Views on underwater hunting

[waterpirate]

that's impossible i have yogurt in my fridge that clearly expires in 2013!!

It is of the utmost importance that we find wooferbitch! Techno/house/wtf is dying.
I did like the videos though!
Eric

 

[Rhone Man]

Could you please provide it then? The problem is that climate modelling is still very crude at this stage... you have to consider this. I don't know if you've ever been involved in large scale modelling but models of this scale are imprecise and limited by technology.

Climate change is very complicated, and it is not helped by the fact that both scientists and journalists tend to 'dumb down' concepts (a fact much picked upon by Michael Crichton in his best-selling novel, Climate of Fear), or the fact that tree-huggers engage in witch hunts of scientists with opposing views.

All that having been said, it is very hard for a lay person to seriously argue against the general scientific consensus: global warming is real, and it is man made. There is also a third area of consensus slowly emerging - that it is irreversible.

Further reading:

• Scientific opinion on climate change
• Climate change consensus
• List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

Curiously I don't worry so much about global warming. I am far more concerned about ocean acidification and the buildup of other (non-greenhouse gas) pollutants. But those issues rarely get press time because they are not as readily identifiable to the public as a baby polar bear sitting on a shrinking iceberg.

 

[Sas]

The world is getting warmer yes, in the short term it has at least. There is data to show this. But I do not see how one can draw conclusions that it is human made given they cannot do precise modelling on the variables that might contribute to warming. Climate change has occurred before, long before humans could have possibly had an impact. I'm in the 'don't know yet' camp...

I agree with your last point though...

 

[Rhone Man]

Someone once wrote that trying to determine the course of global warming looking at climate over the last 100 years is like trying to decide who will win the 100 metres after the runners have travelled a distance equal to the width of a pencil.

 

[captain]

Thousands of animals species have come and gone over the history of earth for various reasons from climate change, diseases, geological and astronomical events, etc. In one thousand or ten thousand years humans may also go the way of the Dodo bird and another species will rise up and replace us.
Humans are too egotistical to accept that that can and may happen and there probably isn't much we can do about it.

 

[Mike Boswell]

Could you please provide it then? The problem is that climate modelling is still very crude at this stage... you have to consider this. I don't know if you've ever been involved in large scale modelling but models of this scale are imprecise and limited by technology..

Sas, I really respect your call for facts - it is exactly what I do when someone is making a claim. But, there is a mountain of evidence supporting global warming and all you have to do is Google it.

There is an important distinction between the fact of anthropogenic climate change, and the debatable details of computer modeling. Virtually all climate scientists agree that the warming is a fact, but there is uncertainty and debate about the details. This is true of virtually every field of study.

Climate change is very complicated, and it is not helped by the fact that both scientists and journalists tend to 'dumb down' concepts (a fact much picked upon by Michael Crichton in his best-selling novel, Climate of Fear), or the fact that tree-huggers engage in witch hunts of scientists with opposing views.

All that having been said, it is very hard for a lay person to seriously argue against the general scientific consensus: global warming is real, and it is man made. There is also a third area of consensus slowly emerging - that it is irreversible.

Further reading:

• Scientific opinion on climate change
• Climate change consensus
• List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

Curiously I don't worry so much about global warming. I am far more concerned about ocean acidification and the buildup of other (non-greenhouse gas) pollutants. But those issues rarely get press time because they are not as readily identifiable to the public as a baby polar bear sitting on a shrinking iceberg.

We have a moral duty to the other species sharing this planet with us, and to the future. I think you agree with that.

The world is getting warmer yes, in the short term it has at least. There is data to show this. But I do not see how one can draw conclusions that it is human made given they cannot do precise modelling on the variables that might contribute to warming. Climate change has occurred before, long before humans could have possibly had an impact. I'm in the 'don't know yet' camp... I agree with your last point though...

We know that man has dumped enormous quantities of CO2 and Methane into the atmostphere, we know that the levels of these gases have risen dramatically, we know that they trap heat, and we know it's getting hotter.

Some people aren't directly affected and don't want to bother with it, so they are complacent. Others will die.

Someone once wrote that trying to determine the course of global warming looking at climate over the last 100 years is like trying to decide who will win the 100 metres after the runners have travelled a distance equal to the width of a pencil.

Except that measurements in tree rings, ice cores, ocean sediments, and rocks can take you back much further in time.

Thousands of animals species have come and gone over the history of earth for various reasons from climate change, diseases, geological and astronomical events, etc. In one thousand or ten thousand years humans may also go the way of the Dodo bird and another species will rise up and replace us.
Humans are too egotistical to accept that that can and may happen and there probably isn't much we can do about it.

You could use much the same logic to argue that we shouldn't worry about terrorism, pollution, war, or disease.

 

[Mike Boswell]

Yes exactly, which is why I have asked for evidence. People should feel an obligation to seek the truth, not just what is the popular viewpoint at the time. You also need to consider a cost-benefit analysis of global warming if it exists - are the benefits greater if we continue to pollute and learn to deal with the earth being hotter, or should pollution be moderated now? People rarely ask that question though and tend to make snap judgments about what people's response should be, but I think the economics should always be considered.

How much are polar bears worth? How about a Bangladeshi or two?

 

[captain]

You could use much the same logic to argue that we shouldn't worry about terrorism, pollution, war, or disease.

And using that logic I don't much worry about any of it. Worry is a waste of time and life. It goes back to the serenity prayer.

 

[DennisS]

The proper term is global climate change - temperatures can rise or fall locally.

There is no global warming debate or global climate change debate amongst scientists - it is happening, and we have measured it. Scientifically illiterate people and those that don't want to believe in global climate change perpetuate the myth that there is a "debate." It is natural to want to deny global climate change since we aren't wired for it - evolution has given us fight-or-flight reflexes for immediate dangers and threat to life. History shows that we seem incapable of taking a long-sighted outlook.

There has been no reduction in the global warming trend of 0.15-0.20°C/decade that began in the late 1970s. There is no "model" being used here. We measure global temperatures with satellites, and the temperature is going up, regardless of what various models predict.

Finally, let's imagine that you are diagnosed with cancer. You might want a second opinion from a specialist. Think of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as a group of 2000 specialists. If 2000 specialists reached consensus that you had cancer, why would you chose to not believe them?

It's not MY evidence. It's evidence collected by thousands of trained professional scientists all over the globe who have been studying the issue for many decades.



I understand the mechanisms of global warming quite well. It's really very simple: CO2 and Methane trap heat in the atmosphere. This can be proven with a simple lab experiment.

Levels of CO2 and Methane in the atmosphere have risen dramatically over the last 50 years. This has been measured all around the globe.

Global temperatures have been rising. This has been measured all around the globe.

Rising air temperatures have led to melting ice in Greenland, Antactica, the Arctic Ocean, the Alps, the Himalayas, Mount Kilimanjaro, and on and on and on. Melting ice has caused sea levels to rise.

Rising air temperatures have caused average ocean temperatures to rise, causing seawater to expand, also raising sea levels. This has been measured all around the globe.



Most people feel a moral obligation to inform themselves about a danger which may threaten their world, or destroy other species or their habitats.

I have no opinion on "global climate change" but this struck me as very odd.

How long has the temp been measured with satellites? I would guess a decade or a decade and a half. Not much data there to make a statistical argument either way.

There were NOT 2000 scientists that agreed with the IPCC's "summary". There is in fact NO global consensus on what is happening to the climate much less that it is man caused.

To be on topic, I would love to do a little spear fishing for personal consumption if I lived close to the sea. My sister lives in Pensacola but they are militant vegans so no grilled snapper at sis's house.

I will not say the climate is not warming, I will say that I am skeptical that man has had a great deal to do with it or is capable of changing it whether or not man is the cause.

Could you please provide it then? The problem is that climate modelling is still very crude at this stage... you have to consider this. I don't know if you've ever been involved in large scale modelling but models of this scale are imprecise and limited by technology.



Climate modelling is vastly more complicated than this and the models that they use are imprecise.



Compared to when? There have been very high CO2 levels in the past compared to now. But it is considered higher now than it has been in the last few million years. But a few million years is nothing compared to the entire history of the Earth.



The sea level has been increasing for over five thousand years though... and has risen and fallen in the distant past. What is your point with this? And besides the sea levels are rising because of warming water mostly, not melting glaciers.

In the 70s people were freaking out about global cooling because the temperature in the northern hemisphere fell.



Yes it is rising but over what time period? It has only been measured for a short period of time. How do you know that this is unusual or something to worry about? And this has been revised before due to poor modeling...




Yes exactly, which is why I have asked for evidence. People should feel an obligation to seek the truth, not just what is the popular viewpoint at the time. You also need to consider a cost-benefit analysis of global warming if it exists - are the benefits greater if we continue to pollute and learn to deal with the earth being hotter, or should pollution be moderated now?

People rarely ask that question though and tend to make snap judgments about what people's response should be, but I think the economics should always be considered.

Climate change is very complicated, and it is not helped by the fact that both scientists and journalists tend to 'dumb down' concepts (a fact much picked upon by Michael Crichton in his best-selling novel, Climate of Fear), or the fact that tree-huggers engage in witch hunts of scientists with opposing views.

All that having been said, it is very hard for a lay person to seriously argue against the general scientific consensus: global warming is real, and it is man made. There is also a third area of consensus slowly emerging - that it is irreversible.


Further reading:

• Scientific opinion on climate change
• Climate change consensus
• List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

Curiously I don't worry so much about global warming. I am far more concerned about ocean acidification and the buildup of other (non-greenhouse gas) pollutants. But those issues rarely get press time because they are not as readily identifiable to the public as a baby polar bear sitting on a shrinking iceberg.

The world is getting warmer yes, in the short term it has at least. There is data to show this. But I do not see how one can draw conclusions that it is human made given they cannot do precise modelling on the variables that might contribute to warming. Climate change has occurred before, long before humans could have possibly had an impact. I'm in the 'don't know yet' camp...

I agree with your last point though...

Scientists are still out on whether spearfishing causes global warming. Dr Ineida Grant says he needs more data and is planning an oceanographic study this winter in the USVI.

 

[scubaskipper]

My only issue would be with the market hunters. The guy with the commercial permit that takes a bunch of his buddies out and they shoot everything in sight. Same with the guy that takes out a bunch of people with a promise of free beer. All they have to do is show up at the boat with a lobster permit.