Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Giant study pinpoints warming effects

DEBORAH ZABARENKO

Reuters

Latest comment posted at 5:18 PM EDT 14/05/08

Flowers bloom earlier, leaves fall later and polar bears turn cannibal, global study says of human-generated climate change ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Ruth Walker from Edmonton, Canada writes: Pesky scientists, always wanting to cloud our beliefs with measurements and verified facts.

    Let us hope our brilliant PM will continue to shield us from reality.

    And how will our children and our grandchildren remember this time and the choices we are making? My guess is that we will be seen as willfully ignorant, inconsiderate idiots.
  2. John Lennox from Toronto, Canada writes: I’m sure it would be safe to also say that the reduction in pirates since 1850 is 99% correlated to observed biological and physical changes in this study. The link between the two is weak and the link in this study is weak making the conclusions of this study is very dangerous.

    What would be more convincing is if she linked the increase in human generated carbon dioxide and NASA&8217;s recast temperature data. I&8217;m sure the correlation would be much less than 99%.
  3. James Cyr from Balmertown, Canada writes: In the 1960's, when the flavour-of-the-month was the coming ice age, studies indicated that this was verified by certain species of plants that were appearing and disappearing as a result of the 'cooling' phenomenon. While there is no doubt that glaciers are melting, and migratory habits of some species are changing, this may point to climatic fluctuations rather than anthropogenic global warming. Be that as it may, we should be doing all we can to reduce harmful emissions into the atmosphere.
  4. Gary Thomson from Surrey, BC, Canada writes: There are none so blind as those who will not see.
  5. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: While the warming from 1970-2000 is unequivocal, this study does nothing to substantiate the claim that the warming was anthropogenic.
  6. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Temperatures have not been rising for nearly seven years now, in the face of ever more rapidly increasing GHG concentrations:

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.pdf
  7. aging oldtool from Canada writes: And the deniers went marching on....like lemmings, fully aware their leadership was right.
  8. Albin Forone from Canada writes: G&M has to cover the current televised speech in which the US is designating polar bears as 'threatened' where the main context of executive decisions is to firmly mandate that O&G exploration and development is not the problem (declining arctic sea ice is) so that regulations will be decreased (yes, that's what he says) to be sure that arctic O&G exploration is not fettered by inflexible environmental rules. This Secretary of the Interior Kempthorne could give predecessor James Watt bafflegab lessons.
  9. Tweev D from Halifax, Canada writes: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html

    Climate change facts
    Fact 1: Climate change is happening and humans are contributing to it
    Fact 2: The current climate change is not just part of a natural cycle
    Fact 3 If we continue emitting greenhouse gases this warming will continue and delaying action will make the problem more difficult to fix
    Fact 4: Temperatures are continuing to rise
    Fact 5: Recent warming cannot be explained by the Sun or natural factors alone Fact 6: Climate models predict the main features of future climate

    Climate change myths
    Myth 1: The intensity of cosmic rays changes climate
  10. David N from Toronto, Canada writes: Next time you encounter a denier (and I see one or two out already)
    ask them to read this:
    http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/05/10/junk-science/
  11. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    James Cyr writes: 'In the 1960's...the flavour-of-the-month was the coming ice age.'

    That's quite an overstatement.

    There was a brief cooling period in the 70s. A minority of scientists thought that aerosol pollution (which has a cooling effect by acting as a sunlight reflector in the atmosphere) could be the dominant climate factor in future if not controlled.

    Even this minority of scientists understood and agreed with the conclusion that increased CO2 acts as a warming factor (which has been well known since at least the 70s). They simply thought the cooling effect of aerosols would be stonger if aerosol pollution continued unchecked.

    What happened?

    Strict controls were put on aerosol pollution in the 70s all around the developed world (smog kills people afterall), aerosol pollution dropped sharply, but CO2 continued to rise relentlessly.

    The result?

    The period from 1970-2000 saw the sharpest rise in average surface temperatures in at least 5,000 years.
  12. Honesty is the best Policy from Canada writes:
    Harper says its OK. Keep those Tar Sands Rollin'.
  13. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    GlynnMhor writes: 'Temperatures have not been rising for nearly seven years now, in the face of ever more rapidly increasing GHG concentrations'

    This happened in the 70s too for a bit (see my previous post). But temperatures rose sharply after that (as you correctly admit).

    Surface temperature increases have levelled off in recent years (albeit at some of the highest temperatures on record).

    Most scientists agree this levelling off is the result of temporary shifts in ocean currents. The additional heat (which increased CO2 is no doubt capturing) now appears to be warming up the deep ocean a bit more than it was before.

    When the ocean currents change again (as they've always done) we can expect some of this buried heat to return to the surface and add to the warming caused by AGW.
  14. James Cyr from Balmertown, Canada writes: Voice of Reason: regarding my post of 1:59 pm, that is NOT an overstatement. I read the articles, unfortunately I can not remember the exact references or links. The articles gave specific evidence as to a coming ice age, and they referred to 'ice age' in that exact term. Later evidence of course revealed that such was not the case. These articles were written in the mid sixties, not the seventies.
  15. R. M. from Regina, Canada writes: Let's add a few:

    1. Politicians get more reckless with their promises and then start to flip flop on ethanol production projects.
    2. Scientists get more hyerbolic and myopic.
    3. Dogs and cats sweat more.

    and on it goes.
  16. Joe Canada from Kingston, Canada writes: Gary Thomson from Surrey, BC, Canada writes: There are none so blind as those who will not see.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are none so foolish, as those who do not think.
  17. martha stewart from Canada writes: Polar bears are always cannibals when opportunity arises, particularly males preying on cubs or yearlings. Same with grizzly bears. Any increase in this behavior is due to there being more young bears available to kill as much as anything else.

    Since robins migrate north as fast as they can - to claim the best breeding territories - and that rate is primarily limited by snow cover, it is only logical than during warmer years they would arrive earlier. This is not some profound or revolutionary shift. In years with later snow cover - like this year - they will arrive later.

    These findings are all simply natural adaptations to the changes in the period studied. But they are being portrayed as something more. Of course.
  18. Matthew Baldwin from Canada writes: I have a hard time any 'report' seriously that begins with: 'and turned some polar bears into cannibals'. I should add, that anyone in Ontario who watches the Weather Network on their long-term forecasts would have noticed that we've been between 2 and 3 degrees below [b]average[/b] temperatures since about October. And to Tweev D, all I have to say is the 'facts' posted are wrong. Google sunspot activity vs temperature and you'll see a shocking correllation that goes back to the 1800's. In addition, if you think Greenhouse Gases are so important and insulatory, please explain The Little Ice Age. I dare you....
  19. K M from toronto, Canada writes: I guess Al Gore was right.
  20. Antonio San from Canada writes: First the source: GISS headed by Hansen, then Nature the pro AGW journal then the facts as presented by this reuters article: ' ANTARCTICA: 50-per-cent decline in population of emperor penguins on Antarctic Peninsula; retreating glaciers.' All the poster boys used by the Global Warming rhetorics are used in this so called study, a compilation of IPCC AR4, kindly reviewed by 'independent' reviewers including some Canadian.
    Meanwhile AGW seems to not reach the 85% of Antarctica that is cooling and not losing ice mass. Meanwhile despite record CO2 emissions during the past ten years, global temepratures are flat to decreasing: there is NO warming. European glaciers were known to have retreated much more during the Roman Empire period etc...

    Once again, climate change is substituted to AGW in order to make the biased arguments sound true. the problem is that for each of these arguments, counter arguments can be made just as the Antarctica peninsula/maincontinent story demonstrate.

    I guess because pro AGW articles now flourish again in the Globe, it must be spring in Toronto and someone has to sell some carbon...
  21. Honesty is the best Policy from Canada writes:
    Lots of hot air from the deniers here.
  22. PANIC! At The Ice Floe from Ottawa, Canada writes: Climate change facts Fact 1: Climate change is happening and humans are contributing to it Fact 2: The current climate change is not just part of a natural cycle Fact 3 If we continue emitting greenhouse gases this warming will continue and delaying action will make the problem more difficult to fix Fact 4: Temperatures are continuing to rise Fact 5: Recent warming cannot be explained by the Sun or natural factors alone Fact 6: Climate models predict the main features of future climate Climate change myths Myth 1: The intensity of cosmic rays changes climate Free and loose with the word FACT aren't we? 'facts' 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 can be dispelled by a number of theories and questions to varying degrees. Myth 1 you list is also bogus IMO. You stating something is fact doesn't make it so. Look up the definition of fact before you post again. So if the sun has nothing to do with warming (how this doesn't sound completely idiotic is beyond me), please do tell me why it is that I got a sunburn yesterday after being out for around 1/2 hour? I only burned once in the past when I was a kid. The thing that drives absolutely nuts about people like yourself is that you attempt to complicate the issue well beyond what is needed and completely disregard (to the point of name calling) anything obvious. I'm not saying that pollution is good; It's bad, but that isn't the issue at hand. In fact, the only good thing to come out of this bogus CO2 'debate' is that air pollution will improve as a result of better MPG, reduction of coal plants etc. The expression 'You've had common sense educated out of you' comes to mind.
  23. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    James Cyr: Here's the link to the famous 'ice age' story in Time. It was in 1974 (The colling started in 1972, not in the 60s)

    www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914-1,00.html

    Below is a poriton of the article. There was hardly agreement that an ice age was coming, and many believed man was responsible for the temporary cooling (aerosols-like I said).

    Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.

    Some scientists like Donald Oilman, chief of the National Weather Service's long-range-prediction group, think that the cooling trend may be only temporary.
  24. Biggest Redneck from Somewhere, United States writes: So to simplify what is said in the article.
    If spring comes early and the plants and animals also arrive early this is evidence of AGW??
    You would think the even the 'Believers' of the religion of the Goracle would find this a bit of a leap
  25. Harbinger from Out West from Prince George, Canada writes: My wallet is wide open. Take all you need to stop this Global warming /climate change thing. If there is not enough, I'll go get some more. Right?
  26. James Cyr from Balmertown, Canada writes: Voice of Reason: I am not disputing your link nor the 1974 article; all I am saying is that I remember reading articles on the 'coming ice age' in the mid 60's. I just can not remember what journal I read them in.
  27. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    Harbinger writes: 'My wallet is wide open. Take all you need to stop this Global warming /climate change thing. If there is not enough, I'll go get some more. Right?'

    Oh, please.

    Who has ever asked you for a dime to fight global warming?

    In fact, the only thing anyone's ever done to you to fight global warming is to show you how to save money, and keep it in your wallet!

    Get real.
  28. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    James Cyr -

    If the article you're thinking of dated from the 60s, it was probably in a science fiction magazine.

    There was no 'cooling period' in the 60s. Only sharp warming. So I can't see how any scientist could have theorized a 'coming ice age' in the 60s.

    There was a very sharp temporary cooling in 72-74. But even then, only a very few scientists we talking 'ice age.' Most were saying the cooling is temporary, and the warming tend will continue due to AGW.

    They are saying exactly the same thing now.
  29. Gary Thomson from Surrey, BC, Canada writes: Joe Canada(3:33): This matter falls into the area of scientific expertise. I am not a scientist but I am willing to defer to the scientific consensus on the matter. It's not a matter of 'thinking' or voting or personal opinion. There simply are no credible scientists claiming to be able to refute greenhouse gas climate change, just as there are no credible scientists claiming to be able to refute evolution. Those laymen, and this includes you Uncle Glynn,(psst, close your robe ol' darlin') that continue to deny this phenomenon in the face of overwhelming evidence and scientific consensus are: a) simply unable to grasp the scientific concepts involved ('But we here had a record cold winter'.); b) uninformed about the process and methodology of scientific epstimology ('I vote against global warming.'); c) pathologically self-interested ('Carbon taxes will lower my profits/raise my costs so it must be bunk.'); d) so over supplied with hubris that they delude themselves into thinking they know better than everyone else ('Sunspots! Have you looked at the sunspot data?'); and/or e) oppositional personalities (cranks!). I think, my friend, I just don't think my personal preference in this matter overrides the scientific work of thousands of actual scientists.
  30. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    martha stewart writes: 'Polar bears are always cannibals when opportunity arises.'

    Ding, Ding, Ding!

    We have a winner!

    The most ridiculous statement of the day!

    A species which cannibalizes itself whenever 'opportunity arises' would become extinct rather quickly. So quickly, in fact, that they'd never have time to have evolved in the first place!
  31. Antonio San from Canada writes: Voice of reason by now I thought you would stop spewing your uninformed drivel: 'Most scientists agree this levelling off is the result of temporary shifts in ocean currents.' really? Yes in one article that suddenly conveniently tries to explain why IPCC and other GISS prediction did NOT predict anything!
  32. anonymous contributor from Canada writes: voice of reason is putting up a valiant fight defending the obvious. it's a complete waste of time. if global warming sped up you'd still hear these clowns saying things like: 'there's been lots of winters without snow.'
    'the palm trees are moving north because they're running out of space.'
    '30 degrees on new year's? big deal, it's just a warm winter.'
    NEVER argue, just move on. let them implode.
  33. Mr X from Canada writes: 'Ruth Walker from Edmonton, Canada writes: Pesky scientists, always wanting to cloud our beliefs with measurements and verified facts.'

    So how come core samples in the Arctic Ocean have revealed that 54 Million years ago the Arctic Ocean Temperature was a balmy 74 degrees Fahrenheit. Science has confirmed this. So was there more CO2 then leading to extreme warming or are we coming out of global cooling.

    See its not good enough to have facts unless you can interpret them correctly. The trouble with global warming is that there are lots of holes that people cannot explain.

    On the otherhand putting an end to polution is a good thing that should be promoted. However if just focus on CO2 then we are not doing enough.
  34. Crazy Canuck from Canada writes: Fact 1: Climate change is happening and humans are contributing to it Real Fact 1: Climate has always changed and always will. Humans may be contributing to it but we have no idea how much that contribution is nor do we know whether CO2 represents the major factor in that contribution. Fact 2: The current climate change is not just part of a natural cycle Real Fact 2: We don't understand the climate well enough to make that claim. We know the planet has gone through a warming phase every 1000 years or so over the past several thousand. Fact 3 If we continue emitting greenhouse gases this warming will continue and delaying action will make the problem more difficult to fix Real Fact 3a: We don't have the technology to replace current energy sources with non-CO2 emitting sources. We have no choice but to wait until technically feasible alternatives arise. Real Fact 3b: We have no reason to believe that warming is necessarily bad. It makes more economic sense to focus on developing the economic wealth required to allow societies to adapt to whatever changes come. Fact 4: Temperatures are continuing to rise Real Fact 4: Temperatures have plateaued and have started to cool. Fact 5: Recent warming cannot be explained by the Sun or natural factors alone Real Fact 5: We simply do not understand the sun or the oceans well enough to exclude them as possible factors. Fact 6: Climate models predict the main features of future climate Real Fact 6: Climate models are exercises in curve fitting that only produce results consistent with the assumptions built into them. They tell us nothing about the future of the climate nor do they provide any proof that their assumption are correct.
  35. Biggest Redneck from Somewhere, United States writes: Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    martha stewart writes: 'Polar bears are always cannibals when opportunity arises.'

    Ding, Ding, Ding!

    We have a winner!

    The most ridiculous statement of the day!

    A species which cannibalizes itself whenever 'opportunity arises' would become extinct rather quickly. So quickly, in fact, that they'd never have time to have evolved in the first place!

    Ding Ding Ding
    You might want to check the facts there city boy.
    Polar bears and Grizzlies have always been cannibals. Male bears will take a young bear. Thats why the bear family unit doesn't consist of Boar , Sow and cub. Sows with cubs avoid males.
  36. James Cyr from Balmertown, Canada writes: Voice of Reason: All I am doing is stating that the NON SCIENCE FICTION articles I read were during the middle 1960's. For you to say that it was probably in a science fiction magazine is a bit presumptuous, to say the least--sort of like the conclusions you are drawing with your other posts.... I was there....I read the article..you did not.
  37. Tweev D from Canada writes: Real facts? I thought facts were facts.. Yeesh crazy canuck! I should take some randomly names persons 'real facts' over the met office? Give me a break! Go crawl back under your rock. This debate is over.
  38. Walker fromtheevilempireofAB from Canada writes: Tweev D from Halifax

    I'm a geoscientist, I study the earth for a living.

    Fluctuations in the energy levels coming off the sun can and do effect surface temperatures of planets.

    The earth's climate is dynamic, meaning it has always and will always change. There is no 'fixing' it.

    There are many, many, many factors that effect climate patterns. CO2 is one of them but it is only a percentage of what effects the climate. Of that percentage humans contribute a percentage. We may, and I stress may, be effecting the rate of climate change, but we are not the only cause.

    Stopping CO2 emissions will not stop the climate from changing. In fact in Earths history our current climate conditions are below average temperature. The Earth is colder than normal! What about all poor species that were killed when things got colder? No one thinks of them.

    Keep drumming up that fear!
  39. Arec Bardwin from Canada writes: Oh My Goodness. Flowers bloom early. Leaves stay on trees longer. Robin's are coming north earlier. Trees are growing faster. This is the end of the world people! Never before has the earth felt these types of disasters.

    How can I stop this madness that will kill everyone? Who do I send my check to? Won't somebody think of the children!!!

  40. V ADS from Canada writes: This kind of 'news' is a joke that isn't funny anymore. Do these people really believe that climate is supposed to NOT change?

    Are early-blooming lilacs a cause for global panic? I think not.

    My lilacs are more than a month late blooming this year and you don't see me running around like Chicken Little with my head cut off.
  41. martha stewart from Canada writes: Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    martha stewart writes: 'Polar bears are always cannibals when opportunity arises.'

    Ding, Ding, Ding!

    We have a winner!

    The most ridiculous statement of the day!

    A species which cannibalizes itself whenever 'opportunity arises' would become extinct rather quickly. So quickly, in fact, that they'd never have time to have evolved in the first place!

    -------

    You need to do some research. Male bears - polar, grizzly and black bears - kill cubs and yearlings regularly. It is part of their evolutionary competition. I should have been more specific with my wording. When I said 'always' that doesn't mean every time bears meet but does mean that this is typical and normal behaviour - not some great change due to climate change as implied.

    If you don't get this - and you obviously don't - you need to understand that in the absence of human predation bear populations control themselves this way.
  42. martha stewart from Canada writes: Biggest Redneck - Just noticed you too answered Voice of Reason's ill informed post. Amazing how some people imagine nature eh?

    But if I wasn't being so lazy today I would have worded my comment better. That would have helped.
  43. Tweev D from Canada writes: Martha, if you're being a stickler -- you really shouldn't say 'control themselves', that implies that there is some grand plan or thought put into it. Male bears kill cubs (presumably) simply to bring the female back into a reproductive state so the male can then mate with her, thereby, fathering cub(s) and maximizing its reproductive success. Killing the cubs has nothing to do with the population directly 'controlling itself'. Amazing how some people imagine ecology eh?
    However, if global warming is reducing food resources and males are actively hunting young cubs (and mothers) for food this could reduce population size.
  44. Biggest Redneck from Somewhere, United States writes: Hey Martha
    Even Disney showed that one back in the day.
    It never fails to amaze me that people see nature as this mythical unchanging thing. They seem to believe that nothing in nature ever changed or can change without man's influence.
    We didn't cause the little ice age and I highly doubt we are causing the present warming with a trace gas in the atmosphere.
    Really I mean you could never pick a day when all the geese went south from Canada.
  45. V ADS from Canada writes: Male rabbits will eat their young too, which, considering how fast they breed, is no doubt a survival tactic. This is not meant to be proof that the earth is getting warmer, or cooler. It is what it is.
  46. A Skeptic from Canada writes: How much would you pay to save the polar bears? How much would you pay to save the earth from climate change? It's going to cost way more than you think. More than people can afford. It's worth being really sure that climate change is a problem caused by CO2 before you go down this road.
  47. Gerry Macdonald from Vancouver, Canada writes: This is a bit redundant after some of the more recent posts, but in answer to Gary Thompson, the scientific consensus on AGW is not nearly so unanimous as one might think. Examples of just a few of the very many 'deniers:' Dr. Duncan Wingham, Professor of Climate Physics at University College London Dr. Henrik Svensmark, director of the Centre for Sun-Climate research at the Danish Space Research Institute (DSRI) Dr. Pierre Jutras, associate professor of geology at Saint Mary's University in Halifax. Dr. Feeman Dyson, professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. You may not agree with them, but these are all credible scientists. Check out their research.
  48. Biggest Redneck from Somewhere, United States writes: Tweev D from Canada writes:
    However, if global warming is reducing food resources and males are actively hunting young cubs (and mothers) for food this could reduce population size.

    It never ceases to amaze me how you can take something that happens naturally and turn it into more proof of AGW.
    Bears are cannibals. Male bears eat young bears. This is not proof of AGW. It's not proof of anything the article doesn't say an increase in cannabalism.
  49. KSW livin'in from Canada writes: martha stewart from Canada writes: Biggest Redneck - Just noticed you too answered Voice of Reason's ill informed post. Amazing how some people imagine nature eh?

    Well if you didn't mean ALWAYS you should not write always.

    Still the most ridiculous statement of the day!
  50. PANIC! At The Ice Floe from Ottawa, Canada writes: Umm...Tweev...You trying to discredit Martha on a technicality does not in any way discount the fact that Voice got schooled. Are you Mr. or Mrs. Reason?

    Voice, most unfortunate that you decided to mock and ridicule on a subject that you obviously know nothing about. It does make me think of the expression 'The blunter the instrument, the harder people swing it'.
  51. Tweev D from Canada writes: PANIC! I pointed that out b/c martha chastized someone for their poor wording. The way martha put it, it was equally incorrect - if the old fool wants to play that game....

    Redneck - you think about things far too simply. We're not talking about whether something happens or not - it's about rates. It's obvious that many didn't take calculus here so I'm willing to forgive, however, by your mioptic view a murder rate of 1 in 10000 is the same as 1 in 500. I hope the anthropocentric example will make the difference clear to you and why there is cause for concern.
  52. martha stewart from Canada writes: Tweev D - Excellent critique. I'm being very lazy today. Your specific points explained what I meant about their 'evolutionary competition.'

    I should have used the words 'self-regulating' too.

    But I would disagree, sort of, with your comment that 'Killing the cubs has nothing to do with the population directly 'controlling itself'....

    Yes it does but indirectly. No doubt that is not what they are deliberately doing of course but this behavior increases with increasing bear population density and also during years of increased food stress ( which happens regularly for a species like black or grizzly bears which depend of varying berry crops, etc.). In the absence of human predation male bears are in fact the primary mechanism for bear population control. They kill young for the reason you mention but they also kill them to eat and they kill other older bears too.

    As I'm sure you know, there is mountains of research on this.
  53. Antonio San from Canada writes: Hegerl and Zwiers, who very unusually publicly declared themselves to be reviewers of this paper, were the two Coordinating Lead Authors of IPCC WG I chapter 9... This is the chapter in which human activity is blamed for the warming since the mid-twentieth century.

    Indeed this 'independent, peer review'... NOT! Nature has become a mouthpiece for IPCC. Given the lead author and the reviewers, Achim Steiner must have added his golden touch to this PR...
  54. Mary Coyote from Canada writes: Antonio San: Please don't abuse us with your cut/pastes. Just post the URL if you want us to read something. If you have an argument to make with your own words, please do.

    Let's see if I understand your many cut/pastes:
    1)- if we can find glaciers somewhere in the world which are NOT shrinking then this is proof that GW is false.
    2)- if we can find more sever droughts somewhere in the earth's history than predicted by GW, then this proves that future droughts will not be caused by GW.

    Cherry-picking and nit-picking does not prove anything, especially when you are not willing to show your sources, nor clean up your cut/pastes to encourage understanding. In conclusion I think you are just trying to baffle-us-with-bullshit.

    DO YOU HAVE A PEER-REVIEWED PAPER FOR US TO SEE? Post it.
  55. martha stewart from Canada writes: Tweev D - Where did I criticize someone on their wording? BTW, I'm old but not a fool.

    KSW - Now that it has been explained why is it ridiculous?

    Here's what is ridiculous, and deliberately dishonest.

    Suggesting that cannibalism by bears is something unusual and new and caused by climate change or anything else.

    It is a normal part of bear behaviour, particularly for adult males. But subadult males and adult females also do this when opportunity arises and the circumstances motivate them.

    Just so you know, every bear is different. And they are different on different days, different years, and at different stages of their lives.

    So, did I cover all the little nit-picking details this time? I guess I'll find out.

    But once again, the KEY POINT: cannibalism is not abnormal nor is it caused by anything new related to climate change or anything else.
  56. Tweev D from Canada writes: rates
  57. Mary Coyote from Canada writes: James Cyr posted: all I am saying is that I remember reading articles on the 'coming ice age' in the mid 60's. I just can not remember what journal I read them in. .... I was there....I read the article..you did not.

    OKAY, James, we get it already: your 40-year old memories are more accurate than posted evidence. We can see why you are a climate change denier: curmudgeon.
  58. Mary Coyote from Canada writes: martha stewart: Yes dear, you are tediously correct. Since Humans have a history of cannibalistic behavior that means that cannibalism is a natural human expression.

    I think you really need to find out if the research was seeing indications of abnormal cannibalistic behavior. Were females eating young bears? Were males eating each other?
  59. Biggest Redneck from Somewhere, United States writes: OK Tweev show me where the rates are here

    – NORTH AMERICA: Earlier plant flowering of 89 species from American holly to sassafras; intraspecific predation, cannibalism and declining population of polar bears; earlier breeding and arrival dates of birds including robins and Canada geese.

    There is no rates. There is nothing. No percentage no numbers for your Calculus.
    It doesn't say cannabalism has increased or give a rate at which it is increasing although I would say the implication they are trying to make is that cannabilism amongst bears is now happening. As we have noted above it has always happened.
    So why put that in the atricle? Oh right for people like VOR who don't know that bears are naturally cannibals and who would then attribute bear cannabalism to AGW.
    Seems pretty simple to me.
  60. Honesty is the best Policy from Canada writes:
    I am surprised so many here work for or worship the Oil Lords. Surely no one else benefits from all this denial of Nobel Award Winning Science. If we slow down our exploitation of the planet many generations will benefit.

    If we continue only Big Oil benefits. Only for a while.
  61. Biggest Redneck from Somewhere, United States writes: Mary Coyote from Canada writes: martha stewart: Yes dear, you are tediously correct. Since Humans have a history of cannibalistic behavior that means that cannibalism is a natural human expression.

    I think you really need to find out if the research was seeing indications of abnormal cannibalistic behavior. Were females eating young bears? Were males eating each other

    Wrong
    The researcher in this giant study should tell us why bear cannabalism is include as evidence of AGW.
    It's called asking questions an not taking what you are being fed at face value.
  62. Biggest Redneck from Somewhere, United States writes: Honesty is the best Policy from Canada writes:
    I am surprised so many here work for or worship the Oil Lords. Surely no one else benefits from all this denial of Nobel Award Winning Science. If we slow down our exploitation of the planet many generations will benefit.

    If we continue only Big Oil benefits. Only for a while.

    And there is the devil in the religion of AGW
  63. martha stewart from Canada writes: Tweev D - Rates vary for all bear populations depending on regular food crop cycles. For black bears or grizzly bears they regularly vary with berry crops and regular berry crop failures.

    But higher rates is not what this article suggests. It suggests that this is something entirely new. Moreover, this claim is based only on anecdotal evidence. That said, it would not be at all surprising if in years when they are food stressed there would be more such predation and cannibalism. Indeed, that would be predictable.

    But it must also be understood that this is also related to their relative population density. If the populations are in fact higher to begin with, there will be more food competition and more food stress in any case.

    The question is whether what we have seen recently is actually the beginning of a long term trend in ice cover and food availability or not. In the meantime, any reduction of hunting kills WILL be compensated by increased destruction of 'problem bears.'
  64. Mary Coyote from Canada writes: Gerry Macdonald: Thank you for posting the names of a couple of “credible scientists” that disagree with the consensus. Two things here: first the operative word here is CONSENSUS. There are still some flat earth believers and evolution deniers: does that mean we should take them seriously?

    Secondly, could you find some Climatologists that do not agree with the consensus? Scientists educated in physics and mathematics are not the best source. The difference is that climatologists are educated in BIOLOGY, which is the basic foundation for climate science.

    Just because you have a Diploma in Autobody Science does not a climate expert make you.
  65. Mary Coyote from Canada writes: Biggest Redneck posted: Wrong. The researcher in this giant study should tell us why bear cannibalism is included as evidence of AGW.

    *
    Excuse me, sir. You already acquired a copy of this report and had time to study it? Gee wizz, I can see why you are a denier.

    This is a NEWS REPORT: you know newspapers? They only report on the report. You are assuming way too much from a newspaper article. Please get yourself a copy of the real thing before you post your uninformed opinions as fact.
  66. martha stewart from Canada writes: OK Folks. Read this. Sorry, its not on line but I would assume you can get it through your nearest University library or perhaps even your public library. It provides a very thorough summary.

    Taylor, M. (ed.) 1994. Density-Dependent Population Regulation of Black, Brown, and Polar Bears. Ninth International Conference on Bear Research and Management, Monograph Series No. 3. 43 pp.

    There are lots more papers that either look at the subject of bear predation on bears or describe individual cases in passing. If I feel more ambitious later I'll post a whole bunch. In the meantime, maybe some googlers can find some. Everything I have is on paper (books, research proceedings and journals).
  67. james cyr from Balmertown Ontario, Canada writes: Mary Coyote slings labels around like others sling hash. 'Denier' is a term over-abundantly used and requires a minimum of thinking to use it. It has become a convenient scapegoat for anyone who might dare to question the established IPCC dogma. Still, I must agree with her post of 8:04 pm. The other term over-used is 'peer-reviewed' Just because a paper is peer-reviewed, does not make it beyone criticism. If other members of a good ol'boys club review one of their own's paper, of course the consensus will be that it is valid. It is not the fact that a paper has been peer reviewed--it is what that paper is saying, and what evidence is given for saying it. Objectivity and skepticism are the hallmarks of a true scientist.
  68. just the facts - Jack... from Canada writes: Gerry Macdonald from Vancouver, Canada writes 'few of the very many 'deniers:' Dr. Duncan Wingham, Professor of Climate Physics at University College London Dr. Henrik Svensmark, director of the Centre for Sun-Climate research at the Danish Space Research Institute (DSRI) Dr. Pierre Jutras, associate professor of geology at Saint Mary's University in Halifax. Dr. Feeman Dyson, professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton.' *** So I did a little reading...and I am a student of this issue though no expert I have a little background. To quote Dr. Dyson 'One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas' The National Post seems to have written a series of articles calling these folks deniers...sadly the media and the so-called denier engine take bits and pieces to mangle credible scientific debate and people's words. the issue is not denial of climate change - the consensus is overwhelmingly there, what many such as Dyson and Bjorn Lomborg disagree on are what we should be doing now - what they seem to suggest is we would be better off to solve global poverty today. We have the resources - then when climate change becomes a more serious problem, the world will be richer, technology will be more advanced and we will be in a better position to solve our climate problems. Seems to me this is a much better debate for us to have...but the 'deniers' (eg the National Post and friends) are perpetuating the argument to wind people up(see above comments on cannibal polar bears) and in an effort to postpone doing anything at all...
  69. martha stewart from Canada writes: Mary Coyote - First, what we are critiquing here is the misleading contents of this article.

    You said 'I think you really need to find out if the research was seeing indications of abnormal cannibalistic behavior. Were females eating young bears? Were males eating each other?'

    Since there are in fact many documented cases of females eating young bears and males eating each other that would not mean anything is abnormal in any case.

    If as Tweev D suggests, the rate of cannibalism was higher than 'normal' that doesn't mean much either because there is no 'normal' rate - this normally varies depending on annual food variability, population densities and distributions, and often simply because some individual bears become more predatory.

    But the bottom line here is, as Biggest Redneck pointed out, that this article like many others recently is suggesting that this behaviour is new and CAUSED by recent climate change. That is, on the face of it, another Big Lie. Period.
  70. Mary Coyote from Canada writes: martha stewart: Thank you for pointing out erudite papers on bear/bear predation. Do you have access to papers that study Polar Bear bear/bear predation? I would think that this would be a prerequisite to judging the value of the observations mentioned in this news report.
  71. martha stewart from Canada writes: Mary Coyote writes: 'Scientists educated in physics and mathematics are not the best source. The difference is that climatologists are educated in BIOLOGY, which is the basic foundation for climate science.'

    Sorry Mary, you just proved that you don't have the slightest clue about this subject.

    Physics and mathematics are far more relevant to climatology than biology. In fact, biology has almost nothing to do with that science per se. You are confusing what biologists are seeing as the impacts of climate change on living species and ecosystems with the actual science of climatology.

    Sheesh!
  72. martha stewart from Canada writes: Mary - Read the title of that paper. It actually consists of three papers. One on black bears. One on brown (grizzly) bears. And one on polar bears.

    Their behaviour is similar because they are all Ursids. And polar bears are the most recently evolved bear species, FROM brown bears.
  73. martha stewart from Canada writes: here's how this article starts:

    'Human-generated climate change made flowers bloom sooner and autumn leaves fall later, turned some polar bears into cannibals and some birds into early breeders, a vast global study reported on Wednesday.'

    First, not even the IPCC suggests that all recent climate change is human caused. Yet this suggests that everything observed is due to the 'human-generated' change.

    Second, it clearly suggests that the 'human-generated climate change... turned some polar bears into cannibals.'

    That's simply garbage. One false statement expanding on another.

    Oh well, got to go now for a while. Time to make some dinner. Climate change made me hungry!!!
  74. Mary Coyote from Canada writes: james cyr posted: Coyote slings labels around like others sling hash. 'Denier' is over-abundantly used. The other term over-used is 'peer-reviewed' Objectivity and skepticism are the hallmarks of a true scientist.

    *
    Okay, I am willing to play ball. What do you want GW deniers to be called? What should those that do not deny the Climatologists' consensus be called?

    Peer-reviewed means that the papers are reviewed and edited by one's peers before publishing. How does that make the papers less important than your most recent posting? “Objectivity and skepticism are the hallmarks of a” peer-reviewed paper. But cynicism as expressed by local GW deniers is not.
  75. Bill Dyer from Canada writes: Lot of hot air on this thread about what's fact and what isn't. You want facts? Try this.
    Princess Di is not dead. She's alive and well and working as a nursemaid for Elvis, who, although very old, is still being held captive at a secret location known only to David Suzuki and Al Gore, and a select few other conspirators. The purpose is to nurse Elvis back to full health so he can make a final, triumphal tour out of which Suzuki, Gore et al plan to make a gazillion dollars, all of which they plan to invest in taxidermy shops specializing in stuffing polar bears.
    Hey, why not? Makes as much sense as anything Martha has to say.
  76. james cyr from Balmertown Ontario, Canada writes: Mary Coyote: regarding your post of 8:32 pm, do not mistake 'denier' for 'objective skeptic'--that is all I am saying...and do not tar everyone with the same 'denier' brush. Yes, I question some aspects of global warming, but there are questions that I have that have still not been answered that leave the door open for the occurrence of AGW. And do not confuse cynicism with objectivity, or rationality.
  77. Mike McFae from Canada writes: This is getting very tired.
  78. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Mary Coyote from Canada writes:'... Climatologists' consensus...'

    There is a strong consensus that the Earth has warmed from 1970-2000, and from 1910-1940. There is less consensus that warming is currently occurring, and an even weaker consensus on the various causes of warming.
  79. Mary Coyote from Canada writes: james cyr posted: 'Yes, I question some aspects of global warming'

    *
    As a climatologist, or as a layman? As a layman your questioning is useless unless you are using it to gain more knowledge. As a layman your claim to 'objective skepticism' is nothing short of political resistance to changing realities. A conservative.
  80. Mary Coyote from Canada writes: GlynnMhor: wrong. There is consensus that Climate Change is occurring and has been since 12,000 years ago when the ice melted. It is getting warmer. The Sahara Desert is a relatively recent climate event.

    There is also consensus that the last 10,000 years of relatively inclement conditions gave rise to human civilization. There also is consensus that warming is correlated to CO2 levels and that human activities are speeding up the warming.

    There is also consensus, as one poster earlier noted that the normal condition of the earth is a lot warmer. Therefore this short period of time where humanity has risen is rare and can be seen as a gift. We are speeding up Climate Change for no good end.
  81. V ADS from Canada writes: Mary Coyote says: 'There is consensus that Climate Change is occurring and has been since 12,000 years ago when the ice melted. It is getting warmer. The Sahara Desert is a relatively recent climate event. There is also consensus that the last 10,000 years of relatively inclement conditions gave rise to human civilization.'

    Climate change has occured for BILLLIONS of years, not 12,000 years like Mary Coyote and cranium-challenged creationists think.

    Earth is in a cooling cycle, not a warming one. For most of its geological history, Earth has had no ice on either pole. None. We are still in an Ice Age -- a geologically verifiable period of glacial advances and retreats occuring on a continental scale in predictable and regular cycles (roughly 20,000 years) for the past few million years.

    By logical extension, the experts on climate change should be paleoclimatologists, not biologists, and definately not Mary Coyote.
  82. james cyr from Balmertown Ontario, Canada writes: Mary Coyote: against my better judgement, I will reply to your post of 9:56 pm. My background is in science. I am a student of objectivism, and I do have education and professional training in paleoclimatology. My profession is (hard rock) geology with a background in meteorology and climatology. I have no biological experience.
  83. Jeff Pritchard from Canada writes: I think I know someone who hates bears more than Stephen Colbert - and her initials are M.S.
  84. D K from Canada writes: Wow looks like alot of my high school science class dropouts have come back to teach us all about 'science'.

    I read something on the internet, I am an expert on climatology.

    LOL.
  85. KSW livin'in from Canada writes: martha stewart from Canada writes: Here's what is ridiculous, and deliberately dishonest. Suggesting that cannibalism by bears is something unusual and new and caused by climate change or anything else.

    No, here is what is ridiculous, some retire layperson reading a summary of a research paper being published in the world most prestigious science journals and then presuming that they know more than the researchers who are actively spending their lives studying the issue.

    I am confident that since your redneck buddy above even saw it on Disney that the scientists are aware of the background level of cannibalism and have noticed a change from the normal behaviour.
  86. emilio D from Vancouver, Canada writes: The only consensus I know about climate change is between Al Gore, David Susuki, Gordon Campbell, Arnold Zwazennegerr( you can spell it yourself) and Stephan Dion. Good luck.
  87. Jeff Pritchard from Canada writes: emilio D from Vancouver, Canada writes: The only consensus I know about climate change is between Al Gore, David Susuki, Gordon Campbell, Arnold Zwazennegerr( you can spell it yourself) and Stephan Dion. Good luck.

    >>>

    That's right, emilio. All climatologists are either media celebrities or highly placed government officials.

    Here's a bon bon. BTW you forget Rush Limbaugh and John McCain.
  88. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Mary Coyote from Canada writes: 'There also is consensus that warming is correlated to CO2 levels...'

    Given that the two are manifestly not well correlated, this is hardly convincing.

    '... and that human activities are speeding up the warming.'

    But no consensus as to whether our activities are the dominant factor, or only a relatively minor one.

    The IPCC claims assume ALL the last warming spell (1970-2000) to have been due to AGHGs, but this is a considerable exaggeration of both the science and the consensus among scientists.
  89. martha stewart from Canada writes: KSW writes: 'here is what is ridiculous, some retire layperson reading a summary of a research paper being published in the world most prestigious science journals and then presuming that they know more than the researchers who are actively spending their lives studying the issue.'

    Funny.

    You presume to know what career I retired from.

    You presume to know that what this story says accurately reflects what this paper actually said.

    You presume that the authors of this study 'spent their lives' researching this.

    Methinks you presume too much.

    Perhaps you should reread this article, for starters.
  90. Brian Klappstein from Canada writes:
    To be able to say that the early egg laying, early flowers blooming etc. we observe now, in the early 21st century is distinct, and therefore anthropogenic, we would have to be able to compare it to the biosphere behaviour from other non-anthropogenic warm periods. Like for instance, the medieval warm period.

    However, the database you would need to reliably make such a comparison does not exist. The premise of the paper, that the current biosphere behaviour changes are driven by anthropogenic warming, might be correct, but there is no way to verify it.

    Regards, BRK
  91. martha stewart from Canada writes: KSW -

    'Building on research done to support findings reported in 2007 by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Dr. Rosenzweig and her co-authors brought together nearly 30,000 sets of data about biological and physical changes around the world, and then matched that up with a detailed database of global temperature change.'

    In other words, none of the authors of this paper studied polar bears at all. They just compiled data and did some analysis of it. Sort of like the way Colin Powell did his UN presentation on Iraqi WMDs. Note that the chosen data was from 'research done to support findings reported in 2007 by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.'

    But since you have such respect for this journal (Nature), I'm sure that you have considered that paper they just published that suggests we are in for a decade or so of cooling (reported in the May 9 G & M).

    That will help polar bears, theoretically. If it happens.
  92. martha stewart from Canada writes: No BRK - It clearly states that they 'worked to rule out observed changes that could have been caused by factors other than anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change.'

    LOL!
  93. KSW livin'in from Canada writes: Martha, the authours of the paper reported here compiled data from other published papers, including at least one on polar bears.

    I don't presume to know what career you have retired from. you have claimed on a least one occasion to have had a career in science.

    I don't need to reread the article here; I'll read it on the Earth Institute at Columbia University.

    I am also aware that we are at a low point in the 11 year solar activity cycle, which will help Glynnmohr explain why temperatures haven't risen. But won't help explain why they haven't fallen either.
  94. martha stewart from Canada writes: KSW - We're talking about polar bear behaviour. You wrote about 'researchers who are actively spending their lives studying the issue' who wrote this paper.

    I would assume that they must have cited at least one study of polar bears that described some incidents of cannibalism. But my point here is that that is not in itself significant, and cannot be attributed to climate change unless there has been a long term study that shows a significant increase in that behaviour correlated with the effects of the recent warming.

    I have not seen the study they used for this but I have seen references to anecdotal information used to suggest this.

    If you find their source I would be most interested to hear about it and look at it - critically. But I hope you appreciate that one study in one area does not prove any universal generalization about a species as adaptable and intelligent and individualistic as polar bears or any bears. And anecdotal information is, well, anecdotal.
  95. F/A josquin from Canada writes:
    to 'James Cyr from Balmertown, Canada (who) writes: In the 1960's, when the flavour-of-the-month was the coming ice age,'

    Well James that WAS almost 50 years ago. I am hoping we have been getting better in our scientific endeavours.

    Certainly a lot has been accomplished since then. Perhaps we should have a reckoning for you?
  96. Arec Bardwin from Canada writes: Spreading global warming panic, fear and alarmism is so hot right now. It's just so trendy.

    'I haven't felt important since I took the initiative to create the internet. I want to feel important again, I want to fit in.' Gore
  97. James Cyr from Balmertown, Canada writes: F/A.....LOL!!!
  98. Arec Bardwin from Canada writes: Sound familiar?

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

    Sound the alarm, global cooling will kill us all! Ahhhhhh.
  99. KSW livin'in from Canada writes: Martha for you: Polar biology ISSN 0722-4060 2006, vol. 29, no11, pp. 997-1002 .

    From the Abstract:

    'Intraspecific killing has been reported among polar bears (Ursus maritimus), brown bears (U. arctos), and black bears (U. americanus). Although cannibalism is one motivation for such killings, the ecological factors mediating such events are poorly understood.

    During 24 years of research on polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea region of northern Alaska and 34 years in northwestern Canada, we have not seen other incidents of polar bears stalking, killing, and eating other polar bears. We hypothesize that nutritional stresses related to the longer ice-free seasons that have occurred in the Beaufort Sea in recent years may have led to the cannibalism incidents we observed in 2004.'

    Sounds like a couple of lives dedicated to the study of polar bears to me. I personally would expect them to know more than I do but apparently your armchair research allows you a better understanding of the expected behaviours.
  100. Jillian Fecteau from Canada writes: Sometimes the comments on these blogs make my head hurt.... I have certainly lost a few IQ points today... I agree with 'Honesty is the best Policy' Lots of hot air from the deniers here... I always find it interesting that the same handful of deniers love to comment on such issues. Well ... I am tired of reading it. So ... rape and pillage as you please. Drive your SUVs. Curse the scientists who are trying to take your money... All of the estimated 0.00005% of the Canadian GDP that might be dedicated to global warming problem, based on NSERC documentation. Keep citing anecdotal evidence (because that is SO accurate)... Keep citing tangential evidence.... Or indeed, keep citing no evidence at all ... just some random thought processes that you might have... often suped up in scientific jargon that you clearly have no understanding of. (although the word 'thought' might be over stated here....) I mean ... really ... what good are polar bears anyway? We don't eat them or befriend them as pets.... I think it would be kind to call such blatant attempts to ignore a real problem as thoughtful. But as they say -- ignorance is bliss, eh? Unfortunately my friends, your ignorant thought processes negatively affect us all, including our polar bears.
  101. KSW livin'in from Canada writes: James Cyr - please check:

    Study debunks 'global cooling' concern: Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.

    The study reports, 'There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age.
  102. emilio D from Vancouver, Canada writes: According to the U.S. Wildlife Service, the polar bear dwindling population is also due to oil and gas development activities in its habitat. Folks, to me this is the main culprit and manmade global warming is only a small part of the problem. There is another volacano erupting in Mexico and another one in Chile. The chain of volcanoes erupting everywhere like in Indonesia, Europe and Phlippines should negate global warming because these erupting volcanoes cause global cooling. If experts are not 100% sure, then there is no consensus. Period.
  103. D Kearney from Halifax, Canada writes: This study does not prove anything....other than plants and animals adapt to warmer temperatures. WOW!!
  104. Able Bodied Man from It's NOT 'VICTORIA' Island, Canada writes:
    THAT'S WHERE THE MONEY IS

    Used to be that blaming the people for everything was the sole province of government. Now scientists have jumped onto the bandwagon.

    The reason: Scientists now realize that government was onto a good thing blaming the people because it allowed government to raise old taxes and create new taxes. Science, not wanting to miss out on the money, opted to blame the people because, to paraphrase bank-robber John Dillinger, that's where the money is.
  105. Green Canada from Canada writes: David N from Toronto, Canada writes: Next time you encounter a denier (and I see one or two out already)
    ask them to read this:
    http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/05/10/junk-science
    ------------------------

    Good read thanks...I thought I'd repost for others to visit.
  106. Green Canada from Canada writes: I especially like how GP (just above) contested the contents of the article. lol
    • Posted 15/05/08 at 12:07 PM E