HKWildlife.Net Forum 香港自然生態論壇
遊客:  註冊 | 登錄 | 龍尾 | YouTube | Facebook | English | Library | Blog | 幫助
 
標題: [氣候變化] 北極熊餓死
pyling (快樂的小魚兒)
蟲蛹
Rank: 3Rank: 3Rank: 3


UID 5412
Total 1485
主題
回覆
精華 0
積分 3280
種子 3280
花蜜 1305
閱讀權限 50
註冊 2010-4-18
Pri. Camera: 
狀態 離線
發表於 2013-8-8 09:21  資料 短消息 
北極熊餓死

睇到幅相心都噏埋......

*****************************************************************
北極熊餓死
http://hk.news.yahoo.com/%E5%8C% ... D%BB-224453137.html
【晴報專訊】北極氣溫不斷上升,卻沒有為北極熊帶來「溫暖」。全球暖化令北極海冰加速溶化,北極熊無處覓食。為了生存,有北極熊捱着肚餓,向北遠征七百五十公里,惟仍一無所獲,終因脂肪燃盡,飢餓至死。

「牠身上沒有脂肪,瘦得幾乎只剩皮和骨。」研究北極熊長達四十年的專家Dr. Ian Stirling,如此評價眼前那隻沒有氣息、年僅十六歲的北極熊。
...... (to be continued)
頂部
jasonpoon
蟲蛹
Rank: 3Rank: 3Rank: 3


UID 869
Total 1415
主題
回覆
精華 0
積分 3203
種子 3203
花蜜 1283
閱讀權限 50
註冊 2007-3-29
Pri. Camera:  Olympus
來自 HK
狀態 離線
發表於 2013-8-8 18:29  資料 短消息 
Of coz this is a relatively prominent sighting for the media to disperse... there are millions more less obvious cases of dying or living in connection to the climatic change. Is the warming SOLELY caused by "modern" human activities or we are indeed amongst a natural trend and merely contributing to part of it? Can we at this stage give the final answer?
頂部
pyling (快樂的小魚兒)
蟲蛹
Rank: 3Rank: 3Rank: 3


UID 5412
Total 1485
主題
回覆
精華 0
積分 3280
種子 3280
花蜜 1305
閱讀權限 50
註冊 2010-4-18
Pri. Camera: 
狀態 離線
發表於 2013-8-9 07:50  資料 短消息 
回覆 #2 jasonpoon 的帖子

"Is the warming SOLELY caused by "modern" human activities or we are indeed amongst a natural trend and merely contributing to part of it?"--> Please read the IPCC report AR1 section 2 for the answer.
Here is just the summary:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms2.html

The newer ones will be coming next year.
頂部
jasonpoon
蟲蛹
Rank: 3Rank: 3Rank: 3


UID 869
Total 1415
主題
回覆
精華 0
積分 3203
種子 3203
花蜜 1283
閱讀權限 50
註冊 2007-3-29
Pri. Camera:  Olympus
來自 HK
狀態 離線
發表於 2013-8-28 15:08  資料 短消息 
The ice-core atmosphere pattern need further examination to include analysis in the range up to the order of 10,000 yrs (late glacial periods) rather than just "the recent few thousand years".

All in all, I just want to point out the fact that in strict scientific sense we can only have "confidence level" rather than "truth" about global climatic changes.
頂部
pyling (快樂的小魚兒)
蟲蛹
Rank: 3Rank: 3Rank: 3


UID 5412
Total 1485
主題
回覆
精華 0
積分 3280
種子 3280
花蜜 1305
閱讀權限 50
註冊 2010-4-18
Pri. Camera: 
狀態 離線
發表於 2013-8-30 23:30  資料 短消息 
回覆 #4 jasonpoon 的帖子

Then according to your logic, "in [a] strict scientific sense", there is no "truth". Are you being a Postmodernist here?
However, Positivism is the foundation of physical science.

What I get according to your messages is that "1. There is no 'truth' in the cause of 'global climate change'. 2. Therefore, it is not certain whether human activities have caused the present day global climate change that led to the unusual rapid extinction of various plant and animal species. 3. Therefore, humans are not the ones to be blamed and we should do our activities (in terms of carbon emission, etc) business as usual." I don't like to put words in people's mouth. Please clarify if I get your meaning correctly and please point out otherwise, thanks.
頂部
jasonpoon
蟲蛹
Rank: 3Rank: 3Rank: 3


UID 869
Total 1415
主題
回覆
精華 0
積分 3203
種子 3203
花蜜 1283
閱讀權限 50
註冊 2007-3-29
Pri. Camera:  Olympus
來自 HK
狀態 離線
發表於 2013-9-5 18:45  資料 短消息 
I am more inclined towards the Poperian view of science. In this sense, scientific method deals with falsifiable hypothesis. Therefore if one says he or she is using the scientific method to view or study any phenomenon, then one cannot claim absolute truth but only unfalsified hypothesis or theory, and that's why this scientific method use confidence level (which is always a probability and never absolute) to reject the null hypothesis and use words like "very likely", "likely", "more likely than not" (refer to the blue words in the middle of your quoted web article) when presenting to laymen, rather than just mention "anthropogenic GHG contributed to sea level rise..." or "anthropogenic GHG changed wind patterns..." or "anthropogenic GHG increase the risk of heat waves...", etc.

Now, continuous research and observation and experiment may add new evidence or new factors previously unenvisaged. I mention this because, amongst many other factors, there seems to be unanswered questions about the Quarternary glacial and inter-glacial atmospheric dynamics, during which periods we have evidences of not only one but multiple (some say over 20) times of extreme temperatures, extreme sea levels and many macro-climatic fluctuations that were obviously unrelated to anthropogenic GHGs.

So to treat things in a scientific sense, one would propose a null hypothesis, albeit a bold and controversial one, that anthropogenic GHGs only contribute to a slight or negligible degree to the current climatic changes, and that we are only in the progression period of another glacial era, just like some similar patterns occuring in the past without the existence of modern human. How "likely" then is this hypothesis or theory? It should then be up to experimental and observational verification, if one would like to claim the result "scientific".

I should state my view on the conservation agenda you mentioned later, as I would say it is related, but not overwhelmingly, to global warming.

[ 本帖最後由 jasonpoon 於 2013-9-5 18:52 編輯 ]
頂部
pyling (快樂的小魚兒)
蟲蛹
Rank: 3Rank: 3Rank: 3


UID 5412
Total 1485
主題
回覆
精華 0
積分 3280
種子 3280
花蜜 1305
閱讀權限 50
註冊 2010-4-18
Pri. Camera: 
狀態 離線
發表於 2013-9-5 20:44  資料 短消息 
回覆 #6 jasonpoon 的帖子

"I should state my view on the conservation agenda you mentioned later, as I would say it is related, but not overwhelmingly, to global warming."--> So do you agree those 3 statements that I mentioned in post #5 is the logical thoughts of yours?

Thanks for your lecture on scientific method. Your point is, as long as there is unanswered question exists, then the whole hypothesis should be falsified. The Newton's Laws in physics cannot answer a lot of phenomena in microscopic level, does it mean that Newton's Law do not hold true and therefore worthless?
頂部
jasonpoon
蟲蛹
Rank: 3Rank: 3Rank: 3


UID 869
Total 1415
主題
回覆
精華 0
積分 3203
種子 3203
花蜜 1283
閱讀權限 50
註冊 2007-3-29
Pri. Camera:  Olympus
來自 HK
狀態 離線
發表於 2013-9-10 12:11  資料 短消息 
"Your point is, as long as there is unanswered question exists, then the whole hypothesis should be falsified. The Newton's Laws in physics cannot answer a lot of phenomena in microscopic level, does it mean that Newton's Law do not hold true and therefore worthless?"

No, you got it wrong. A hypothesis can remain unfalsified even with "unanswered question", because those "unanswered question", once become answered, may falsify OR verfiy the hypothesis.

In the Poperian view, any scientific "Law" or "Theory" (of coz including Newton's Laws) should be treated as falsifiable and this view has the charm of avoiding science falling into the "authoritarian" fallacy. If we do science the Poperian way, we would avoid many unverified believes just because they come from the mouths of "authorities". We only rely on experiment, observation, reasoning, statistics, etc to view any phenomenon under study. The beauty of this methodology and indeed this world view is a foundamental ingredient in believing that democracy, objectivity, freedom, etc should triumph against totalitarian or authoritarian world views.

Now your question on Newton's Laws. My answer is that those Laws has a long history of being verified by countless experiments and observations. The paramount being the predications and calculations that brought man to the moon. Since Einstien advanced the relativistic theory, new experiments and observations have shown that Newton's Law is falsified, at very extreme limits of very high speed (speed of light) and very high mass (mass of black hole).

So one must aware of the "application limits" of any "Law" and "Theory" in relation to its verifiability and falsifiability. In the strictest sense, although not widely practised, positive scientific results should all be called "verified hypothesis" rather than the more authoritarian connotations of "Law" or "Theory". In the sense of language convenience, we may use the terms Law and Theory but we must aware of their true meaning, as "many times verified hypothesis" or "long term verified hypothesis"... and there is always the possibility that one day, any law or theory can be falsified.

[ 本帖最後由 jasonpoon 於 2013-9-10 12:12 編輯 ]
頂部
jasonpoon
蟲蛹
Rank: 3Rank: 3Rank: 3


UID 869
Total 1415
主題
回覆
精華 0
積分 3203
種子 3203
花蜜 1283
閱讀權限 50
註冊 2007-3-29
Pri. Camera:  Olympus
來自 HK
狀態 離線
發表於 2013-9-10 12:25  資料 短消息 
In short, my conservation world view was inspired by Rachel Carson in her book Silent Spring published in mid-20th Century. I read that book's Chinese translation back in early 80's, when GHGs and Global Warming hypothesis were largely yet to be verified and the HK society seldom talk about ecology, environmental protection, etc.

Carson's book also mentioned little or none at all on climatic factors, as there were already too many serious threats worth mentioning - environmental toxicology, habitat depletion, extinction, pesticide, etc.

I concur that those impending issues were already enough for human to reflect upon ourselves and awaken from our ignorance that we are destroying at an unpresedented speed our own livelihood and long term survival in this planet.
頂部
pyling (快樂的小魚兒)
蟲蛹
Rank: 3Rank: 3Rank: 3


UID 5412
Total 1485
主題
回覆
精華 0
積分 3280
種子 3280
花蜜 1305
閱讀權限 50
註冊 2010-4-18
Pri. Camera: 
狀態 離線
發表於 2013-9-11 10:26  資料 短消息 
回覆 #9 jasonpoon 的帖子

What makes polar bear's habitat depletion? Even if you let polar bear alone, what about the coral reef?

"environmental toxicology, habitat depletion, extinction, pesticide, etc."-->those threats are also interlinked with present-day global climate change (I am talking about climate, not weather). One cannot isolate one factor and ignore the others. Even if the climate will continue to change after we are long gone (maybe the sun would get much closer), I still think human beings have the responsibility to clean up after what they did and not just let the future generation (if any) to pick up the mess. I really won't mind human beings extinct quietly like other species did, but in the process of making ourselves become extinct, we have made a lot of collateral damages onto other species.
Carson's book was written a long, long time ago in the 1960s. Science is an evolving thing. Her book cannot be treated as a Bible for environmental science. However, her inspiration on environmental protection is huge and is a legend.

Let's wait for the upcoming IPCC.
頂部
jasonpoon
蟲蛹
Rank: 3Rank: 3Rank: 3


UID 869
Total 1415
主題
回覆
精華 0
積分 3203
種子 3203
花蜜 1283
閱讀權限 50
註冊 2007-3-29
Pri. Camera:  Olympus
來自 HK
狀態 離線
發表於 2013-9-13 18:08  資料 短消息 
Coral reefs are presenting a mixed picture - while many "white washes" were likely to be caused by global warming, there are evidence of new coral colonization of previously "too cold" waters for coral. So albeit in a poorly understood and much studies needed phenomenon, coral reefs seem in someway "benefit" from the warmer waters that allow their extension into previously unhabitable waters.

Er... I really do not think one can say the wide and indiscriminate use of pesticide (DDT in particular) and many rapid habitat destruction has much to do with climatic change... they are purely the results of human population explosion, agricutural revolution, extension of human villages and cities into forests and wilderness, and to a good extend the short-sightedness of greedy human societies.

In short, think about the speed. Human destruction to the environment does in many other ways much quicker than the slow effect of warming up the climate (lets just assume this is 100% the case). So although I agree global warming is part of the environmental agenda, it is albeit NOT the most pending one!

No one should treat any book or view as Bible for any science, if you remember science is precisely "anti-authoritarian". Yes, Carson's book was written in the 60's, but who else and which single work or book until now can you name that has influenced and inspired ecological conservation and environmentalism to that degree? Perhaps M. Bookchin's "On Synthetic Environment", but to a lesser degree.

There are of course many other works and programs on environmentalism: e.g. popularisers of conservation and ecology, e.g. the naturalists John J Audubon, explorer Jacques-Yves Cousteau, TV giant David Attenborough, commentator David Suzuki, "Gaia" proposer James Lovelock, ex-US Vice President Al Gore, ecologists - Rachel Carson, E.P. Odem, Edward O. Wilson, Ernst Mayr, etc.

So I want only to point out that if we are concerning cleaning up the mess or stopping something, global warming is but one of the lesser priorities. Lets hope that the impending disaters like war and provety and famine and iliterarcy be alleviated even a bit. Lets hope the idea of over-population and birth control be inspired even a little bit to the developing societies and cultures. Lets hope the killings and ever political instabilities in regions like Africa, the Middle East, the SE Asia and parts of South America be lessened.

When you go deeper into the issues of environmentalism, it becomes the problem of humanity itself. For IPCC or WWF or Greenpeace, etc... how much are they really contributing to our impending issues named above? Few of those people have really come to face any closer to the messy problems - our humanity.

I must end by confessing myself, I do not have the heart and guts to throw myself into that endeavor of working for our environmental problems. I am just a bystander and spectator, sometimes pouncing a few helpless words on this vast issue.

[ 本帖最後由 jasonpoon 於 2013-9-16 23:54 編輯 ]

本帖最近評分記錄
pyling   2013-9-14 23:21  種子  +10   感謝分享 Thanks for sharing !
頂部
 


Untitled Document


當前時區 GMT+8, 現在時間是 2019-5-24 18:02

Powered by Discuz! 5.0.0  © 2006-2008 HKWildlife.Net
Processed in 0.051062 second(s), 9 queries , Gzip enabled
清除 Cookies - 聯繫我們 - HKWildlife.Net - Archiver