormone secretion in speciation and adaptation changes. International Journal of Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Part A Vol. 35 (#1, May issue):105-129. http://www.elsevier.com/ [an invited submission; polar bear evolution discussed]
**Crockford, S.J. 2002. Thyroid hormone in Neandertal evolution: A natural or pathological role? Geographical Review 92(1):73-88. http://www.jstor.org/journals/00167428.html [an invited commentary]
**Crockford, S.J. 2002. Animal domestication and heterochronic speciation: the role of thyroid hormone. pg. 122-153. In: N. Minugh-Purvis & K. McNamara (eds.) Human Evolution Through Developmental Change. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. http://www.press.jhu.edu/press/books/index.htm [polar bear evolution discussed].
Crockford, S.J. 2000. Dog evolution: a role for thyroid hormone in domestication changes. pg. 11-20. In: S. Crockford (ed.), Dogs Through Time: An Archaeological Perspective. Archaeopress S889, Oxford. http://www.archaeopress.com/defaultBar.asp
Crockford, S. J. 2000. A commentary on dog evolution: regional variation, breed development and hybridization with wolves. pg. 295-312. In: S. Crockford (ed.), Dogs Through Time: An Archaeological Perspective. Archaeopress S889, Oxford. http://www.archaeopress.com/defaultBar.asp
Northwest Coast dog studies
Crockford, S.J., Moss, M.L., and Baichtal, J.F. 2012. Pre-contact dogs from the Prince of Wales archipelago, Alaska. Alaska Journal of Anthropology 9(1):49-64.Crockford, S.J., 2005. Breeds of native dogs in North America before the arrival of European dogs. Proceedings of the World Small Animal Veterinary Congress, Mexico City. [invited lecture] available online at: http://www.vin.com/proceedings/Proceedings.plx?CID=WSAVA2005&PID=11071&O=Generic
Koop, B.F., Burbidge, M., Byun, A., Rink, U, & Crockford, S.J. 2000. Ancient DNA evidence of a separate origin for North American indigenous dogs. pg. 271-285. In: S. Crockford (ed.), Dogs Through Time: An Archaeological Perspective. British Archaeological Reports (B.A.R.), Archaeopress S889, Oxford. http://www.archaeopress.com/defaultBar.asp (collaborative research with Univ. of Victoria (Ben Koop, Biology) & National Science & Engineering Research Council, Canada (NSERC) [first published analysis of ancient dog DNA]
Crockford, S.J. 1997. Osteometry of Makah and Coast Salish Dogs. Archaeology Press, Publication 22, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C. http://www.sfu.ca/archaeology/dept/arcpress/index.htm
[A comprehensive analysis of cranial & postcranial remains of adult dogs from 20 coastal archaeological sites]Crockford, S.J. & Pye, C.J. 1997. Forensic reconstruction of prehistoric dogs from the Northwest Coast. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 21(2):149-153 [the story of the wool dog/village dog sketches done by RCMP forensic artist CJ Pye] http://www.canadianarchaeology.com/publications.lasso
Seal and sea lion diet studies
Tollit, D.J., Schulze, A., Trites, A.W., Olesiuk, P., Crockford, S.J., Gelatt, T., Ream, R. & Miller, K. 2009. Development and application of DNA techniques for validating and improving pinniped diet estimates based on conventional scat analysis. Ecological Applications 19(4):889-905. [This study compares my bone ID of prey species to DNA analysis] http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/07-1701.1Olesiuk, P.F., Bigg, M.A., Ellis, G.M., Crockford, S.J. & Wigen, R.J. 1990. An assessment of the feeding habits of harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia, based on scat analysis. Canadian Technical Reports on Fisheries & Aquatic Science. 1730.
http://pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/cgi-bin/rp/rp2_tocs_e?cjfas_cjfasS1-98_55 -
One Planet Only Forever at 16:30 PM on 1 December 2017There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere
nigelj,
I share your dissatisfaction that more leaders are not helping raise awareness and better inform the population. I believe the reason is the experiment with Freedom that has gone so wrong.
Leaders in business and politics act based on perceptions of Upsides and Downsides. The ease of gaining popular support for Private Interests that compromise the Public Interest of developing lasting improvements for all of humanity is the problem. There is little Upside when so many people can be so easily tempted to believe nonsense just because it suits their Private Interest in having a better time any way they can get away with.
One required change is increasing the number of people who understand that freedom is a privilege that a person earns by proving they will limit their actions and responsibly and considerately assist in developing a lasting better future for others. That would change the Upside Downside assessments of leaders, especially if it was possible to remove a leader by proving they were acting contrary to the Public Interest.
-
John Hartz at 10:02 AM on 1 December 2017There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere
[JH] Suggested supplemental reading:
Revealing the Methods of Climate-Doubting Blogs by Gabriel Popkin, Inside Science, Nov 30, 2017
-
nigelj at 06:28 AM on 1 December 2017There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere
Good article. I want to give my personal point of view on this, because I think its likely shared to some extent. The climate issue went public most strongly in the 1990s, and initially it seemed to me there was obvious evidence we were warming the climate. However I became distracted for about a year, after listening to various quite convincing sceptical points on climate change. This included material on the arctic and polar bears, and other things like theories about cosmic rays causing the warming (of course they arent). It seemed convincing, yet highly suspicious as well.
Only when I was off work sick with time on my hands, and dug deeper was it clear these sceptical points were either nonsense, or very misleading. The trouble is this takes time as "the devil is in the detail".
I see various people genuinely believing the most inane denialist rubbish, partly because they dont have the time to always cooly evaluate the fine detail or read complex rebuttals. Although its very important to make these rebuttals, and this website was one reason I saw the problems in denialist claims.
Perhaps what we ideally need is more politicians and leaders of business speaking out quite bluntly that climate denialists are talking misleading rubbish. This is an accurate assessment, so I dont see why they don't. Perhaps they are afraid of offending people, but its not freedom of speech to be making misleading sceptical claims, and quote material out of conext etc. This is an abuse of free speech.
-
nigelj at 05:03 AM on 1 December 2017New study uncovers the 'keystone domino' strategy of climate denial
Shoemore @5, very interesting. Also known as the tragedy of the commons problem. Much of America doesn't think this problem exists,or that the invisible hand will fix it. They are wrong as history shows time and again.
Environmental problems are one area of human endevour that require legislative solutions of various kinds including laws, taxes and so forth.
However we can also hope that corporates may improve their behaviour on their own initiative, and simply because it's the right way to act. There are some postive signs with some corporations recently in respect of environmental concerns.
Its important for people to realise the invisible hand simply means that free individuals create maybe for selfish motives, and this is ok and in a free market setting desirable products will succeed. It doesnt mean people should be permitted to do things damaging to the public good.
The invisible hand also has limitations. Markets dont provide all the goods we need for various reasons. Sometimes governments need to help.
-
michael sweet at 04:59 AM on 1 December 2017The Road to Two Degrees, Part Two: Are the experts being candid about our chances?
Norrism:
Kevin Anderson's loud protestations that the claim of 2C requires removal of CO2 have been widely discussed on Science based blogs about climate change (note the existing posts on SkS when you brought the subject up). If you have not been around for the discussion that is not our fault, we have discussed this problem in the past. I think it is interesting that you have not seen this problem mentioned on skeptical blogs.
I have not looked at the IPCC report but my understanding is that the requirement for removal of large amounts of CO2 to maintain 2C is opaque and hard to find in the AR5. That is the basis of the objections that Dr. Anderson has.
Key scienitsts like Gavin Schmite and Michael Mann stress that we need to project a positive outlook and realistic solutions. If you gloom and doom it people give up. Certainly the sooner we start to switch away from fossil fuels the better off we will be in the end. My impression is that scientists are trying to be as optimistic as possible.
-
nigelj at 04:43 AM on 1 December 2017New study uncovers the 'keystone domino' strategy of climate denial
Shoemore @4, I agree there's plenty of sense in large parts of Wealth of Nations. I did say that elements made sense. I was simply pointing out some of the problems, and being blunt to make a point forcefully.
Sadly some people with policial motives select messages from wealth of nations out of context and twist the meaning and conveniently ignore other parts (particularly the ones you quoted). This is exactly what climate sceptics often do
But its important to realise that economics is still an evolving science with macroeconomics today still being much less certain and resolved than the physical sciences. So quoting and interpreting books on economics needs to be done with care.
-
shoyemore at 20:01 PM on 30 November 2017New study uncovers the 'keystone domino' strategy of climate denial
Incidentally, environmental economics has been around for a century or more, starting with the British economist Arthur Pigou. Taxes on externalities like pollution are still called Pigovian Taxes. Pigou had a wonderful paradigm example on the conflict between rabbit-breeders and lettuce-growers. His solution was a tax on the rabbit-breeders to compensate the lettuce-growers. No one has come up with a better one.
-
shoyemore at 18:51 PM on 30 November 2017New study uncovers the 'keystone domino' strategy of climate denial
Re: #3
You do Adam Smith a great injustice. The Wealth of Nations is as good a description of economics for a non-mathematical work as The Origin of Species is of Evolution. Too much is made of the "invisible hand", which is a mataphor, not a law. Some other quotes from Smith:
No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable
It is not by augmenting the capital of the country, but by rendering a greater part of that capital active and productive than would otherwise be so, that the most judicious operations of banking can increase the industry of the country.
To feel much for others and little for ourselves; to restrain our selfishness and exercise our benevolent affections, constitute the perfection of human nature.
Science is the great antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition.
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.
-
NorrisM at 14:51 PM on 30 November 2017The Road to Two Degrees, Part Two: Are the experts being candid about our chances?
scaddenp @ 49
Perhaps you should refer to my post presently at par 18 of Comments which deals with Derek Abbot's 2010 papers on thermal solar and the use of hydrogen. By the way, in one of those papers, it discusses the safety of hydrogen powered cars. It shows some of the tests.
Would you describe my reference to the Economist article as something providing "incorrect information"? You might call it "inconvenient information" but that was not the purpose. Until I had been pointed to the Andy Skuce articles I have never heard of anyone else talking about the fact that we actually have to pull massive amounts of CO2 out of the air to meet the Paris Agreement goals.
I asked someone to provide me a reference in the IPCC Fifth Assessment where this assumption is addressed but so far no one has pointed me to the Chapter. I am quite sure it is not Chapter 9 on the Evaluation of Climate Models because I have read that entire chapter. Maybe I was a little woozy on the plane and missed the section.
-
NorrisM at 14:41 PM on 30 November 2017The Road to Two Degrees, Part Two: Are the experts being candid about our chances?
michael sweet @ 48
I agree that "base load" was the wrong term. But rather than "peak power" I think perhaps "backup power" better describes what I was referring to. This obviously points to natural gas or hydro rather than coal or nuclear.
-
John Hartz at 11:22 AM on 30 November 2017OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
Recommended supplemental reading:
Melting Ice Could Mess Up Deep Sea Chemistry by Chelsea Harvey, Climate Wire/Scientific American, Nov 28, 2017
-
nigelj at 07:31 AM on 30 November 2017American leaders should read their official climate science report
Chriskoz @16
Yes hydrogen fuel cell powered trucks are a scary thought. Please appreciate I'm just trying to be a bit open minded as well on the issue. Apparently the tanks in the Honda hydrogen fuel cell car have impact sensors that shut off the fuel supply, and very rigid strong tanks. On the other hand, if this failed on a truck, it would be totally catastrophic.
My instinct has always been that hydrogen fuel cells are a dead end idea, unless we run out of materials for batteries.
-
chriskoz at 07:19 AM on 30 November 2017American leaders should read their official climate science report
Nigel,
While Tesla has already produced a first electric truck, can you imagine the safety issues surrounding a similar vehicle powered by hydrogen.
The first and last big commercial hydrogen vehicle I remember is Hindenburg in 1937:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F54rqDh2mWA
The famous "Oh humanity!" cry by Herbert Morrison is a powerful reminder.
-
scaddenp at 06:43 AM on 30 November 2017The Road to Two Degrees, Part Two: Are the experts being candid about our chances?
The best way to get off FF by 2030 is start now (or start 20 years ago but of course deniers chucked out enough junk to rob politicians of a mandate that would have created change).
It seems that the constant theme of your posts is trying to find a way to justify doing nothing, aided and abetted by numerous false beliefs that have been shown up here. When you take up a position based in incorrect information, isnt it more rational to reevaluate your position when those false beliefs have been exposed? Rather than trying to bolster them?
Frankly, I find it amazing when people say the renewables will destabilize power system when we have stable power system running on 80% renewables and growing.
-
nigelj at 06:15 AM on 30 November 2017American leaders should read their official climate science report
I read somewhere the hydrogen tanks in cars are some form of composite carbon fibre, possibly to maximise strength and minimise weight. I dont know how much minimised it is in relation to the weight of lithium batteries.
I think battery cars make more sense right now. The main advantage of hydrogen cars has been range, but batteries are improving. Hydrogen cars use water as the ultimate source of hydrogen, so this is an abundant resource, but the overall fuel cell technology and recharging requirements doesnt look practical right now.
-
nigelj at 06:08 AM on 30 November 2017American leaders should read their official climate science report
Yes making hydrogen safe is going to be expensive. This may partly explain the high cost of hydrogen fuel cell cars (about $60,000 US). This is more than basic electric cars.
There might be a psychological factor with hydrogen fuel cell cars. People just may not want to be sitting on a tank of hydrogen. Of course the fact they are on the market suggests they are well safety tested and probably have crash sensors etc, but people will still be cautious.
-
nigelj at 05:49 AM on 30 November 2017New study uncovers the 'keystone domino' strategy of climate denial
Says law was introduced in 1803, and Adam Smiths wealth of nations / invisible hand idea was introduced in 1776. Both are social science theories based on a dubious concoction of speculation, theory, and roughly assembled observed evidence. Both have an element of partial truth and value, but are also deeply flawed / incomplete understandings as well.
It beggars belief that a single human being would think some theory written hundreds of years ago is by definition likely to be the complete picture, or fully correct. Newtons laws of physics are far more rigorous than Says law or Smiths invisible hand ideas, yet even Newtons work was shown to only be a partial explanation of reality by Einstein.
Free markets are much more complex than Smith thought, and used by ideologues as a simplistic excuse to give people permission to burn fossil fuels and pollute. But history has shown certain particular free markets dont always work, and produce adverse outcomes, and with boundaries and rules they start to work properly.
We learn as we go along, except climate denialists don't learn and would have to rank among the most ideogically driven and stubborn, delusional people I know capable of immense feats of non logic when it comes to attacking theories that ruffle their feathers.
-
nigelj at 05:47 AM on 30 November 2017New study uncovers the 'keystone domino' strategy of climate denial
Yes people do indeed latch onto a few selective issues to try to discredit entire theories. Of course intelligent open minded people know this is false logic, but not everyone does, or they are so blinded by their politics they just dont care.
It's a tough one, as things like polar bear examples make the issue real and relatable compared to some graph of climate trends, but at the same time are somewhat easy to pick holes in, especially as trends are currently only declining overall and not everywhere. Hopefully people see the big picture, not one study that shows an increase in some limited area.
I find it useful understand the polar bear issue by doing a simple thought experiment to imagine the arctic totally ice free, or nearly ice free, which is a very possible scenario in our lifetimes. This means no ice for polar bears and changes to seal populations etc.
Where do the polar bears go? Its almost certainly much too fast for them to biologically evolve and adapt to alternative environments. This sort of evolution takes centuries to millenia. Polar bears do not have the inventive nature of humans to use tools and innovate their way out of changing environments, and even humans can only do this up to a certain point. Its going to be game over for polar bears.
We have seen numerous species go extinct through not only hunting but environmental pressures. Some studies on species already affected badly by climate change and other environemntal problems here and here
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:24 AM on 30 November 2017New study uncovers the 'keystone domino' strategy of climate denial
The Freedom experiment has been a long proven failure. The Public Interest in developing a lasting better future for all of humanity is too easily popularly compromised by damaging unsustainable pursuits of personal desires.
People freer to believe whatever they want and do whatever they please needs to understood to be a damaging simplistic Dogma like the fantasy of the Inherent Good Power of the Invisible Hand or Say's Law.
-
michael sweet at 23:11 PM on 29 November 2017The Road to Two Degrees, Part Two: Are the experts being candid about our chances?
Norrism:
With high penetration of renewable energy the issue quickly becomes one of providing peak power when it is not windy or sunny. "Baseload" power that is on all the time is not very valuable. That is why nuclear and coal already cannot compete on the open market. I have seen no scenarios where additional baseload assists renewable energy, only anecdotal stories by fossil fuel vendors.
The existing hydro storage facilities were built in the 1960's to store excess baseload power from nuclear plants to use as peak power during the day. The new energy system requires peak power, not baseload.
Existing gas peaker plants can supply peak power to back up renewable energy. Claims that renewable energy is harder to back up than fossil baseload plants ignore the majority of power plants in the USA.
Experts think the IPCC underestimated sea level rise (from 2013). New data since the IPCC report was written indicates sea level rise might be much higher than the IPCC estimated. The CSSR, written in 2017 states:
"A [global average] rise of as much as 8 feet by 2100 cannot be ruled out. Sea level rise will be higher than the global average on the East and Gulf Coasts of the United States." (my emphasis).
If you are a conservative engineer you might have to use a 10 foot rise to ensure your infrastructure will be usable in 2100, not .52 meters. Every time they write an IPCC report they have to significantly increase the estimate of sea level rise.
-
michael sweet at 22:04 PM on 29 November 2017Video: Climate, Sea Level, and Superstorms
Riduna,
The key point is that observing the cold patch shows that the Gulf Stream has already begun to slow. The size and temperature of the cold patch can be used to calculate how much the Gulf Stream has slowed.
The superstorms are powered by the difference in temperature between the tropics and the arctic. If the cold patch continues to grow Hansen claims that will provide the power for superstorms.
-
chriskoz at 20:19 PM on 29 November 2017American leaders should read their official climate science report
Hydrogen is a very ephemeral fuel because of its volatility. Any distributing pipeline and containers must be super-tight. Typical infrastructures, e.g. those used for natural gas, would allow to much fugitive loss due to leaks.
Related is the problem of vehicle safety while transporting a big tank. The tank must be super-tight and armoured - stronger than e.g. LPG tank. This adds the extra weight to carry by the vehicle.
-
nigelj at 19:14 PM on 29 November 2017American leaders should read their official climate science report
Norris @11, I agree such a discussion is interesting, and I think it's all related to climate science. This website did do an article on electric cars.
Just briefly, regarding PV solar versus thermal solar. IMO they are both good systems. It may not be either / or. Thermal solar suits large centralised instillations, and pv solar suits roof top arrays, and poor third world countries.
Regarding hydrogen fuel cell cars versus batteries. They are both good cars, and hydrogen fuel cell cars have been on the market since about 2014, and I'm reasonably sure Honda make one. From a technical point of view, they are very roughly equal abilities, although batteries are a bit more efficient ultimately. However I would welcome more information and discussion and my knowledge is limited.
The real trouble is hydrogen fuel cells absolutely require a network of charging stations and there are currently very few, and nobody will provide then until their are sufficient cars, and nobody will buy the cars until theres a full network of rechghaging stations, so its a stale mate situation. Uptake of hydrogen cars has been very slow, so it looks like a losing technology I'm afraid. Battery cars can just be plugged into a wall socket, so this is very flexible as you are not as reliant on recharging stations. Things have to be user friendly.
-
NorrisM at 15:38 PM on 29 November 2017The Road to Two Degrees, Part Two: Are the experts being candid about our chances?
Eclectic @ 45
I am still fighting my way through Chapter 13 of the IPCC Fifth Assessment on sea level changes but the more I see (especially after what at least is a revelation to me arising out of the the Economist article and the Andy Skuce essays) the more I think we have to face up to the best guess of the IPCC using RCP 8.5 which predicts a sea level rise of .52 to .98 m by 2100. This is not catastrophic. That is ballpark 82 years away. Even 2050 is 32 years away. Just think of the massive changes that have happened to our society in the last 50 years. We cannot count on technology but we really do not have a choice. It is totally impractical to expect the world to just stop using fossil fuels on or about 2030. As well, we are moving away from fossil fuels so we probably will be better off than RCP 8.5 (but maybe not given this "negative emission assumption" in the models).
-
NorrisM at 15:23 PM on 29 November 2017The Road to Two Degrees, Part Two: Are the experts being candid about our chances?
michael sweet @ 44
The difference between solar and wind power, on the one hand, and coal or natural gas with CCS technology, on the other, relates to issues of base load power. It is fine to talk about "marginal cost" when it comes to wind and solar power but we do not have realistic storage systems to keep the lights on in LA or New York at night. This comes right back to these issues of EROI with Weissbach assuming a storage system for "stand alone" wind power or solar in calculating the EROI. If you are happy with using natural gas as a base load source then fine but the costs of same have to be included in calculating solar and wind power. To the extent natural gas plants are already in place should be taken into account in making these calculations of the real cost of wind and solar.
As I noted to eclectic on another thread, my sense is that the US should be moving towards thermal solar and the construction of a continental HVDC power system but that will still require base load power from fossil fuels as far as I can see.
But none of this addresses the issues raised in the Andy Skuce essays regarding negative emissions if we have any chance of meeting a 2C limit on global temperatures by 2100. We simply are not going to choke off our economy in 2030 when the carbon budget runs out based upon the discussions in the Skuce essays.
If we do not have any valid answers should the models not recognize this invalid assumption as suggested by Kevin Anderson and, implicitly, by Andy Skuce?
-
Riduna at 15:14 PM on 29 November 2017Video: Climate, Sea Level, and Superstorms
about 285ppm#2 Nigelj writes … Yet these superstorms appear to have occured in period of CO2 concentrations similar to where we are heading.
It is well established that during the Eemian thermal naximum (~129,000 to 124,000 years ago), CO2 concentration in the atmosphere reached a maximum of about 285ppm, while present concentration is around 406ppm, a level unprecedented over the last 800,000 ears.#9 Mr Sweet writes … The cold patch just below Greenland on many global temperature graphs is caused by the slowing of the Gulf Stream.
In fact, the opposite occurs. Discharge of cold water from Greenland ice sheet melt is likely to cause Gulf Stream slowing by pushing warmer water deeper. -
Eclectic at 13:51 PM on 29 November 2017The Road to Two Degrees, Part Two: Are the experts being candid about our chances?
NorrisM , the comments by Michael Sweet are exactly correct, in a nutshell.
For 20+ years, there has been a pitifully small amount of action taken against CO2 emissions — and the consequences are grim. The "trainwreck" which is AGW, is growing in magnitude. This is plainly obvious to every well-informed observer who chooses not to avert his gaze.
Yet the deniers (of reality) cry out "Alarmism" . . . as though that piece of rhetorical nonsense will somehow negate the real physical problem. The deniers are afflicted with Head-in-the-Sand mental disease — and history will judge them harshly for their selfishness and stupidity. (Not that that will bother the deniers, since they will be dead before the worst of the trainwreck is obvious to even the meanest intelligence.)
NorrisM, I have read The Economist article you referenced. But it did not state anything really new or insightful. The situation has been plainly obvious for many years. Politicians can (and do) talk and talk about 1.5 degrees and 2.0 degrees, but they make very little effort to reduce the size of the slow-motion trainwreck which is already under way.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We (collectively) have undertaken so little "prevention" . . . that "cure" (in the form of atmospheric carbon reduction) is now to fall heavily on future generations. They are the ones who will be faced with picking up the pieces of the trainwreck: a much larger trainwreck than they ought to have to inherit.
At this stage, reducing the "up-sizing" of the problem — is the only practical thing to be done. Any other course equals insanity.
Sorry for pontificating. But the situation warrants it — don't you think, NorrisM ?
-
NorrisM at 13:45 PM on 29 November 2017American leaders should read their official climate science report
nigel @ 9
In previous postings I indicated that I personally have been moved by the two papers by Derek Abbot suggesting a thermal solar thermal/hydrogen solution which would require a continental HVDC system. I had hoped we could get a discussion going on the benefits of PV solar versus thermal solar (and whether we should be focussing on electric cars versus hydrogen) based upon those 2010 papers but my understanding is that such a discussion is beyond the focus of this website. As well, we again face political reality in the US.
Prev 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 Next
