60% Of NH Yearling Moose Population Dying

TJsName · May 20, 2014

Jazzbo said:
One explanation for this die-off may be fact that we just went through one of the most frigid winters in long long time. I understand moose are well adapted to cold weather and would be threatened by warmer winters and summers, but last winter was characterized by continuously frigid cold with very few thaws.

If the moose are healthy, a cold winter isn't a huge obstacle. If they are already weak and underweight then it is. It becomes a compounding issue.

I do remember reading an article about the collaring process; they inadvertantly killed several moose in the process. I think we can agree that those are on us.

DougPaul · May 20, 2014

Jazzbo said:
Debates about weather global warming is real or not real miss the whole point. In my opinion increased CO2 levels are symptom of a much bigger problem no one likes to mention or at least seems to realize. There are just too many damn people on this planet. There is very little talk of getting world population under control as means of reducing CO2 greenhouse gases.

IMO, they are both serious problems in their own right...

Excessive population affects a range of problems and often leads to a population collapse.

As scientific observer I don't see any technical magic bullets that will ever substitute for good old fashioned heat engines as means for generating base load electricity. It is inevitable that billions of have-not populations want to participate in the good life that modern age provides us. Principles of fairness demand this. There are just no existing geopolitical tools on the horizon to enable sorts of agreements to needed to foster global agreement on what the mechanism of failure is or its resolution. Putinism, warlords, political chaos is more likely scenario. Pretty grim outlook, but that is how I see it. Human kind is heading for a crash. Exceptionalism is myth and mirage. fifty years ago our economy could make a dent in regional problem of dealing with wreckage left after 2nd world war. Now rest of world population has grown so huge there is little our vaunted economy do to impact world events spinning out of control.

Don't forget resource exhaustion.

"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo (Walt Kelly)

Doug

marnof · May 20, 2014

"The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
- Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports

http://green-agenda.com/

TCD · May 20, 2014

marnof said:
I just read an interesting article about the "97 percent consensus." Evidently there's quite a kerfuffle developing over the authors' lack of data sharing and bizarre methodology.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/05/breaking-the-97-percent-climate-consensus-canard.php

Thanks. "Interesting" indeed.

Fact is, the "97% consensus" is a straight up lie, and the folks who originally promulgating it are liars. Honest people would do well to learn the facts before repeating this lie. Sadly, it's in common repetition on the cocktail party circuit.

If you read the original study, the real number is 36% (doesn't look a lot like 97%, does it?). Then the authors went back and surveyed ONLY the people in the 36% who agreed with their "desired" position, and lo and behold, 97% of those people still had the same opinion that they had originally. But this truth is a little too complicated for the attention span of many folks, and by feeding people the "97%" number to repeat to each other, a myth has been born.

marnof · May 20, 2014

Jazzbo said:
In my opinion increased CO2 levels are symptom of a much bigger problem no one likes to mention or at least seems to realize. There are just too many damn people on this planet. There is very little talk of getting world population under control as means of reducing CO2 greenhouse gases.

There has been plenty of talk about this. It doesn't make the front page very often, though.

"In Nature organic growth proceeds according to a Master Plan, a Blueprint. Such a Master Plan is missing from the process of growth and development of the world system. Now is the time to draw up a master plan for sustainable growth and world development based on global allocation of all resources and a new global economic system. Ten or twenty years form today it will probably be too late."
- Club of Rome,
Mankind at the Turning Point

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

"Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level."
- UN Agenda 21

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

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?"
- Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme

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

"A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of
ecology and the world resource situation."
- Paul Ehrlich,
Professor of Population Studies

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

"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US.
We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are."
- Michael Oppenheimer,
Environmental Defense Fund

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

"The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet."
- Jeremy Rifkin,
Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

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

"Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun."
- Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

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

"A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people.
We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.''
- Prof Paul Ehrlich,
The Population Bomb

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

Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license.
All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing."
- David Brower,
first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

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

"A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible."
- United Nations,
Global Biodiversity Assessment

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

"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."
- Ted Turner,
founder of CNN and major UN donor

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

"... the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion."
- Club of Rome,
Goals for Mankind

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

"One America burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say.
In order to stabilize world population,we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say,
but it's just as bad not to say it."
- Jacques Cousteau,
UNESCO Courier

TJsName · May 21, 2014

TCD said:
Thanks. "Interesting" indeed.

Fact is, the "97% consensus" is a straight up lie, and the folks who originally promulgating it are liars. Honest people would do well to learn the facts before repeating this lie. Sadly, it's in common repetition on the cocktail party circuit.

If you read the original study, the real number is 36% (doesn't look a lot like 97%, does it?). Then the authors went back and surveyed ONLY the people in the 36% who agreed with their "desired" position, and lo and behold, 97% of those people still had the same opinion that they had originally. But this truth is a little too complicated for the attention span of many folks, and by feeding people the "97%" number to repeat to each other, a myth has been born.

IME, this number has been used far more by AGW deniers suggesting that the entire science of climatology is tainted than by anyone trying the explain the evidence of AGW. The number is an appeal to authority; the data is not. The only reason the study was done was to try and combat the science deniers. Personal incredulity is also a fallacy.

Moose numbers are in decline and there are direct and indirect causes. I look forward to the results of the study.

marnof · May 22, 2014

TJsName said:
IME, this number has been used far more by AGW deniers suggesting that the entire science of climatology is tainted than by anyone trying the explain the evidence of AGW..

Maybe someone should do a pal-reviewed scientific paper on this and get some actual percentages. It might even be 97%.

Funny thing is, if you're seeing far more refutation than promotion, it's because the whole 97% "settled science" meme is a gross fabrication. When everyone from the President, Secretary of State on down is repeating over and over that "the science is settled," and it's nowhere even close to reality--you can probably expect to hear some adverse reactions to that line of reasoning. It's nothing but propaganda. And that's being kind.

TCD · May 22, 2014

Going back to hiking - we are definitely seeing changes in the places where we hike. I think there definitely was warming between 1979 and 2000, and we are seeing effects. Natural systems like habitat zones and large thermal masses have a considerable lag time. So things we are seeing today (melting of some glaciers, generally shorter winters, habitat zones moving north around here) I attribute to the documented warming period 1979-2000.

The fact that these things are happening now, DOES NOT mean that warming is happening now. It may be, or we may even be cooling now; we'll know in 20 years or so. Also, while lots of things may have warming as their cause, it is not the cause of EVERYTHING that happens in the natural world. I agree that it's unknown if the moose "die-off" is caused by warming or by something unrelated.

Regarding science vs. promotion, I say "follow the money." The IPCC is partly scientific, and partly political (maybe 30/70), and so the money effect is diluted there. They have in recent reports moderated their position (to their credit), based on their earlier predictions simply not coming true at all. However, the voices that get more and more extreme and shrill, as their predictions continue to not come true, are motivated solely by money and power, and their shrill tone is due to fear that their personal gravy train may end.

marnof · May 22, 2014

Raven said:
If it's not from a peer reviewed science journal or a summary of peer reviewed scientific work, I don't place much weight in it. All people can have opinions. Only some have expert opinions.

I liken it to ordinary citizens diagnosing medical conditions using WebMD. If you are not in the medical field, then good luck with your diagnosis. Similarly, if you are not trained in atmospheric chemistry, earth system science, climatology, or some related scientific field, then opine away. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I no longer try to change the minds of adults on this subject.

If I were to tell you that the scientists in this film are, in fact, trained in atmospheric chemistry, earth system science, climatology, or related scientific fields, would you find the time or interest to watch it? It's not really fair to disparage a film and it's contributors without giving them credit for their outstanding work in their fields. WebMD???

Syun-Ichi Akasofu Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF). Previously he had been director of the university's Geophysical Institute from 1986.

John Raymond Christy is a climate scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) whose chief interests are satellite remote sensing of global climate and global climate change. He is best known, jointly with Roy Spencer, for the first successful development of a satellite temperature record. For his development of a global temperature data set from satellites he was awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and the American Meteorological Society's "Special Award." In 2002, Christy was elected Fellow of the American Meteorological Society.

Eigil Friis-Christensen is an expert in space physics, and Director of the Danish National Space Center. He was an Adjunct Professor of geophysics and space physics 1996 to 2006 [4] at the Niels Bohr Institute of University of Copenhagen[5] and has authored over 140 research articles or books.

Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940) is an American atmospheric physicist, known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books. From 1983 until he retired in 2013, he was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was a lead author of Chapter 7, 'Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,' of the IPCC Third Assessment Report on climate change.

Patrick Moore is a Canadian ecologist, known as one of the early members of Greenpeace, in which he was an environmental activist from 1971 to 1986. He is an outspoken proponent of nuclear energy and skeptical of sole human responsibility for climate change.

Nir Joseph Shaviv is an Israeli‐American physics professor, carrying out research in the fields of astrophysics and climate science. He is a professor at the Racah Institute of Physics of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is best known for his solar and cosmic-ray hypothesis of climate change. In 2002, Shaviv hypothesised that passages through the Milky Way's spiral arms appear to have been the cause behind the major ice-ages over the past billion years. In his later work, co-authored by Jan Veizer, a low upper limit was placed on the climatic effect of CO2.
Shaviv was interviewed for The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary. In the film he states: “A few years ago if you would ask me I would tell you it's CO2. Why? Because just like everyone else in the public I listened to what the media had to say.” In 2012, he contributed, along with Werner Weber, Henrik Svensmark and Nicola Scafetta, to the book Die kalte Sonne (The Cold Sun) of Fritz Vahrenholt and Sebastian Lüning, a book expressing skepticism of anthropogenic global warming, which attracted considerable interest in Germany. (Since translated to English)

Roy Warren Spencer is a climatologist, Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. He has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. He is known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society's Special Award.

marnof · May 22, 2014

TCD said:
However, the voices that get more and more extreme and shrill, as their predictions continue to not come true, are motivated solely by money and power, and their shrill tone is due to fear that their personal gravy train may end.

Absolutely. It's a multi-billion dollar research grant engine that's running on empty lately (as far as observations matching forecasts). Can you imagine if the Earth happens to cool substantially by 2020, leading into a Maunder or Dalton Minimum, as some scientists suggest? Few care to admit that cooling is a much more grave threat to humanity than warming. Anyone who pretends to know with absolute certainty of "settled science" which way this is going to go is blowing smoke. The wiser climate scientists are starting to abandon ship as the USS CAGW is crushed in Antarctic sea ice.

RollingRock · May 23, 2014

It really comes down to...do you believe that climate change is man-made. Forget the scientists. Look around you. What does your gut tell you? What does your instinct tell you?

Are you concerned? Do you feel you need to do something or just step aside and watch it all happen? It seems like every day in the news I'm seeing stories of forest fires, drought, tornadoes, super storms, etc. I didn't see such news stories when I was a kid.

Hey...here is a novel idea. Instead of reactive and spending taxpayers money to the rescue let's be proactive and do something to mitigate it such as a carbon tax, reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, add more nuclear power plants, etc.? In the long run, preventive measures save money versus reactive measures.

Do you think this will help save the moose which is what this thread is all about? While there may be other factors involved since a further study is needed, I cannot help but suspect that man made climate change is involved and we all have to step up and do our share to prevent further damage. It really comes down to what your conscience is saying to you?

At this point, there is no turning around which side of the fence you are on. Climate change is man made or not. We can argue this until we are blue in the face and name the scientists that back us up.

My only hope is that everyone comes around to agreeing that further action and sacrifices are needed before it's too late. I'm not a doomsayer...far from it. But I am a concerned person.

Enough said....

Red Oak · May 23, 2014

http://apps.startribune.com/blogs/user_images/NASA-Arctic-Ice-Cap-Melt.jpg
http://ecology.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/ice-chart.jpg
These graphs shows the result of warming on the north pole. The ice is melting which indicates warming not cooling. Very glad to see this thread still going,thank you mods. Should a new thread be started to focus on just climate change without the moose angle? Not that the moose are not important!

marnof · May 23, 2014

Red Oak said:
These graphs shows the result of warming on the north pole. The ice is melting which indicates warming not cooling.

I believe that trend extends back to at least 1900, much further back than man's contribution to CO2 was even significant. At any rate, this year has been a good one for Arctic ice, as the report below details:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/05/cryosat-shows-arctic-sea-ice-volume-up-50-from-last-year/

Watts Up With That has been awarded Best Science Blog numerous times for its outstanding coverage of climate science and its diverse and very accomplished contributors. It's far and away the most viewed climate website, and an excellent resource for anyone seeking new and archived data, papers and articles on climate. I highly recommend it. Check the comments, too. Simply amazing stuff.

More Arctic ice info:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/16/nature-proves-al-gore-wrong-again/

TJsName · May 23, 2014

Red Oak said:
http://apps.startribune.com/blogs/user_images/NASA-Arctic-Ice-Cap-Melt.jpg
http://ecology.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/ice-chart.jpg
These graphs shows the result of warming on the north pole. The ice is melting which indicates warming not cooling. Very glad to see this thread still going,thank you mods. Should a new thread be started to focus on just climate change without the moose angle? Not that the moose are not important!

I love the moose angle of this thread. It takes it from more abstract and broad issues that are difficult to comprehend to something specific and local/regional. When we figure out the factor(s) that are most strongly limiting the moose population (ticks, worms, bullets, low-T, governmental mind control experiment drugs, etc), then we can put the focus on what variables affect those. I seems that in this specific case we are looking for what we need to be looking for. It's a methodical approach, and it takes a lot of time and effort.

As for the inevitable thread drift, I think the battle between reason/emotion and knowledge/belief will rear its head in almost any discussion. IME, on this forum, people are generally respectful and thoughtful even when disagreeing, which is nice to see.

Given the epistemological nature of the climate change topic, threads of that ilk are likely to continue on until either the science determines that there is no AGW, or the science deniers houses are washed out to sea.

bikehikeskifish · May 23, 2014

TJsName said:
IME, on this forum, people are generally respectful and thoughtful even when disagreeing, which is nice to see.

As long as it stays this way, the thread can stay open.

Tim

Bob · May 23, 2014

RollingRock said:
Hey...here is a novel idea. Instead of reactive and spending taxpayers money to the rescue let's be proactive and do something to mitigate it such as a carbon tax, reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, add more nuclear power plants, etc.? In the long run, preventive measures save money versus reactive measures.

You first-

Give up your car.
Live without electricity in your house
Buy some carbon credits

marnof · May 23, 2014

TJsName said:
Given the epistemological nature of the climate change topic, threads of that ilk are likely to continue on until either the science determines that there is no AGW, or the science deniers houses are washed out to sea.

Interesting comments. Now here's a quiz: which is likely to cause more violent storms, global warming or global cooling? Think about the temp difference between the equator and the poles, and what effect that has on storm formation and strength. Hmmmm. We've been in a warm plateau for well over a decade and strong hurricanes and tornadoes are down. Damage costs rise due to building and rebuilding McMansions in danger-prone locations.

Science! Deny it at your own risk!

TJsName · May 23, 2014

marnof said:
Science! Deny it at your own risk!

It's not clear to me if you are implying there is some sort of evidence my comment refuted. To be clear, I made no reference towards severe weather events. My comment was related to sea-level rise. The loss of land-based ice is pretty well documented (for an easy read, one can start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet#The_melting_ice_sheet). If Greenland alone were to melt, it's enough to raise sea levels by 24' (on average, the centrifugal force make things uneven). The complexities of this scenario are not currently understood from an oceanic circulation standpoint, but ocean currents have a significant impact on weather (e.g. the La Nina/El Nino cycle in the pacific).

TCD · May 23, 2014

You bring up a good point that sea level will probably rise in the next 100 years. One of the problems we have is that there have always been big swings up and down in sea level, but we as a race didn't really know that when we did all our shore based development in the last several hundred years, in a historically cool period.

Regardless of the cause of the swings (IMO natural), and regardless of whether we can do anything about them (IMO no), what we can and should be spending resources on is getting relocated and ready for a 20' sea level rise. To my knowledge, NO ONE ANYWHERE is doing anything at all about that. And that is what we need to fix. I am sure in the US and Europe we will able to take care of this 75 years from now on an emergency basis, but it would be easier to fix now. And I fear that in places like Bangladesh, where 100 million people live within 5' of sea level, and they do not have the technology and wealth to support rapid relocation, there will be extensive loss of life over a 100 year period.

Raven · May 23, 2014

marnof said:
If I were to tell you that the scientists in this film are, in fact, trained in atmospheric chemistry, earth system science, climatology, or related scientific fields, would you find the time or interest to watch it? It's not really fair to disparage a film and it's contributors without giving them credit for their outstanding work in their fields. WebMD???

Syun-Ichi Akasofu Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF). Previously he had been director of the university's Geophysical Institute from 1986.

John Raymond Christy is a climate scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) whose chief interests are satellite remote sensing of global climate and global climate change. He is best known, jointly with Roy Spencer, for the first successful development of a satellite temperature record. For his development of a global temperature data set from satellites he was awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and the American Meteorological Society's "Special Award." In 2002, Christy was elected Fellow of the American Meteorological Society.

Eigil Friis-Christensen is an expert in space physics, and Director of the Danish National Space Center. He was an Adjunct Professor of geophysics and space physics 1996 to 2006 [4] at the Niels Bohr Institute of University of Copenhagen[5] and has authored over 140 research articles or books.

Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940) is an American atmospheric physicist, known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books. From 1983 until he retired in 2013, he was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was a lead author of Chapter 7, 'Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,' of the IPCC Third Assessment Report on climate change.

Patrick Moore is a Canadian ecologist, known as one of the early members of Greenpeace, in which he was an environmental activist from 1971 to 1986. He is an outspoken proponent of nuclear energy and skeptical of sole human responsibility for climate change.

Nir Joseph Shaviv is an Israeli‐American physics professor, carrying out research in the fields of astrophysics and climate science. He is a professor at the Racah Institute of Physics of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is best known for his solar and cosmic-ray hypothesis of climate change. In 2002, Shaviv hypothesised that passages through the Milky Way's spiral arms appear to have been the cause behind the major ice-ages over the past billion years. In his later work, co-authored by Jan Veizer, a low upper limit was placed on the climatic effect of CO2.
Shaviv was interviewed for The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary. In the film he states: “A few years ago if you would ask me I would tell you it's CO2. Why? Because just like everyone else in the public I listened to what the media had to say.” In 2012, he contributed, along with Werner Weber, Henrik Svensmark and Nicola Scafetta, to the book Die kalte Sonne (The Cold Sun) of Fritz Vahrenholt and Sebastian Lüning, a book expressing skepticism of anthropogenic global warming, which attracted considerable interest in Germany. (Since translated to English)

Roy Warren Spencer is a climatologist, Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. He has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. He is known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society's Special Award.

No offense to anyone in the film meant. I appreciate your points and opinion and yes, there are scientists, and some respected ones, who publicly deny anthropogenic climate change. But actual climate science IMO has been so blurred by misinterpretations, lies, political motivations, hysteria, and so on (in both political directions), that I think it has become very difficult for anyone to even sort through all the BS to actually get some sense of truth. Everyone seems to be just yelling as loud as they can about it because they have some stake in it that has little to do with wanting to understand it. I have no agenda either way in climate change. I try to simply understand the reality of it in the larger picture of the earth as a whole. The important point is more that the climate is changing and in some cases rapidly. It might be smart to be prepared for some of the outfall from that.

I had deleted my other post as, at that point, it had nothing to do with moose dying off or hiking for that matter. I may do the same with this one shortly.

60% Of NH Yearling Moose Population Dying

Help Support vftt.org:

Active member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Active member

New member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Active member

New member

New member

Active member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Join the conversation!

Join today and get all the highlights of this community direct to your inbox. It's FREE!