Adirondack Forum  
Rules Membership Donations and Online Store Adkhighpeaks Foundation ADKhighpeaks Forums ADKhighpeaks Wiki Disclaimer

Go Back   Adirondack Forum > The Adirondack Forum > Adirondack Wildlife
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 07-27-2016, 09:23 PM   #21
poconoron
Backcountry Wanderer
 
poconoron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Pocono Mts, Pa. and Adirondacks
Posts: 786
Quote:
Originally Posted by montcalm View Post

The polar bear gets a lot of focus now because it has filled an extremely specialized niche in hunting on sea ice. Polar bears are truly very poor hunters if they do not have the sea ice. They've started moving south to find food, and soon may mate with Grizzly populations and dilute the species, or take it away altogether. That's an ideal situation. The other situation is they just go extinct all together except the few we might keep in zoos to remember an era gone by.
Scare tactics, as with all of the global cooling (1970s)..........I mean global warming (post 1970s)...............I mean Climate change (current choice of the alarmists).

Polar bears are doing just fine - what is your scientific basis for saying they will go extinct, or, by God, mate with grizzly bears? The population of polar bears, has, if anything, increased over previous recent decades.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/11/po...ic-had-no-ice/

https://polarbearscience.com/2015/05...pbsg-waffling/
__________________
Ahh............Wilderness.......
poconoron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2016, 09:38 PM   #22
poconoron
Backcountry Wanderer
 
poconoron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Pocono Mts, Pa. and Adirondacks
Posts: 786
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCD View Post
I used to trust them, until they artificially adjusted all the data to try to make this:

>Temperature leveled off at a new set point.

go away. This pause is extremely inconvenient for "true believers", and making it go away is a little too convenient for me to trust.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.word...-to-disappear/

Read enough about this, both real science and political reporting from UN summits, and you will see that this is really only about wealth transfer. That's all, despite all the indoctrination that goes on. In fact, at the most recent summit a coalition of "developing" nations basically said "So what if the science is junk. Just give us the damn $100 billion."
Well said, but I'm afraid there are too many sheeple out there who can't or won't find the time to thoroughly investigate the issue on their own. That is what the UN and governments around the world count on.
__________________
Ahh............Wilderness.......
poconoron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2016, 09:39 PM   #23
montcalm
Mobster
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 700
I could link a zillion. And they would all have a .edu in their web address. I'm not about to conveniently link articles which support a claim... for this very reason:

I'm not so sure about your sources - first off I tried to look at the references at the bottom of the page and on other articles on "polar bear science" and couldn't get to them. All of them I had to sign up to read but they are scholarly articles. It seems this blogster has just made it a point to pick apart these papers and contradict the data, and reference it, and with a worthless reference to anyone who might want to actually see what this blowhard is talking about.

But what I really want to see you argue is the ice data. I could post it, but I won't. I'm sure someone will go find some reason to say the data has been manipulated or is flawed somehow with some out there blog page.

Go to NOAA, that's what I would link for you. The data is there. Also ESF has many Adirondack ice studies for you to peruse. You can argue with them if you like.
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2016, 10:25 PM   #24
Stew0576
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 43
While I agree with a lot of what you said, (we need to be responsible stewards of the earth) I would add that the biggest threat to the planet would come from either a polar shift (the earth is like a spinning top and as the polar caps melt it shifts weight causing a wobble that would reek havick on the global weather) or a major earthquake in California could cause Yellowstone to erupt (a major eruption would ultimately cause major weather and temperate changes globaly) I also believe that in order for animals the size of the dinosoars to servive the earth was much warmer with a much higher carbon dioxide and oxygen content than we currently have.
Stew0576 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2016, 11:10 PM   #25
Stew0576
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 43
We have made a major shift in the planet, deforestation (trees act like temputare regulators I'm sure you've all noticed that effect on a hot day) building concrete jungles, ( cities add large volumes of heat) burning fossil fuels, ( all that heat goes somewhere) these facts can't be ignored, building dams create stress in places that can't always handle them (look what has happened in china, increased earthquakes) hydrofracing destabilizes the substructure, these Are all human caused warming and damage to the planet, our responsibility is to do as little damage as possible, personally I believe as whole humans are to self centered to care, to few of us think past our comfort and bank accounts, basically the earth is screwed.
Stew0576 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2016, 11:49 PM   #26
IndLk_Brett
Member
 
IndLk_Brett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 188
I don't understand how so many people on this forum can be so strongly pro Leave No Trace in the Adirondack park, not wishing to spoil the wilderness or affect the ecosystem by negatively impacting plant and animal life and yet be so blase-faire about the probable, or at the very least possible, negative effects mankind is having on the planet as a whole. It has surprised me very much.


As a poster pointed out in the beginning of this thread - even if there was only a 5% chance that all the global warming data was correct wouldn't even that chance of the catastrophic outcome be worth more action? Even if only for the betterment of the planet we will leave for future generations?

Or maybe I'm off-base and wrong and even though you may not believe we are helping to warm the planet some/most of you still feel action and environmentally sound changes, both on a personal and global scale are things worth implementing and doing. In which case I apologize.

Last edited by IndLk_Brett; 07-28-2016 at 12:04 AM..
IndLk_Brett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2016, 06:20 AM   #27
Stew0576
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 43
Personally I do what I can, and I think everyone should,i just don't have faith in people as a whole
Stew0576 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2016, 08:01 AM   #28
randomscooter
Native Earthling
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Scooterville, NY
Posts: 1,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by montcalm View Post
I could link a zillion. And they would all have a .edu in their web address. I'm not about to conveniently link articles which support a claim... for this very reason:

I'm not so sure about your sources - first off I tried to look at the references at the bottom of the page and on other articles on "polar bear science" and couldn't get to them. All of them I had to sign up to read but they are scholarly articles. It seems this blogster has just made it a point to pick apart these papers and contradict the data, and reference it, and with a worthless reference to anyone who might want to actually see what this blowhard is talking about.

But what I really want to see you argue is the ice data. I could post it, but I won't. I'm sure someone will go find some reason to say the data has been manipulated or is flawed somehow with some out there blog page.

Go to NOAA, that's what I would link for you. The data is there. Also ESF has many Adirondack ice studies for you to peruse. You can argue with them if you like.
"Well said, but I'm afraid there are too many sheeple out there who can't or won't find the time to thoroughly investigate the issue on their own. That is what the UN and governments around the world count on." (attribution: poconron, a few posts ago)

Carry on.
__________________
Scooting here and there
Through the woods and up the peaks
Random Scoots awaits (D.P.)


"Pushing the limits of easy."
randomscooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2016, 08:29 AM   #29
montcalm
Mobster
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 700
Well I think Occum's razor need apply here.

Is it more likely that every science and educational institution with any credibility across the globe has been payed off and duped into reading false data or that a few deniers of the obvious make outrageous claims with little evidence to back it up that the issue does not exist?

There is a difference between being a "sheeple" and being an educated person. By the rude and crude remarks made earlier and the poor arguments that are nothing but thinly veiled attacks of character I could say those same arguments could be made by the flat earth society of the all the "sheeple" that believe the data and science that the earth is not flat. A number of other examples could be made, but two of recent consequence that I can think of lead in gasoline and CFC emissions.

Last edited by montcalm; 07-28-2016 at 09:04 AM..
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2016, 09:24 AM   #30
TCD
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,434
I cannot make any sense out of your discussion of conservation of energy; and I understand physics quite well. The fact is that the Sun is the overwhelming #1 energy source that warms this planet; our "contribution" to actual heat content is tiny.

Yes, CO2 levels are racing up dramatically, and much off that is clearly due to our activity - no question. Whether that has any impact on temperature is a matter of theory. Temperature has largely leveled off, even while the CO2 level has increased more rapidly than ever.

And I agree we should avoid rudeness and listen to each other. Just because someone presents data you don't like, you should not call them a "whackjob."

I also agree we have put major pressure on many species. But I think temperature is insignificant - our worst actions in that regard have been mechanical habitat destruction.

And I agree that we should reduce our use of fossil fuels, but not because of temperature concerns; rather, because they are a finite resource, and because petroleum, at least, has a higher and better use as a chemical precursor.

So I think we are in agreement on many of these things, and on many of the actions to take to address them. I'm just not in agreement that we need to tear down our economy and transfer hundreds of billions of dollars to make a bunch of UN officers, third world dictators and Al Gore rich.
TCD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2016, 09:38 AM   #31
poconoron
Backcountry Wanderer
 
poconoron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Pocono Mts, Pa. and Adirondacks
Posts: 786
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCD View Post

So I think we are in agreement on many of these things, and on many of the actions to take to address them. I'm just not in agreement that we need to tear down our economy and transfer hundreds of billions of dollars to make a bunch of UN officers, third world dictators and Al Gore rich.
That is the nub of the matter and said very well.
__________________
Ahh............Wilderness.......
poconoron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2016, 10:10 AM   #32
montcalm
Mobster
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 700
It's really conservation of mass that applies. And you agree that C02 levels have increased since we started using fossil fuels. The connection between high temperature and increased C02 during the Carboniferous era comes from the fact that the earth must have been covered with a large amount of flora, and those flora absorbed, and stored that carbon in coal (and oil, ect) - we have been digging up the evidence and burning it for over 150 years. Our rapid release of that should, in fact, return the atmospheric conditions similar to that period. That is all I meant.

The whackjob blog comment stands. I was not insulting anyone here. But there is nothing stopping any "whackjob" or credible person from creating a website to support their opinions. I tend to trust those sources that come from scientific communities and universities. Again, for the reason I stated above. The likelihood that they are part of some global conspiracy is unfathomable.

Again, the ice data... the ice data is the real key. There is a direct correlation between coal and oil usage and temperture rise. It was first discovered near the turn of the previous century. It's been studied since then and was brought to the public in the middle of the 20th century. Again ignored, largely due to the power of fossil fuel interests. It's thus surfaced again, and finally gained momentum in the whole scientific community because the data, from the last 150 years!, not 10 years, is so overwhelmingly convincing.

To base your assumptions of what will happen 50 years from now on any short term trend, be it real, or imagined, is ignoring a large portion of the data.
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2016, 11:18 AM   #33
IndLk_Brett
Member
 
IndLk_Brett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by montcalm View Post
I could say those same arguments could be made by the flat earth society of the all the "sheeple" that believe the data and science that the earth is not flat.
If this turns into a flat-earth debate I'm officially out. I'll be off repeatedly banging my head into a wall. Haha.
IndLk_Brett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2016, 12:26 PM   #34
montcalm
Mobster
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 700
I agree Brett but everyone is entitled to an opinion...

I meant to actually answer the original topic but I was sidetracked. My answer: No. In my short lifetime I haven't seen the effects from increased CO2 and increased average temperatures (however they came about or are or are not relative) on any flora or fauna in the Adirondack region. I do notice the shortening of winters - I'm sure some other species do as well.

I've also noticed what some others have noticed about the changing of some of the Adirondack forests, but I'd suspect that is their natural evolution back to "old growth", as the ones I've observed were logged and have been left relatively virgin for less than 100 years.

The change in climate could very well change the species of plants and animals in the area, but it will take a long time. All that stuff lags far behind the actual climate. I doubt I'll see it in my lifetime.
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2016, 01:56 PM   #35
IndLk_Brett
Member
 
IndLk_Brett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by montcalm View Post
I agree Brett but everyone is entitled to an opinion...
I couldn't agree more. I was just trying to make light of it because from what I have seen it tends to turn into one of those back and forth debates where neither side truly listens to the other or makes any headway. Then in many cases it devolves into insults.

Didn't think at all that you were bringing it up for debate or really thinking all that would happen here, by you or anyone else, because respect for others and their opinions seems to be a much bigger part of this forum than most, if not all, others I have seen. I was just trying to make a light-hearted comment in reference to debates I have come across elsewhere about that particular topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by montcalm View Post
The change in climate could very well change the species of plants and animals in the area, but it will take a long time. All that stuff lags far behind the actual climate. I doubt I'll see it in my lifetime.
From what I have read it is there that a major part of the problem may lie. The change in climate could be happening so rapidly that the plants and animals won't have that 'long time' that they truly need to adjust. That, in turn, could lead to a mass extinction similar to extinctions which have occurred in the past when a change has been too rapid for many species to evolve and adjust. That is my admittedly somewhat limited understanding of the issue anyhow.

Last edited by IndLk_Brett; 07-28-2016 at 02:12 PM..
IndLk_Brett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2016, 02:33 PM   #36
montcalm
Mobster
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 700
You are correct - that is the issue. But rapidity is a relative term. An asteroid impact will have a very quick results as well as long term results. We've seen some relatively minor short term results from climate changes, but I agree with TCD, the real major impacts we see in our short lives are more along the lines of habitat destruction and pollution.

On the scale of evolution, a lot of scientists consider this a rapid act, but in terms of our lives, it's still pretty slow, and it almost goes unnoticed unless you track it closely. The thing is the glacial data seems to suggest our current shift in temperatures is at least an order of magnitude faster than others of the past.

I'd compare this to those time lapse videos of weight loss. If you saw the person every day the progression of loss would be so slow you might not notice it until they had lost a significant amount of weight. Playing a time lapse would show it clearly though. We're just starting to notice some stuff because the temperature increase has been so great since the late 1800s.

Anecdotally I always remember my parents saying our winters as kids were not as harsh as they used to be. I'd brush this off as memory fade and being the old "we used to walk 20 miles to school uphill both ways" kind of speak. It turns out they may have been correct though!
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2016, 04:03 PM   #37
adk
Adirondack Forest
 
adk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by poconoron View Post
Well said, but I'm afraid there are too many sheeple out there who can't or won't find the time to thoroughly investigate the issue on their own. That is what the UN and governments around the world count on.
I am always amazed that strong opinions (without facts, study or evidence) try and "trump" scientists hardened facts. Any who thinks an email from years ago has "any" relevance what so ever to worldwide climatological changes, needs way, way more coffee or to atleast seek a far better brew.

Such crazies like NASA, NOAA, every Major government on Earth (see COP21 attendees) and by the way nearly every non oil funded scientific community are all wrong? So because you or whomever, do not "believe" you would risk so very much (everyones future) and at the same time contribute so little to a solution. I believe many need to soul search. "Sheeple" follow a political piper without question and just march to the oil companies drum (pun intended). I humbly suggest using that pent of fustration on your posts to first educate yourself on the subject then make a stand and help the rest of us who "are" trying to do something. Please note: Anthropological Global Warming doesnt care if humans believe in it or not (it doesnt matter). Electing the "drill baby drill" group is the most dangerous game you and anyone has ever played. As the years go by look back to this post and think about the subject. I suspect you and many others will have an epiphany. I dont suspect it will make a difference ofcourse that ship sailed decades ago...
__________________
The more wilderness in the Adirondacks, the better.
adk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2016, 12:44 AM   #38
dmartenvt
Member
 
dmartenvt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Northern VT and Northern ADK
Posts: 342
Quote:
Originally Posted by montcalm View Post
I agree Brett but everyone is entitled to an opinion...

I meant to actually answer the original topic but I was sidetracked. My answer: No. In my short lifetime I haven't seen the effects from increased CO2 and increased average temperatures (however they came about or are or are not relative) on any flora or fauna in the Adirondack region. I do notice the shortening of winters - I'm sure some other species do as well.

I've also noticed what some others have noticed about the changing of some of the Adirondack forests, but I'd suspect that is their natural evolution back to "old growth", as the ones I've observed were logged and have been left relatively virgin for less than 100 years.

The change in climate could very well change the species of plants and animals in the area, but it will take a long time. All that stuff lags far behind the actual climate. I doubt I'll see it in my lifetime.
My small "forest" is in regrowth. My best guess is it's been about 70 years since it was logged. I find watching its recovery interesting. I've been losing some large Pines lately, they are older and shallow rooted in swampy land. I'm not quite sure how it's all supposed to work - which species will win and why. Mostly, the white pines have it.

I recently intervened just a little by planting ginseng and goldenseal amongst the trees. I am finding more and more native medicinal plants growing naturally. I wish I could be around for 200 years to see this little patch recover. All my neighbors are in Forest programs. I tell my trees they are safe

The recovery of the forest will definitely change the other flora and fauna pretty drastically in and of itself. The area that is take over by white pines as a monoculture has very little diversity as compared to the mixed area of hard and softwoods.
dmartenvt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2016, 07:39 AM   #39
randomscooter
Native Earthling
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Scooterville, NY
Posts: 1,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by adk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by poconoron View Post
Well said, but I'm afraid there are too many sheeple out there who can't or won't find the time to thoroughly investigate the issue on their own. That is what the UN and governments around the world count on.
I am always amazed that strong opinions (without facts, study or evidence) try and "trump" scientists hardened facts. Any who thinks an email from years ago has "any" relevance what so ever to worldwide climatological changes, needs way, way more coffee or to atleast seek a far better brew.

Such crazies like NASA, NOAA, every Major government on Earth (see COP21 attendees) and by the way nearly every non oil funded scientific community are all wrong? So because you or whomever, do not "believe" you would risk so very much (everyones future) and at the same time contribute so little to a solution. I believe many need to soul search. "Sheeple" follow a political piper without question and just march to the oil companies drum (pun intended). I humbly suggest using that pent of fustration on your posts to first educate yourself on the subject then make a stand and help the rest of us who "are" trying to do something. Please note: Anthropological Global Warming doesnt care if humans believe in it or not (it doesnt matter). Electing the "drill baby drill" group is the most dangerous game you and anyone has ever played. As the years go by look back to this post and think about the subject. I suspect you and many others will have an epiphany. I dont suspect it will make a difference ofcourse that ship sailed decades ago...
Well said, but I'm afraid there are too many sheeple out there who can't or won't find the time to thoroughly investigate the issue on their own. That is what the UN and governments around the world count on.
__________________
Scooting here and there
Through the woods and up the peaks
Random Scoots awaits (D.P.)


"Pushing the limits of easy."
randomscooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

DISCLAIMER: Use of these forums, and information found herein, is at your own risk. Use of this site by members and non-members alike is only granted by the adkhighpeak.com administration provided the terms and conditions found in the FULL DISCLAIMER have been read. Continued use of this site implies that you have read, understood and agree to the terms and conditions of this site. Any questions can be directed to the Administrator of this site.