Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Welcome to kingsnake.com's message board system. Here you may share and discuss information with others about your favorite reptile and amphibian related topics such as care and feeding, caging requirements, permits and licenses, and more. Launched in 1997, the kingsnake.com message board system is one of the oldest and largest systems on the internet.

Click for 65% off Shipping with Reptiles 2 You
Click for ZooMed
Click here for Dragon Serpents

ATTN: RAMROD!!! Your Analysis is urgently needed!!

madmatt Apr 16, 2004 01:51 PM

Your analysis needed! Please answer how they got these eskimos to lie. Are all the eskimoes lying or, just the ones they interviewed? Are they more high paid environmentalists? Or is the global warming just localized at the ice caps? Are these guys commies?

Warming Climate Disrupts Alaska Natives' Lives
Fri Apr 16,10:10 AM ET

By Yereth Rosen

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Reuters) - Anyone who doubts the gravity of global warming should ask Alaska's Eskimo, Indian and Aleut elders about the dramatic changes to their land and the animals on which they depend.

Native leaders say that salmon are increasingly susceptible to warm-water parasites and suffer from lesions and strange behavior. Salmon and moose meat have developed odd tastes and the marrow in moose bones is weirdly runny, they say.

Arctic pack ice is disappearing, making food scarce for sea animals and causing difficulties for the Natives who hunt them. It is feared that polar bears, to name one species, may disappear from the Northern hemisphere by mid-century.

As trees and bushes march north over what was once tundra, so do beavers, and they are damming new rivers and lakes to the detriment of water quality and possibly salmon eggs.

Still, to the frustration of Alaska Natives, many politicians in the lower 48 U.S. states deny that global warming is occurring or that a warmer climate could cause problems.

"They obviously don't live in the Arctic," said Patricia Cochran, executive director of the Alaska Native Science Commission. The Anchorage-based commission, funded by the National Science Foundation (news - web sites), has been gathering information for years on Alaska's thawing conditions.

The climate changes are disrupting traditional food gathering and cultures, said Larry Merculieff, an Aleut leader from the Pribilof Islands in the Bering Sea.

Indigenous residents of the far north are finding it increasingly difficult to explain the natural world to younger generations. "As species go down, the levels of connection between older and younger go down along with that," Merculieff said at a recent Anchorage conference.

SAFETY AFFECTED

Climate and weather changes even affect human safety, said Orville Huntington, vice chairman of the Alaska Native Science Commission.

"It looks like winter out there, but if you've really been around a long time like me, it's not winter," said Huntington, an Athabascan Indian from the interior Alaska village of Huslia. "If you travel that ice, it's not the ice that we traveled 40 years ago."

River ice, long used for travel in enterior Alaska, is thinner and less dependable than it used to be.

Global warming (news - web sites) is believed to result from pollutants emitted into the atmosphere, which trap the Earth's radiant heat and create a greenhouse effect. The warming is more dramatic in polar latitudes because cold air is dry, allowing greenhouse gases to trap more solar radiation. Even a modest rise in temperature can thaw the glaciers and permafrost that cover much of Alaska.

There is no question that global warming is having pronounced effects in Alaska, said Gunter Weller, director of the University of Alaska Fairbanks' Center for Global Change and Arctic System Research.

Average temperatures in Alaska are up about 5 degrees Fahrenheit from three decades ago, and about twice that during winter, said Weller, who also heads the Cooperative Institute for Arctic Research established by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the university.

That causes serious problems not only for rural Natives who live off the land but for major industries and for public structures, he said.

Most of Alaska's highways run over permafrost that is now rapidly thawing, meaning maintenance headaches for state officials. The thaw has already caused increased maintenance costs for the trans-Alaska oil pipeline, which uses special vertical supports for suspension over the tundra.

If the plight of Alaska Natives does not get politicians' attention, then the economic toll should, Weller said.

He cited the cost -- estimated at over $100 million -- of moving Shishmaref, an Inupiat Eskimo village on Alaska's northwestern coastline, to more stable ground. The village of 600 is on the verge of tumbling into the Bering Sea because of severe erosion resulting from thawed permafrost and the absence of sea ice to protect the coastline from high storm waves.

Along with Shishmaref, there are about 20 Alaska villages that are candidates for relocation because of severe erosion, with similar costs, Weller said.

Alaska's economy has already suffered from the permafrost thaw, said Robert Corell, chairman of the international Arctic Climate Impact Assessment committee.

The hard-frozen conditions needed to support ice roads around the North Slope oil fields now exist for only about 100 days a year, he pointed out. Thirty years ago, oil companies could use ice roads for about 200 days of the year, he said.

Replies (13)

rodmalm Apr 16, 2004 11:10 PM

Well, by just using a little logic and common sense, it is easy to see this is more absolute nonsense. (What will they try to get the general public to believe next? That electing Kerry will eliminate global warming?-LOL) It looks to me like these people know almost nothing about animals.


Native leaders say that salmon are increasingly susceptible to warm-water parasites and suffer from lesions and strange behavior. Salmon and moose meat have developed odd tastes and the marrow in moose bones is weirdly runny, they say.

RANGE: Chinook salmon range from Kotzebue Sound, Alaska, to Santa Barbara, California. Spawning and rearing chinook are found in most of the rivers in this region, with significant runs in the Columbia River, Rogue River, and Puget Sound.

Do you know how different the ocean temps are from Santa Barbara, Ca. to Alaska? If the very slight global warming that is being "claimed" was to blame for these things, how come all the salmon that come from the much warmer waters of Santa Barbara still even exist? Why didn't they die off long ago from these "warming" related problems when the water is so much warmer off the California coast? Why have the fish located in much cooler Alaskan waters experienced this, while the salmon industry in warmer waters is doing just fine? (I just heard last week on a fishing report that it is supposed to be a very good year here in Ca. for sport salmon fishermen.) Has this reporter ever fished for salmon? Don't they know that salmon are fast swimming predators that will move to the water conditions they prefer? That they migrate large distances? That a one degree increase in air temps. would result in much, much smaller changes in ocean temps. That the salmon will move to where their preferred prey lives? That their prey items will also move to most desirable ocean areas? That thermoclines exist in ocean waters and the fish can choose which water temps. they prefer?

As for the moose. What? A warm blooded animal (that has a body temp of around 100) that feeds on plant material will be affected because of a temp change as small as global warming? To change the consistency of its bone marrow? (I wonder why no one has found enormous changes in the wild moose population's CBCs (complete blood count). And the moose also travels very quickly and is very mobile, not to mention the moose's huge range, which covers many different climates. Do moose that come from warmer areas have "bone marrow problems" also? --I doubt it. I suspect someone cooked the bones improperly, and was afraid to admit their mistake!

Arctic pack ice is disappearing, making food scarce for sea animals and causing difficulties for the Natives who hunt them. It is feared that polar bears, to name one species, may disappear from the Northern hemisphere by mid-century.

Again, what? Food always increases as temps. increase due to the increased metabolisms and higher rates of reproduction. Ever raised any cold blooded animals? Crickets, mealworms, tropical fish, etc. They always reproduce and grow much faster at slightly higher temps. (within reason, you can't cook them!) as does algae, plankton, etc. Ever noticed how much faster plants grow at slightly higher temps? This will decrease food availability? How did they come to that conclusion? And polar bears disappearing? ARE THEY NUTS? Polar bears are a big problem for Alaskans due to their increasing numbers! (primarily from increased reproduction and increased food intake from human dump sites).


As trees and bushes march north over what was once tundra, so do beavers, and they are damming new rivers and lakes to the detriment of water quality and possibly salmon eggs.

While I like this argument a lot better (since trees and bushes can't very easily and quickly move themselves like salmon and moose do), It takes a long time for trees to mature and reproduce in this environment, to see a drastic change like they are claiming in a mere 30 years. It probably takes 20-30 years for a tree just to reach the age of being able to reproduce, considering the very short growing season. And, while this may be possibly detrimental, I can tell you there is no better place to fish in a stream than in a beaver dam! I have done this extensively in the California Sierras, in Minnesota and in southern Canada. Beaver dams are teaming with fish! And while these fish are primarily various trout species, they reproduce the same way salmon do, and they do great. (salmon is basically just a trout species that migrates to the ocean, as opposed to trout species that stay within that stream their whole lives.) Again, the fish can move, and they do move to moving water to lay their eggs! Why wouldn't salmon behave this same way? (as do brook trout, browns, rainbows, etc.) Beaver dams are actually a very safe place for the fish. Very similar to wet lands. (Lots of food, hiding places for fry, and it is more difficult for predators to sneak up on them.)

And then, look at the temps they are claiming! 5-10 degrees increase in the last 30 years! Considering that global warming estimates show far less than one degree in that time period, then, there must be an equal area on earth that is cooling by this same amount for the global averages to be what they are. Where have temps been falling by an average of 10 degrees in the winters in the last 30 years? (This also violates the alarmists statements that global warming causes more extreme weather conditions.)

It looks to me like a number of things are happening.

1) these Eskimos want the funds to have their village moved, and if they deny anything, it hurts their case to get those funds.
2) These people (international Arctic Climate Impact Assessment committee) also must find a way to endorse global warming to keep receiving funds, and thus, keep their jobs.--as most governmetal jobs work this way.
3) You said,
Are all the Eskimos lying or, just the ones they interviewed?

Most likely, the ones that aren't saying what the reporter wants, are being ignored. Just like the soldiers in Iraq are experiencing. If you give a "all is well report" the reporters move on to find someone who is angry and will say bad things about the war, or the administration, to interview. (if it bleeds, it leads)
4) Something is being observed, and it is being "claimed" as proof, as a result, of a cause that is totally unrelated. (why is it that the temperatures claimed are totally out of sync with global warming temps?) Is it because global warming temp. changes couldn't possibly cause what they are claiming?--that would be my guess.

Rodney

rodmalm Apr 16, 2004 11:55 PM

Why would anyone use the animals (salmon and moose) represented in this article?

They are not only very mobile and "migratory" type animals, but Alaska is the coldest part of their very large range. Why would someone claim that "warming" the coldest part of their range would be detrimental to them, and that this would be noticeable?

http://www.northstar.k12.ak.us/schools/awe/moose/mooserange.html

Warming the warmest part of their range, or cooling the coldest part of their range might be detrimental because it would be subjecting them to a more extreme environment, but warming the coldest part of their range should be beneficial! (since you are removing that extreme condition.)

This, of coarse, assumes that their range is limited by environment, as are most animals are who don't have to compete with another species for their range.

Rodney

madmatt Apr 19, 2004 02:59 AM

"That a one degree increase in air temps. would result in much, much smaller changes in ocean temps"

This better not be from the stratosphere change in temps, this is horrible why don't we measure lunar atmosphere temperatures then? Where's the one degree change from? Not the stratosphere again, you promised me you weren't going soft!

rodmalm Apr 19, 2004 12:41 PM

No, it's not! It's from the very data that global warming alarmists are spouting, using their ground based data that has already been shown to be flawed. And this is assuming their numbers are right.

How long do you think it would take to warm trillions of gallons of sea water, through conduction, by slightly warming air? How much of a change would you see, considering that ocean water is much colder in it's deeper areas?-- And that conduction of this heat (or cold) is much more efficient through water than through the air/water interface. (and consider the coefficient of heat of each). Basically, the surface water is constantly being cooled by the deeper water and it is constantly being warmed at the surface through radiation. Though the only CHANGE in this surface heating/radiation is from slightly increased air temps. as the other radiation effects (THE MUCH LARGER PORTION OF THE OCEAN SURFACE WARMING) would be constant. (Try heating an aquarium by warming only the air above it (not the sides) and see what kind of result you can get. And you must only warm the air, not use a light shining into the water and thus warming objects within the tank. And, in this experiment, you are only trying to heat an ocean that is about one foot deep and isn't being cooled from the bottom!)

Not to mention that the salmon they are talking about spend 95% of their lives somewhere else (at sea) and they are not even in Alaska most of the time!

-------------------
Consider this, water in a stream can be no colder than 32 degrees, or it would be ice, with all the glaciers in Alaska they say are melting, the water coming from these glaciers would be about 32. Why would there be drastic changes in water temps. over a situation where the glaciers were not melting? If the glaciers were melting faster, the water volume would change, and the water temps. would stay about the same due to increased volume and flow. Why do salmon do fine, and reproduce fine, in the much warmer streams that are found in California? Why don't they have much more exaggerated problems due to the significantly warmer conditions they experience?

Again, common sense shows what a bunch of nonsense this article is.

Rodney

rodmalm Apr 19, 2004 12:59 PM

Here is one of the best articles I have found on the subject of global warming. It is something I think everyone who is interested in the subject should read.

www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Frankly, I think there MIGHT be some global warming, but that it is coming from natural cycles. (The Earth's orbit, sun cycles (solar radiation), cosmic radiation, etc.)--but it is nothing like what the alarmists are claiming, as far as I can tell. My biggest problem is all the far out predictions based on computer models---they keep changing them everytime someone decides to change a program that predicts them, and even the UN commision on global climate change had to admit that.

Rodney

madmatt Apr 20, 2004 03:03 AM

and response to the question at hand now.

But I am lazy, and I think you are too for being vague and not picking out the one report that says where the one degree change in global temps occur, seriously, I am not going to read the Flat Earth Society encyclopedia!

You have read this stuff already, you know where it is!

Or you will have to wait a few days or a week for me to read all that stuff.

rodmalm Apr 20, 2004 10:40 PM

I assume you are questioning my statement about the 1 degree increase in temps. over the last 3 decades that global warming alarmists are talking about?

Most projections/predictions I have seen by these alarmists run around a 2-7 degree increase in the next 100 years. They also say that warming will increase in a nonlinear fashion. (more warming later and less warming now.)

Here are a number of such predictions, so 1 degree over the last 30 is close to what they predict, and in many instances it is much less. And the entire article's URL also.

Three scenarios for expected climate change were used in the computer models -- a minimum expected total rise of between 0.8 and 1.7 degrees Celsius by 2050; a mid-range scenario with total temperature increases of 1.8-2.0 degrees; and the maximum rise, when the Earth's average climes rise by over 2.0 degrees during the period.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/08/1073437399994.html

And from the Sierra Club

Major shifts in temperature and precipitation. Some parts of the world have warmed by as much as 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit or more in the last 100 years. The average temperature of the planet has risen about 1 degree Fahrenheit.

http://www.sierraclub.org/globalwarming/overview/evidence.asp

And here is an article showing how they keep having to revise their predictions! (And most importantly, reducing them!)Read the Link, it also show measurements and shows how even the 1995 predictions is way over-blown!

Chart 1

Year of Forecast
Rate of Warming
Greenhouse Effect by 2030

Temperature Rise
Sea Level Rise

1988
0.8 C per decade
3.0 C
20 to 150 cm

1990
0.3 C per decade
1.2 C
15 to 40 cm

1995
0.2 C per decade
0.8 C
5 to 35 cm
Source: Dr. Brian O'Brien, October 1997

www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoFactSheet.html

Unfortunately, there is so little data to show global warming, and so many outlandish predictions, that few of the outlandish predictions agree with each other! (but they are all quite small)

Rodney

madmatt Apr 23, 2004 12:00 AM

Actually,

I looked at those links, thank you for going through the trouble, but I was really hoping for more data posted on sites that was more direct. Like when you posted your stratospheric stuff, you used NASA, unfortunatley, the data you linked us to had stratospheric aberrations, not tropospheric aberrations.

What I have trouble with are reviews , made of reviews, made of reviews. That to me does not count as a study. It is commentary.

The article I posted is of course a headline from a newspaper(commentary), but that headline(for our purposes) is a starting point for a discussion.

madmatt Apr 20, 2004 02:49 AM

If warmer weather doesn't matter that much, why are their temperature ranges these animals prefer.

Why do these animals, especially moose have ranges, why don't they alljoin the party in the lush green meadows of the American prairie? Or lush meadows like Georgia? Why can't or why won't these moose make the change?

"As for the moose. What? A warm blooded animal (that has a body temp of around 100) that feeds on plant material will be affected because of a temp change as small as global warming? To change the consistency of its bone marrow? (I wonder why no one has found enormous changes in the wild moose population's CBCs (complete blood count). And the moose also travels very quickly and is very mobile, not to mention the moose's huge range, which covers many different climates. Do moose that come from warmer areas have "bone marrow problems" also? --I doubt it. I suspect someone cooked the bones improperly, and was afraid to admit their mistake!"

rodmalm Apr 20, 2004 10:58 PM

Sure, all animals have preferred temp. ranges. If fact, a lot more life exists around the equator than the poles (both in numbers and in diversity).-- Which is one reason why so many scientists think if there was global warming, it would be a good thing, not a bad thing like the alarmists want you to believe. Not to mention the increased food production due to increased plant growth. (The natural ranges of many animals would increase due to the temps. increasing, the increased food available, and the location of land mass. A lot more land mass occurs where it is currently too cold for many species to live. Just look at the shape of the continents relative to the equator.) I was questioning why anyone would use these 2 specific animals as examples, when they were talking about adverse effects of slightly warming the coldest area of their range.--utter lunacy!

Cooling the coolest part of their range could be bad for them, and warming the warmest part of their range could also be bad for them, but warming the coolest area or cooling the warmest area would be beneficial to the species. So why claim that bringing temps. closer to their ideal preferred temps., would be bad? It appears to me that they are hoping to mislead people, who don't understand animals, and that this shows global warming exists, and it is very bad.

Rodney

madmatt Apr 20, 2004 02:52 AM

The question, remember the question!

Fred Albury Apr 19, 2004 08:13 PM

I ****KNEW*** that my canned salmon tastes DIFFERENT lately.
That did it, I'm becomeing a VEGAN!!

*Cheers*

Fred Albury

rodmalm Apr 21, 2004 10:32 PM

read the label. I bet it is either processed differently, or you bought canned tuna by mistake!!LOL

Rodney

Site Tools