The environment thread

[BigSqwert]

That wolf story makes me ill.

[NorthSideSox72]

Wolf Hunting in Montana ruins research program. From a news report in Science

The law of unintended consequences. Nature is so much more complex than what we could possibly know of it, and the interrelationships of animal and plant life in an ecosystem are so beyond our ability to predict, that any time you decide to mess with mommy, you get slapped. Wolves are pack animals, so you can't really look at hunting numbers for wolves the same was as lone animals - the effect is different, as we see here.

 

Mind you, I am OK with wolf hunting in general, because the populations have recovered enough. I do still tend to believe, reading what I have, that these areas are still generally underpredated, so the hunts should be very limited. Plus as a conservationst generally, I think we need to narrow our effect whenever possible.

 

But there should be some way to compromise on this. Maybe the radio collars have an added dumb transmitter that sends out a signal saying "I'm under study, pick another wolf", and hunters would be able to borrow receiving devices from DNR when they are issued permits for the hunt. However, I do not see an easy way to deal with the pack thing - no way for a hunter to know which wolf in a pack they are shooting.

 

Tough call on that one.

 

[StrangeSox]

From the article:

"We didn't think that wolves would be that vulnerable in the backcountry, so the level of harvest there has been a bit of a surprise," says Carolyn Sime, FWP's wolf program coordinator in Helena, who added that the hunt was designed to target wolves that kill livestock, not wilderness or park wolves that have never caused problems in that area.

 

AKA they didn't think this through.

 

How about wide buffer zones around Yellowstone or only allowing it to stop documented predation?

Edited October 23, 2009 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

From the article:

 

 

AKA they didn't think this through.

 

How about wide buffer zones around Yellowstone or only allowing it to stop documented predation?

That's another thing, these agencies are often not thinking things through either. If they wanted to deal with wolves predating livestock, then just make the law such that you can kill wolves on your own land. Simple enough.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

From the article:

 

 

AKA they didn't think this through.

 

How about wide buffer zones around Yellowstone or only allowing it to stop documented predation?

Oh and, protecting Yellowstone specifically isn't going to gain you anything. There are now wolf packs all up and down the rockies from the Canadian border down at least through the Wind River Range in WY. And more packs going west from the Rockies, and south along the Cascades as well.

 

I honestly think the hunt is OK, in limited numbers that don't stop the wolf population from naturally growing to the level that the ecosystem wants. Just implement something to handle the radio collar issue as I suggested, add a clause that wolves can be killed on your own property if you are protecting livestock, and build into the hunt number the number of wolves likely to be killed to protect livestock (which you can update annually based on numbers). This would, by nature, reduce the hunt numbers in the back country, unless or until the number of wolves predating livestock falls, which is the goal anyway.

 

[iamshack]

The law of unintended consequences. Nature is so much more complex than what we could possibly know of it, and the interrelationships of animal and plant life in an ecosystem are so beyond our ability to predict, that any time you decide to mess with mommy, you get slapped. Wolves are pack animals, so you can't really look at hunting numbers for wolves the same was as lone animals - the effect is different, as we see here.

 

This is the key point...and yet we never learn...

[NorthSideSox72]

So here is something interesting I read this morning, from the AP. They were curious about the growing rumors circulating recently, about a global cooling trend. Some climate change skeptics have been claiming that we've been in a 10 year cooling trend, since a peak in 1999. Putting aside for the moment the idea that 10 years of data is terribly meaningful, the AP did a pretty cool blind study on this. They took temp data from both ground based sources and satellite sources (the satellite results tend to be cooler), and sent the raw numbers for the past decade to statisticians (who didn't know what the data represented), to find a trend. What did they find?

 

Not only no cooling, but in fact, further warming (or, to them, increasing, as opposed to decreasing, values). Article here, though its AP so its all over the place.

 

One of the leading proponents of this supposed, recent cooling trend, likes to pick 10 years from 1999 to present to show the trend. Well, not only does that trend not exist, but he chooses the highest year on record to start with and STILL is making a bogus claim. And if you start in 1998, or in 2000, the warming trend is actually pretty high.

 

I continue to LOL at these "skeptics" whose theories and data never marry with reality. I really think some people simply don't want to face the issue - they prefer to keep their heads in the sand.

 

 

[kapkomet]

So here is something interesting I read this morning, from the AP. They were curious about the growing rumors circulating recently, about a global cooling trend. Some climate change skeptics have been claiming that we've been in a 10 year cooling trend, since a peak in 1999. Putting aside for the moment the idea that 10 years of data is terribly meaningful, the AP did a pretty cool blind study on this. They took temp data from both ground based sources and satellite sources (the satellite results tend to be cooler), and sent the raw numbers for the past decade to statisticians (who didn't know what the data represented), to find a trend. What did they find?

 

Not only no cooling, but in fact, further warming (or, to them, increasing, as opposed to decreasing, values). Article here, though its AP so its all over the place.

 

One of the leading proponents of this supposed, recent cooling trend, likes to pick 10 years from 1999 to present to show the trend. Well, not only does that trend not exist, but he chooses the highest year on record to start with and STILL is making a bogus claim. And if you start in 1998, or in 2000, the warming trend is actually pretty high.

 

I continue to LOL at these "skeptics" whose theories and data never marry with reality. I really think some people simply don't want to face the issue - they prefer to keep their heads in the sand.

You know, just saying this for a thought. The surface of the earth is probably much like a frying pan. Think about it. It will retain heat even if the air temprature cools. When you turn off the stove or the oven, the temprature of what's on it or in it stays the same or actually goes up until it can catch up to the surroundings.

 

And as to the "causes" that's obviously open for debate, so let's not go down that path when I make the point above. It's just a thought meant to discuss, not throw Kaperbole ™ at this.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

You know, just saying this for a thought. The surface of the earth is probably much like a frying pan. Think about it. It will retain heat even if the air temprature cools. When you turn off the stove or the oven, the temprature of what's on it or in it stays the same or actually goes up until it can catch up to the surroundings.

 

And as to the "causes" that's obviously open for debate, so let's not go down that path when I make the point above. It's just a thought meant to discuss, not throw Kaperbole ™ at this.

Certainly, the surface of the earth effects temperature that way. I got the impression that when they were talking about ground sources versus satellite, they didn't mean temps on the ground versus in space, because obviously they would be wildly different. I think it was satellite data of "surface" temperatures, meaning "near" the surface.

 

The causes are up for debate, most specifically, the extent of human effect. I don't see how anyone could doubt that human activity and industry must have at least some effect - just look around you. But the extent of it is certainly up for debate.

 

[Y2HH]

Certainly, the surface of the earth effects temperature that way. I got the impression that when they were talking about ground sources versus satellite, they didn't mean temps on the ground versus in space, because obviously they would be wildly different. I think it was satellite data of "surface" temperatures, meaning "near" the surface.

 

The causes are up for debate, most specifically, the extent of human effect. I don't see how anyone could doubt that human activity and industry must have at least some effect - just look around you. But the extent of it is certainly up for debate.

 

I believe we do have an effect on the environment, I just think it's far less than we'd like to believe. After all, that'd be a blow to our huge egos as a people. Regardless, I think the effect that we have yet to feel will be even worse on our egos...

 

When we realize that despite all of our knowledge, power, and money...to put this into slang for proper effect, "There ain't dick we're gonna be able to do about it...at the hands of mother nature, we're gonna bow down and pray, cuz there ain't no stopping this now."

 

I think the ironic part of all of this is that mother earth herself gave us the ingredients we'd use to destroy ourselves. Not only that, but we'd LOVE using these ingredients along the way, and after learning they're really bad...we will continue to use them because it's convenient to do so. Look, f*** rice...we need 1 minute instant rice...5 minutes is too f***ing long!#@$ I mean, Earth HAS to find this funny...I do...and I kinda feel like my sense of humor is in line with that of some external force of awesome like the Earth itself.

Edited October 27, 2009 by Y2HH

[BigSqwert]

I believe we do have an effect on the environment, I just think it's far less than we'd like to believe.

What exactly do you base this belief on?

[Y2HH]

What exactly do you base this belief on?

 

God told me.

[NorthSideSox72]

I believe we do have an effect on the environment, I just think it's far less than we'd like to believe. After all, that'd be a blow to our huge egos as a people. Regardless, I think the effect that we have yet to feel will be even worse on our egos...

 

When we realize that despite all of our knowledge, power, and money...to put this into slang for proper effect, "There ain't dick we're gonna be able to do about it...at the hands of mother nature, we're gonna bow down and pray, cuz there ain't no stopping this now."

 

I think the ironic part of all of this is that mother earth herself gave us the ingredients we'd use to destroy ourselves. Not only that, but we'd LOVE using these ingredients along the way, and after learning they're really bad...we will continue to use them because it's convenient to do so. Look, f*** rice...we need 1 minute instant rice...5 minutes is too f***ing long!#@$ I mean, Earth HAS to find this funny...I do...and I kinda feel like my sense of humor is in line with that of some external force of awesome like the Earth itself.

Yeah, I always thought it was silly when people used phrases like "we are destrying the earth!". No, the earth will be fine. We, however, won't be, because the earth (mother nature or ecosystems or whatever) is waaaaaaay stronger and smarter than we are. This is why conservationism is so important - reducing our impact on our environment means reducing the equal and opposite negative reaction.

 

[Y2HH]

Jokes aside, I believe this because nature itself is on of the worst polluters there is, with or without us.

 

The difference is that nature doesn't tend to care what damage it causes. While we only have

 

[Y2HH]

Yeah, I always thought it was silly when people used phrases like "we are destrying the earth!". No, the earth will be fine. We, however, won't be, because the earth (mother nature or ecosystems or whatever) is waaaaaaay stronger and smarter than we are. This is why conservationism is so important - reducing our impact on our environment means reducing the equal and opposite negative reaction.

 

You stolded my thunder!

[StrangeSox]

Yeah, I always thought it was silly when people used phrases like "we are destrying the earth!". No, the earth will be fine. We, however, won't be, because the earth (mother nature or ecosystems or whatever) is waaaaaaay stronger and smarter than we are. This is why conservationism is so important - reducing our impact on our environment means reducing the equal and opposite negative reaction.

 

We'll take a lot of other species down with us, though, and the billions of years of evolution it took to produce those particular lines.

[NorthSideSox72]

We'll take a lot of other species down with us, though, and the billions of years of evolution it took to produce those particular lines.

Conservationism is, again, the solution here. Which by the way is not necessarily the same as environmentalism.

 

[Balta1701]

We'll take a lot of other species down with us, though, and the billions of years of evolution it took to produce those particular lines.

So? Natural selection is impressive. Mass extinctions have happened before, and except for right after the end-Permian, life has recovered and diversified into totally new species to fill the suddenly available niches within a couple million years. As long as we don't leave the planet a clicking radioactive wasteland, life will be fine, long term at least.

 

What we need to concern ourselves with is exactly what we need to concern ourselves with in terms of the climate; the relaxation time. We need to care about the impacts while we're here. If it takes life a couple million years to recover from a mass extinction, unless we've got a couple million years to spare it doesn't make much sense to drive an extinction event. IF it takes the planet on the order of a few tens of thousands of years to react to changes in atmospheric CO2, it doesn't make much sense to dramatically change that quantity unless we don't care about timescales less than that.

[Y2HH]

Also, you have to keep in mind that since humans have been added to the mix as part of the food chain we can't just mindlessly meddle in natural affairs without thinking things through, no matter how hard the decision is to make.

 

For example, I forget the years it occurred, but deer hunting was banned in IL...and it resulted in deer starving to death because suddenly there wasn't enough food to go around. Wolves were once their main predator, but wolves were gone due to hunting, expansion of urban areas, etc...and humans were their last predator...when humans were removed from the equation "out of love for the poor defenseless animals", they wen't from dying from a gunshot wound to starving to death slowly over a sub zero freezing winter.

 

Good job.

 

Wolves have suddenly flourished, BTW, and are re-emerging as far south as southern Wisconsin and northern IL.

[NorthSideSox72]

Also, you have to keep in mind that since humans have been added to the mix as part of the food chain we can't just mindlessly meddle in natural affairs without thinking things through, no matter how hard the decision is to make.

 

For example, I forget the years it occurred, but deer hunting was banned in IL...and it resulted in deer starving to death because suddenly there wasn't enough food to go around. Wolves were once their main predator, but wolves were gone due to hunting, expansion of urban areas, etc...and humans were their last predator...when humans were removed from the equation "out of love for the poor defenseless animals", they wen't from dying from a gunshot wound to starving to death slowly over a sub zero freezing winter.

 

Good job.

 

Wolves have suddenly flourished, BTW, and are re-emerging as far south as southern Wisconsin and northern IL.

An even more profound example - its been illustrated scientifically that the extinction of large predators in Colorado due to overhunting probably caused the Big Thompson flood that killed dozens of people, sometime in maybe the 60's (I don't recall the date off hand).

 

Wolves are doing quite well, but in some areas, people are freaking the f*** out about it. They seem convinced that wolves will carry away their children in the night. Nevermind that the total number of wolf attacks on humans in recorded history on this continent is either zero or maybe one (a questionable case). You are more likely to be killed by a meteor than a wolf.

 

[Y2HH]

An even more profound example - its been illustrated scientifically that the extinction of large predators in Colorado due to overhunting probably caused the Big Thompson flood that killed dozens of people, sometime in maybe the 60's (I don't recall the date off hand).

 

Wolves are doing quite well, but in some areas, people are freaking the f*** out about it. They seem convinced that wolves will carry away their children in the night. Nevermind that the total number of wolf attacks on humans in recorded history on this continent is either zero or maybe one (a questionable case). You are more likely to be killed by a meteor than a wolf.

 

Yea, people don't realize that attacks more often occur via animals they don't expect. For example, a Moose is one of the most dangerous animals in the US when it comes to attacking people.

 

They're big.

 

They're strong.

 

And they'll kill you.

 

And people don't realize that.

[southsider2k5]

So the EPA has changed a whole lot and is still censoring employees work

[Balta1701]

So the EPA has changed a whole lot and is still censoring employees work

(You'll note that they think cap and trade is too weak)

[NorthSideSox72]

So the EPA has changed a whole lot and is still censoring employees work

That's actually a pretty good illustration of how the EPA is, in fact, different. BushCo tended to squash things entirely, or change scientific papers to meet non-scientific political goals. In this case, the EPA told those people they can post all they want, just not under the auspices of the EPA. Not only is that amazingly lax, but most other employers wouldn't allow it. If you had made a YouTube video ridiculing your company's efforts, you'd probably be fired.

 

So yeah, this is a good sign, IMO, that things are definitely different.

 

Now, if you want a sign of something bad with the EPA, go back to that article CKnolls posted about the supposed pending removal of the economic analysis folks at EPA. That, if true (and I have seen nothing saying it actually happened), would make me upset, and i said so at the time.

 

[BigSqwert]

The WTF read of the day.