Jump to content
Guests feel free to register and post ×
WELCOME NEW MEMBERS AND GUESTS FEEL FREE TO REGISTER AND POST ×
WELCOME NEW MEMBERS AND GUESTS ×
guests can now post ×
welcome guests . feel free to test the waters. ×

Leaked EPA email tells staff to play up climate denial, ignore actual data


Recommended Posts

It's no secret that Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator Scott Pruitt disagrees with the overwhelming evidence tying human emissions of greenhouse gases to increasing global average temperatures, sea level rise, and a host of other problems for humanity. 

 

He has, after all, moved to scuttle the Obama administration's regulations that would limit such emissions from power plants, ordered the EPA's climate change websites to go dark, and advocated for a televised debate on climate science, among other actions. 

 

Now comes word that on Tuesday, EPA officials distributed talking points about climate science to its top public affairs staff throughout the country, providing eight talking points about the agency's work on helping America adapt to a warming planet. 

 

SEE ALSO: In court, oil company admits reality of human-caused global warming, denies guilt

 

The talking points, first reported by the HuffPost, are contradicted by both the agency's previous climate science website as well as a federal climate report that EPA scientists contributed to. 

 

The email including the new talking points was sent on behalf of Joel D. Scheraga, the agency's senior advisor for climate adaptation — a program that, ironically, Pruitt has sought to eliminate. 

 

 

I think it’s only fair that if climate scientists have to explain AGAIN why we’re warming the planet, physicists should have to explain how come stuff falls down https://twitter.com/brady_dennis/status/979044838594236416 

  •  
 
 

According to the email in the HuffPost report, which the EPA confirmed to them as authentic, two of the bullet points outright contradict and distort the findings of mainstream climate scientists, saying: 

 

  • "Human activity impacts our changing climate in some manner. The ability to measure with precision the degree and extent of that impact, and what to do about it, are subject to continuing debate and dialogue."

  • "While there has been extensive research and a host of published reports on climate change, clear gaps remain including our understanding of the role of human activity and what we can do about it."

  •  

A federal report published in November, known as the Climate Change Special Report, states clearly and unequivocally that the burning of fossil fuels for energy and other human activities cause global warming.  

 

The report — which is the most which is the most up-to-date and comprehensive guide to climate science findings — states (original emphasis included):

(In the language of the report, "extremely likely" means a greater than 95 percent chance.)

Global annual average radiative forcing change from 1750 to 2011 due to human activities.
 
Global annual average radiative forcing change from 1750 to 2011 due to human activities.
More

Image: NCA 4, CSSR. 

Presumably, these inaccurate EPA talking points will now be parroted by EPA public affairs officials when they deal with the media and the public, since the email was sent to communications directors and regional public affairs chiefs. That could, in effect, spread Pruitt's climate denial around the country under the guise  of a respected government agency.

 

Pruitt has often said it's uncertain how much global warming is natural versus human-caused, a point included in the email that was leaked to the Huffington Post. 

 

However, the November 2017 federal report specified the exact range of what the human contribution is, something that previous climate studies had not done. 

 

It found that human activities have likely contributed between 92 percent and 123 percent of the observed temperature change from 1951 to 2010. (The contribution may be above 100 percent because, absent human activities, it's likely the climate would be cooling over time.)

Earth’s average global temperature from 2013 to 2017, as compared to a baseline average from 1951 to 1980.
 
Earth’s average global temperature from 2013 to 2017, as compared to a baseline average from 1951 to 1980.
More
 

Image: NASA/GSFC/Scientific Visualization Studio.

 

"The likely contributions of natural forcing and internal variability to global temperature change over that period are minor," the dozens of scientists who wrote that report concluded. 

 

"This period is now the warmest in the history of modern civilization," the report found.

 

The EPA's now archived climate change website was also unambiguous about what is causing global warming, stating that "humans are largely responsible for recent climate change." It also explains that global warming "... is caused mostly by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."

 

For Pruitt, conceding the reality of human-caused global warming would necessitate pursuing a radically different policy agenda at the EPA. To date, Pruitt's approach has been to try to dismantle the EPA, particularly its work on climate change but also in other areas — the science be damned. 

 

These bullet points mark the spread of his climate science denial beyond EPA headquarters in Washington, D.C., to the agency's offices around the country. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actual data ...

 

From http://icecap.us/index.php/go/in-the-news/the_phase_relation_between_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperatur/

 


Screen_shot_2013-07-19_at_2.21.25_PM.png

 


Screen_shot_2013-07-19_at_2.22.02_PM.png


 

  Quote

 

Conclusions


There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.


(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events ap- pears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.


(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11 to 12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.


(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5 to 10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.


(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

 

(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.


(6) CO2 released from anthropogene sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.


(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.


(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.

 


The implications are pretty clear to anyone with 2 neurons to rub together …

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, benson13 said:

ROTFLMFAO!....BeALOSER by showing fake graphs of BS thinks he's making a point...LMFAO!

 

Stick with your Fake Invented Crimes on Hillary....thats even funnier you MORON

 

Pluck, pluck, pluck ... you big COWARD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We suffered a similar assault on science in Canada a decade ago. The conservative government cut funding and placed communication restrictions on federally employed scientists. The evidence pointed to man made global warming so the government tried to hide the evidence. 

 

Scientists took to the streets to protest. The public got behind the scientists and managed to curtail some of the worst government tendencies to control he flow of scientific information. 

 

 

ottawa-scientists-protest.png?imwidth=72

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Olivaw said:

We suffered a similar assault on science in Canada a decade ago. The conservative government cut funding and placed communication restrictions on federally employed scientists. The evidence pointed to man made global warming so the government tried to hide the evidence. 

 

Scientists took to the streets to protest. The public got behind the scientists and managed to curtail some of the worst government tendencies to control he flow of scientific information. 

 

 

ottawa-scientists-protest.png?imwidth=72

 

 

Here ^^^^^^ is another COWARD that ran from the last AGW debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poor dumbfuc'ks.

 

So beanie shi'tstain, PLEASE EXPLAIN THE REASONS THAT NOAA HAVE, on 3 occasions, ADJUSTED "temperature data" from decades past, DOWNWARD in an attempt to "prove global warming"??

 

BECAUSE, unless they did, there is ABSOLUTELY NO GLOBAL WARMING TO BE FOUND.

 

You MANIPULATED MORONS are soooooo easy to fool.

 

REAL SCIENTIFICALLY LITERATE PEOPLE SEE THROUGH THIS CRAP SO FAST, YOU shi'tstains ARE LEFT IN THE DUST.

 

ADD TO IT, YOU CAN'T GIVE ME ONE SINGLE "PREDICTION" THAT YOUR "Global Warming" PSEUDO-SCIENTISTS HAVE MADE THAT HAS EVER COME TRUE.

 

EVER.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, MidnightMax said:

Poor dumbfuc'ks.

 

So beanie shi'tstain, PLEASE EXPLAIN THE REASONS THAT NOAA HAVE, on 3 occasions, ADJUSTED "temperature data" from decades past, DOWNWARD in an attempt to "prove global warming"??

 

BECAUSE, unless they did, there is ABSOLUTELY NO GLOBAL WARMING TO BE FOUND.

 

You MANIPULATED MORONS are soooooo easy to fool.

 

REAL SCIENTIFICALLY LITERATE PEOPLE SEE THROUGH THIS CRAP SO FAST, YOU shi'tstains ARE LEFT IN THE DUST.

 

ADD TO IT, YOU CAN'T GIVE ME ONE SINGLE "PREDICTION" THAT YOUR "Global Warming" PSEUDO-SCIENTISTS HAVE MADE THAT HAS EVER COME TRUE.

 

EVER.

 

STILL WAITING ON OUR RESIDENT BOARD shi'tstain to answer.

 

FAILURE TO ANSWER MEAN YOU LOSE BEANIE.

 

READ THE BOARD RULES.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

22 hours ago, MidnightMax said:

ADD TO IT, YOU CAN'T GIVE ME ONE SINGLE "PREDICTION" THAT YOUR "Global Warming" PSEUDO-SCIENTISTS HAVE MADE THAT HAS EVER COME TRUE.

 

EVER.

 

Quote

Recent global temperatures demonstrate human-based warming: Over the past 25 years temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.190C per decade, in every good agreement with predictions based on greenhouse gas increases. Even over the past ten years, despite a decrease in solar forcing, the trend continues to be one of warming. Natural, short- term fluctuations are occurring as usual but there have been no significant changes in the underlying warming trend.

 

http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/executive_summary.html

 

 

Figure-25-300x200.png

 

https://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/more-resources-on-climate-change/climate-change-lines-of-evidence-booklet/evidence-impacts-and-choices-figure-gallery/figure-25/

(National Academy of Sciences)

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Want to see another good example of how dishonestly deceptive these AGWTruthers are, folks?

 

Here's what Olivaw posts to make you think AGW has lead to faster rising sea level recently and that the IPCC was able to predict it  ...

 

1 hour ago, Olivaw said:

 

 

Figure-25-300x200.png

 

 

But here's what the sea level did from 1855 to 1970 ...

Sea-level-data-since-1855.jpgfrom ( 

( from http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/08/an-inconvenient-deception-how-al-gore-distorts-climate-science-and-energy-policy/ )

 

But as you can see, the rate of increase is the same as from 1970 to 2010.

 

In other words, CO2 hasn't increased the average rate at which the sea level is rising the past 150 years.

 

In fact, here's a detailed look at what sea level has done since 1993, when CO2 was rising the fastest ...

 

sealeavel_1993-2012.gif

 

The rate of rise has DECREASED.

 

Olivaw is either ignorant or dishonestly employing scare tactics.

 

Probably both to some extent.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

CHILDREN JUST AREN'T GOING TO KNOW WHAT SNOW IS

 

Tim Blair
 
less than 2 min read
January 17, 2013 - 4:03AM
 
0 comments
 
 

The Independent, 2000:

Snow is starting to disappear from our lives. Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain's culture, as warmer winters – which scientists are attributing to global climate change – produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries … Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community … According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event". "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.
Stand by for icy blasts and heavy sno
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Denialists ignore data showing:

 

Climate deaths significantly down over 100 years

Extreme weather down/steady 100+ years

Polar bears increased since 1960

More trees than 40 years ago

More food than ever

 

 

All documented by peer review, NASA, NOAA here:

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ClownCrusher said:

Denialists ignore data showing:

 

You are the science and reality denier, ClownCretin. You!

 

2 hours ago, ClownCrusher said:

Climate deaths significantly down over 100 years

 

A lie. Here’s just one event just in one year, out of many similar events over the last 30 years and more.

 

The 2003 European heat wave led to the hottest summer on record in Europe since at least 1540.[2] Francewas hit especially hard. The heat wave led to health crises in several countries and combined with drought to create a crop shortfall in parts of Southern Europe. Peter reviewed analysis places the European death toll at more than 70,000.[3]

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, ClownCrusher said:

Extreme weather down/steady 100+ years

 

A lie. Extreme weather events have increased dramatically as a result of human caused global warming.

Weather-related disasters increase over past 50 years ...
https://public.wmo.int › media › press-release › weather-r...

The number of disasters has increased by a factor of five over the 50-year period, driven by climate change, more extreme weather and ...

Aug 31, 2021 · Uploaded by World Meteorological Organization - WMO

 

****

Extreme Weather and Climate Change - Center for Climate ...
https://www.c2es.org › content › extreme-weather-and-...

One of the most visible consequences of a warming world is an increase in the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events.

 

*****

Extreme Weather Events Have Increased Significantly in the ...
https://e360.yale.edu › digest › extreme-weather-events...

Oct 13, 2020 — There has been a “staggering rise” in the number of extreme weather events over the past 20 years, driven largely by rising global ...

 

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, ClownCrusher said:

Polar bears increased since 1960

 

A lie. Polar bear numbers have been in decline as the Arctic ice disappears and their habitat shrinks.

Polar bear population decline a wake up call for climate ...
worldwildlife.org › stories › polar-bear-po...

Forty percent. That's the stunning population loss for polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea. The news comes from a new study linking the dramatic ...

*****

Polar Bear Numbers Plummeting in Alaska, Canada—What ...
https://www.nationalgeographic.com › animals › article

Nov 20, 2014 — A large population of polar bears in Alaska and Canada has decreased by 40 percent since the start of the new millennium, new research shows ...

 

 

 

2 hours ago, ClownCrusher said:

More trees than 40 years ago

 

A lie. Human caused climate changes are killing forests……and human deforestation is making global warming/climate changes even worse.

 

 
May 28, 2020 — In a new report published in Science magazine, researchers warn that climate change is accelerating the death of trees, stunting their growth ...


*****

Tree Loss - Bloomberg.com
https://www.bloomberg.com › graphics › trees

Deforestation around the world—especially in tropical areas like the Amazon rainforest—are a significant contributor to climate change. Trees absorb carbon ...

 

 

2 hours ago, ClownCrusher said:

More food than ever

 

A lie. Human caused global warming and its consequent climate changes are diminishing food crops and fishing yields.

Climate Impacts on Agriculture and Food Supply

United States EPA

 

 

  • Higher CO2 levels can affect crop yields. Some laboratory experiments suggest that elevated CO2 levels can increase plant growth.  However, other factors, such as changing temperatures, ozone, and water and nutrient constraints, may counteract these potential increases in yield. For example, if temperature exceeds a crop's optimal level, if sufficient water and nutrients are not available, yield increases may be reduced or reversed. Elevated CO2 has been associated with reduced protein and nitrogen content in alfalfa and soybean plants, resulting in a loss of quality.  Reduced grain and forage quality can reduce the ability of pasture and rangeland to support grazing livestock.[1]
  • More extreme temperature and precipitation can prevent crops from growing. Extreme events, especially floods and droughts, can harm crops and reduce yields. For example, in 2010 and 2012, high nighttime temperatures affected corn yields across the U.S. Corn Belt, and premature budding due to a warm winter caused $220 million in losses of Michigan cherries in 2012.[1]
  • Dealing with drought could become a challenge in areas where rising summer temperatures cause soils to become drier. Although increased irrigation might be possible in some places, in other places water supplies may also be reduced, leaving less water available for irrigation when more is needed.
  • Many weeds, pests, and fungi thrive under warmer temperatures, wetter climates, and increased CO2 levels. Currently, U.S. farmers spend more than $11 billion per year to fight weeds, which compete with crops for light, water, and nutrients.[1] The ranges and distribution of weeds and pests are likely to increase with climate change. This could cause new problems for farmers' crops previously unexposed to these species.
  • Though rising CO2 can stimulate plant growth, it also reduces the nutritional value of most food crops. Rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide reduce the concentrations of protein and essential minerals in most plant species, including wheat, soybeans, and rice. This direct effect of rising CO2 on the nutritional value of crops represents a potential threat to human health. Human health is also threatened by increased pesticide use due to increased pest pressures and reductions in the efficacy of pesticides.[
  • Heat waves, which are projected to increase under climate change, could directly threaten livestock. In 2011, exposure to high temperature events caused over $1 billion in heat-related losses to agricultural producers.[1] Heat stress affects animals both directly and indirectly. Over time, heat stress can increase vulnerability to disease, reduce fertility, and reduce milk production.
  • Drought may threaten pasture and feed supplies. Drought reduces the amount of quality forage available to grazing livestock. Some areas could experience longer, more intense droughts, resulting from higher summer temperatures and reduced precipitation. For animals that rely on grain, changes in crop production due to drought could also become a problem.
  • Climate change may increase the prevalence of parasites and diseases that affect livestock. The earlier onset of spring and warmer winters could allow some parasites and pathogens to survive more easily. In areas with increased rainfall, moisture-reliant pathogens could thrive.[6]
  • Potential changes in veterinary practices, including an increase in the use of parasiticides and other animal health treatments, are likely to be adopted to maintain livestock health in response to climate-induced changes in pests, parasites, and microbes. This could increase the risk of pesticides entering the food chain or lead to evolution of pesticide resistance, with subsequent implications for the safety, distribution, and consumption of livestock and aquaculture products.[3]
  • Increases in carbon dioxide (CO2) may increase the productivity of pastures, but may also decrease their quality. Increases in atmospheric CO2 can increase the productivity of plants on which livestock feed. However, the quality of some of the forage found in pasturelands decreases with higher CO2. As a result, cattle would need to eat more to get the same nutritional benefits.
  •  Many aquatic species can find colder areas of streams and lakes or move north along the coast or in the ocean. Nevertheless, moving into new areas may put these species into competition with other species over food and other resources, as explained on the Ecosystems Impacts page.
  • Some marine disease outbreaks have been linked with changing climate.  Higher water temperatures and higher estuarine salinities have enabled an oyster parasite to spread farther north along the Atlantic coast.  Winter warming in the Arctic is contributing to salmon diseases in the Bering Sea and a resulting reduction in the Yukon Chinook Salmon, Finally, warmer temperatures have caused disease outbreaks in coral, eelgrass, and abalone.[3],[10]  
  • Changes in temperature and seasons can affect the timing of reproduction and migration. Many steps within an aquatic animal's lifecycle are controlled by temperature and the changing of the seasons. For example, in the Northwest warmer water temperatures may affect the lifecycle of salmon and increase the likelihood of disease. Combined with other climate impacts, these effects are projected to lead to large declines in salmon populations.[1],[11],[12]
  • In addition to warming, the world's oceans are gradually becoming more acidic due to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). Increasing acidity could harm shellfish by weakening their shells, which are created by removing calcium from seawater. [10] Acidification also threatens the structures of sensitive ecosystems upon which some fish and shellfish rely. [1],[13]

 

 

2 hours ago, ClownCrusher said:

All documented by peer review, NASA, NOAA here:


Another really stupid lie from a really stupid troll…..CLOWNCRETIN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TruePatriot said:

 

You are the science and reality denier, ClownCretin. You!

 

 

 

 

 


Another really stupid lie from a really stupid troll…..CLOWNCRETIN.

 

 

 

From one of your own sources:

 

"Deaths decreased almost threefold from 1970 to 2019. Death tolls fell from over 50 000 deaths in the 1970s to less than 20 000 in the 2010s. The 1970s and 1980s reported an average of 170 related deaths per day. In the 1990s, that average fell by one third to 90 related deaths per day, then continued to fall in the 2010s to 40 related deaths per day."

 

 

Also, you only cited polar bears in certain places.  Numbers have increased overall.

 

You cite deforestation, but trees are a net gain in the world.

 

All cited by my sources and even your own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ClownCrusher said:

From one of your own sources:

 

"Deaths decreased almost threefold from 1970 to 2019. Death tolls fell from over 50 000 deaths in the 1970s to less than 20 000 in the 2010s. The 1970s and 1980s reported an average of 170 related deaths per day. In the 1990s, that average fell by one third to 90 related deaths per day, then continued to fall in the 2010s to 40 related deaths per day."


Irrelevant.

Are polar bear populations increasing: in fact, booming?

Answered by Dr. Steven C. Amstrup, chief scientist with Polar Bears International and USGS polar bear project leader for 30 years.

Q: Why all the fuss about polar bears? Aren't their populations increasing: in fact, booming?

A: One of the most frequent myths we hear about polar bears is that their numbers are increasing and have, in fact, more than doubled over the past thirty years. Tales about how many polar bears there used to be (with claims as low as 5,000 in the 1960s) are undocumented, but cited over and over again. Yet no one I know can come up with a legitimate source for these numbers.* We do know (and I have published papers on this) that some polar bear populations grew after (hunting) quotas were imposed in Canada, aerial hunting ceased in Alaska, and trapping and hunting were banned in Svalbard. All of these events occurred in the late 60s or early 70s, and we know some populations responded—as you would expect. Back then, the sea ice was solid and not noticeably in retreat. With stable habitat, polar bears were a renewable resource that could be harvested/hunted on a sustainable basis. But the most important point is that whatever happened in the past is really irrelevant. Polar bear habitat is disappearing due to global warming. Even the most careful on-the-ground management doesn't matter if polar bears don't have the required habitat. Polar bears depend on the sea ice surface to efficiently catch their seal prey. A shorter duration of ice cover over their productive hunting areas means less opportunity to hunt. A reduction in sea ice has been statistically linked to reduced stature and weight in polar bears and to lower survival rates of cubs. So, it doesn't really matter that hunting is now largely under control or that we know a lot about other impacts people might have on bears. Without habitat, polar bears will disappear no matter what else we do. Declining habitat now and the assurance it will decline in the future is why polar bears were listed as a threatened species. Discussions about how many bears may have lived in the past before and after hunting quotas have no bearing on this new situation. Planetary physics require the world to warm as greenhouse gas concentrations rise, so without greenhouse gas mitigation, the ice will continue to melt. For an animal dependent on sea ice to survive, the prospects are not good. As the ice decline continues, the plight of the polar bear only can worsen.

 

 

 

 

 

6 hours ago, ClownCrusher said:

Also, you only cited polar bears in certain places.  Numbers have increased overall.

 

Another lie! Polar bear numbers have been declining. 
 

Polar Bear Numbers Plummeting in Alaska, Canada—What About the Rest?

National Geographic
 

A large population of polar bears in Alaska and Canada has decreased by 40 percent since the start of the new millennium, new research shows. The number of the large predators living in the southern Beaufort Sea plummeted from 1,500 animals in 2001 to just 900 in 2010, according to the study, published on November 17 in the journal Ecological Applications. Of the most studied populations, four—including the southern Beaufort group—are declining, five are stable, and one, in north-central Canada's M'Clintock Channel (map), is actually increasing, scientists say. The species as a whole is decreasing in number, and is listed as vulnerable by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. The reason for the variability in numbers is location, location, location. "If you're in the high Arctic, there's a greater possibility of population stability [because] there is more ice pack and prey availability," said David Koons, a National Geographic grantee who studies animal populations at Utah State University, in Logan. The southern parts of the polar bear's range, such as the southern Beaufort Sea, are warming faster than the northern regions and are thus more susceptible to melting sea ice. As the ocean heats up due to global warming, Arctic sea ice has been locked in a downward spiral. Since the late 1970s, the ice has retreated by 12 percent per decade, and the decline has worsened since 2007, according to NASA. It's not surprising that the southern Beaufort Sea and its bears are feeling the effects first and more dramatically than those in more northern areas, said Ian Stirling, a biologist at the University of Alberta, in Edmonton, who is studying climate change's impact on polar bears. Polar bears in this region are declining because they use sea ice as hunting platforms to catch their primary prey, seals. But "when that ice is there, it's really jumbled up [due to freezing and refreezing events]," said study leader Jeff Bromaghin, a U.S. Geological Survey statistician who studies wildlife population dynamics. "The seals may be there, but [the polar bears] can't get to them." In 2007, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that the global polar bear population will shrink to a third of its current size by 2050, due to loss of habitat and less access to prey. From the Beaufort numbers, it looks like things are right on track, or perhaps even speeding up, according to Bromaghin. "Nothing in this study contradicts the 2007 estimates," said Bromaghin. "Actually, observed loss of sea ice in the Arctic has been greater than earlier climate models. We're losing ice faster than forecasted."The fundamental concept is simple," he said. "As we continue to lose ice, particularly during key feeding periods, numbers of polar bears will decline."

 

 

 

6 hours ago, ClownCrusher said:

 

You cite deforestation, but trees are a net gain in the world.

 

Bullshit, liar.

 

Between 2015 and 2020, the rate of deforestation was estimated at 10 million hectares per year, down from 16 million hectares per year in the 1990s. The area of primary forest worldwide has decreased by over 80 million hectares since 1990.

 

 

 

6 hours ago, ClownCrusher said:

 

All cited by my sources and even your own.


Not mine…..and your sources must be crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TruePatriot said:

 

 

 

 

 

Bullshit, liar.

 

 The area of primary forest worldwide has decreased by over 80 million hectares since 1990.

 

 

 

 

"Primary" forest is not total forest.  Total forest has increased:

 

 

Here we analyse 35 years’ worth of satellite data and provide a comprehensive record of global land-change dynamics during the period 1982–2016. We show that—contrary to the prevailing view that forest area has declined globally5—tree cover has increased by 2.24 million km2 (+7.1% relative to the 1982 level).

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0411-9

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...