View Full Version : Hawaiian Coqui Killers
PR-Giants
10-13-2013, 11:21 AM
Hawaiian Coqui, Facts about the coqui in Hawaii (http://www.killerculture.com/hawaiiancoqui/)
"This moral depravity reached its zenith in 2007, with a planned Coqui Bounty Hunter contest to be held by public schools on the Big Island. Schools instructed students to kill coquis, either by burning them with acid, cooking them alive, or freezing them. The school with the most "kills" would receive a prize -- the violent video games Playstation 3 and Xbox. The contest was canceled once it was pointed out to the schools that students are supposed to receive humane, not inhumane, education"
robguz24
10-13-2013, 01:20 PM
The guy that runs that site, who lives near me, is notorious for advocating for the protection of invasive species to the detriment of native species, here in the endangered species capital of the US. They are here to stay here and have no natural predators. They also love bananas, so they love my yard. They do get so loud here it's difficult to watch TV in the evening without blasting it or closing all the doors and windows, and many people have learned to live with sleeping with earplugs. It's nice to visit other islands where it's wonderfully quiet at night.
I remember reading about that sick contest too.
PR-Giants
10-13-2013, 03:38 PM
If you live in a concrete house, I can fully understand, the echoes seem louder than the original chirp.
In a wooden house it is much easier on the ears.
caliboy1994
10-13-2013, 04:34 PM
That article is clearly trying to downplay the issue of invasive species. I live in California, which is another state where invasive species have run rampant. They have completely overhauled and transformed ecosystems, and have driven many native species close to extinction. The grasslands that cover much of California were once perennial and green year round, but thanks to introduced European annual grasses they dry out in the summer, which increases fire hazard substantially. They have also displaced native grasses, driving some of them close to extinction. Now, undisturbed native grasslands are extremely difficult to find in this state. Not all introduced species are detrimental, but those that disrupt the balance of an ecosystem don't belong. Here at least, most of the worst invasive species are plants (the Argentine ant is a very notable exception). But whatever the case, if an introduced species poses a threat to either humans or the native ecosystem, they should be eradicated. I can tell you as an environmental scientist that that's the best course of action.
Rob, I'm sure you know how bad strawberry guava is in Hawaii. Non-native European grasses are like strawberry guava on crack here. The entire grassland community on the mountain behind my house in Southern California has been COMPLETELY taken over by wild oats, another European invasive grass. The only things you'll see in the affected area besides wild oats is wild mustard (another terrible invasive) and perhaps a few native wildflowers.
shannondicorse
10-13-2013, 05:06 PM
Hawaiian Coqui, Facts about the coqui in Hawaii (http://www.killerculture.com/hawaiiancoqui/)
"This moral depravity reached its zenith in 2007, with a planned Coqui Bounty Hunter contest to be held by public schools on the Big Island. Schools instructed students to kill coquis, either by burning them with acid, cooking them alive, or freezing them. The school with the most "kills" would receive a prize -- the violent video games Playstation 3 and Xbox. The contest was canceled once it was pointed out to the schools that students are supposed to receive humane, not inhumane, education"
PR,
In addition, these vendettas are possibly attempts to create (taxpayer-subsidised) extermination industries by playing on xenophobia, paranoia and general ignorance of the populace.
Call a species "dangerous", "alien" or "invasive" and it stirs up primeval human instincts that often throw reason and commonsense out of the window.
We have another non-native "coqui", Eleutherodactylus johnstonei here on Trinidad; it has not interacted with the native E. urichi; and has found a niche in built environments - where other amphibians, dependent on water to reproduce, cannot inhabit.
Similarly, there is this flap locally about the Giant African Snail, Lissachatina fulica, recently introduced to Trinidad. Innocent $$$ are spent on the negative press... but the molluscs are less ravenous than several slugs here.
Reminds me of those panicky reports that the banana was going to go extinct because of FOC TR4.
Ha!
shannon
shannon.di.corse@gmail.com
caliboy1994
10-13-2013, 06:02 PM
We have another non-native "coqui", Eleutherodactylus johnstonei here on Trinidad; it has not interacted with the native E. urichi; and has found a niche in built environments - where other amphibians, dependent on water to reproduce, cannot inhabit.
Similarly, there is this flap locally about the Giant African Snail, Lissachatina fulica, recently introduced to Trinidad. Innocent $$$ are spent on the negative press... but the molluscs are less ravenous than several slugs here.
As I said, not all introduced species are detrimental. So many species have been introduced into my state that it's not even funny. Most of them are not harmful at all. But there are those that are. We're not going to say that kudzu in the Southeastern US or that feral pigs and rats in Hawaii aren't bad, right?
shannondicorse
10-13-2013, 06:40 PM
As I said, not all introduced species are detrimental. So many species have been introduced into my state that it's not even funny. Most of them are not harmful at all. But there are those that are. We're not going to say that kudzu in the Southeastern US or that feral pigs and rats in Hawaii aren't bad, right?
caliboy,
Not at all!
What we humans have to understand is that we humans are the ones who actually decide what is "good" and what is "bad".
So it's 100% a human value judgement.
Given that, what I ask of most of my environmentalist friends is balance and critical thinking.
For if, in fact, we are the judges of what constitutes a "healthy" environment - for I know of no other species that has applied for the job - then we ought to prosecute our task with a critical mind and not frenzy.
As an environmentalist, it pains me to see the time, money and human resource wasted on quixotic crusades that are founded in fantasy and not fact.
This planet changed irrevocably when Homo sapiens sapiens stepped out of Africa a while back. We have to understand the inevitability and the irrevocability of the consequences of the Human Adventure.
But that still ongoing environmental change was not anything as harsh as when the icecaps melted 11,600 or so years ago; or when the ice returns once more.
If we arrogate unto ourselves the task of managing the change we have wrought and will continue to wreak on the biosphere, we must use every ounce of our cool reason. We must be as sober as judges; for decisions once made, are often impossible to undo.
This is my point. Nothing else.
shannon
shannon.di.corse@gmail.con
robguz24
10-13-2013, 06:43 PM
PR,
In addition, these vendettas are possibly attempts to create (taxpayer-subsidised) extermination industries by playing on xenophobia, paranoia and general ignorance of the populace.
Call a species "dangerous", "alien" or "invasive" and it stirs up primeval human instincts that often throw reason and commonsense out of the window.
We have another non-native "coqui", Eleutherodactylus johnstonei here on Trinidad; it has not interacted with the native E. urichi; and has found a niche in built environments - where other amphibians, dependent on water to reproduce, cannot inhabit.
Similarly, there is this flap locally about the Giant African Snail, Lissachatina fulica, recently introduced to Trinidad. Innocent $$$ are spent on the negative press... but the molluscs are less ravenous than several slugs here.
Reminds me of those panicky reports that the banana was going to go extinct because of FOC TR4.
Ha!
shannon
shannon.di.corse@gmail.com
Unfortunately shannon, it's quite the opposite here. Very little effort was made to eradicate the species when it first got here. It first showed up in the poorest, least touristy part of the state. Other islands and regions have been more aggressive in trying to control or eradicate them. On the Big Island wet side, there is no real point in trying except in some of the higher elevation areas they haven't quite spread to. With no predators, they have already evolved in some cases to make noise about 21 hours per day instead of just at night. Hawaii has no native amphibians or reptiles, and only 1 native land mammal, a type of bat. So there really is no comparison to it becoming established somewhere that has native amphibians, let alone other native types of coqui.
Very little is spent on invasive species eradication and control here. Again, our little state leads the nation in endangered species, with something like 1/3 of all the endangered species nationwide being in Hawaii. The problem here is lack of concern about them, and the ignorance strongly leads in the direction of ignorance of the impact on our fragile endemic ecosystems. In the scheme of things, coqui are low on the impact list compared to many invasive plants. There is also very little being done about those plants with a few exceptions, the strawberry guava being one of them. The state has introduced a pest which is expected to at least slow the spread of this plant.
The person who runs that site was also active in trying to prevent the eradication of invasive mangrove here.
shannondicorse
10-13-2013, 07:31 PM
...Very little is spent on invasive species eradication and control here. Again, our little state leads the nation in endangered species, with something like 1/3 of all the endangered species nationwide being in Hawaii. The problem here is lack of concern about them, and the ignorance strongly leads in the direction of ignorance of the impact on our fragile endemic ecosystems. In the scheme of things, coqui are low on the impact list compared to many invasive plants. There is also very little being done about those plants with a few exceptions, the strawberry guava being one of them. The state has introduced a pest which is expected to at least slow the spread of this plant.
The person who runs that site was also active in trying to prevent the eradication of invasive mangrove here.
robguz,
The problem is once humans set foot on on the Hawaiian archipelago - once any species establishes itself there - it likely changed/s things forever.
Humans are a bit unusual in that they bring a welter of species with them on an ongoing basis. Other species just attract a handful of pests, pathogens and commensals.
All we can do is build robustness in the new ecosystem that results - so we have to take a systems approach. We can't go back to the old ecosystem - it's gone forever.
The criteria that I suggest should be used in a way forward is to ask the questions:
1) Did we deeply understand the old ecosystem?
2) Do we understand the likely paths to the new ecosystem resulting from the inadvertent floristic/faunistic change? And, in this latter task, we ought to be proactive and envision likely additions.
3) Given the understanding that we cannot go back - where do we want to go?
My suggestion, again, is that we want robustness in the ecosystem; and we ought to want to minimise species or genetic erosion.
The example with Strawberry Guava is a good one; you've put in negative feedback loops. If enough of these are put in the network; it stabilises it and prevent population oscillations that might threaten species and genetic diversity.
That's where the brains and money have to be put - into mitigation of the untoward effects of invaders... and stabilising the new ecosystems so that they can maximise diversity.
Because come the invaders will. This is, after all, the Anthropocene.
Unfortunately, few environmentalists tend to think like this. They are mostly rigid ideologues - and that, I think, is the Achilles Heel of the movement.
Very sincerely,
shannon
shannon.di.corse@gmail.com
robguz24
10-13-2013, 08:42 PM
robguz,
The problem is once humans set foot on on the Hawaiian archipelago - once any species establishes itself there - it likely changed/s things forever.
Humans are a bit unusual in that they bring a welter of species with them on an ongoing basis. Other species just attract a handful of pests, pathogens and commensals.
All we can do is build robustness in the new ecosystem that results - so we have to take a systems approach. We can't go back to the old ecosystem - it's gone forever.
The criteria that I suggest should be used in a way forward is to ask the questions:
1) Did we deeply understand the old ecosystem?
2) Do we understand the likely paths to the new ecosystem resulting from the inadvertent floristic/faunistic change? And, in this latter task, we ought to be proactive and envision likely additions.
3) Given the understanding that we cannot go back - where do we want to go?
My suggestion, again, is that we want robustness in the ecosystem; and we ought to want to minimise species or genetic erosion.
The example with Strawberry Guava is a good one; you've put in negative feedback loops. If enough of these are put in the network; it stabilises it and prevent population oscillations that might threaten species and genetic diversity.
That's where the brains and money have to be put - into mitigation of the untoward effects of invaders... and stabilising the new ecosystems so that they can maximise diversity.
Because come the invaders will. This is, after all, the Anthropocene.
Unfortunately, few environmentalists tend to think like this. They are mostly rigid ideologues - and that, I think, is the Achilles Heel of the movement.
Very sincerely,
shannon
shannon.di.corse@gmail.com
There are of course, opportunities for eradication once things have not gotten to the point of becoming permanently established. There are also areas that in which certain particularly destructive species can be eradicated and in which native species that would otherwise go extinct can be saved. We certainly can go back in some regards and with certain species and other areas can be quite well preserved, with few non-native species.
I was of the understanding that our current global rate of species extinction is on par with some of the larger mass extinctions. While the Hawaiians themselves irrevocably changed something like 80% of the land below 1500' elevation in Hawaii, that still left a lot of more pristine areas higher up.
sunfish
10-13-2013, 09:36 PM
:woohoonaner:
Coqui frogs given rare sanctuary on Hawaii Island - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w3A6i4ehVg)
shannondicorse
10-14-2013, 05:44 AM
....I was of the understanding that our current global rate of species extinction is on par with some of the larger mass extinctions...
robguz,
This simply isn't so. 'Anthropocene' extinction pales by comparison to what happened over and over again in the last 3 million years.
Our world is filled with marketers. They sell everything: Expensive Climate Change Mitigation/Carbon Credits; Expensive Health Care; Expensive Banana Breeding Programmes; ...and good ol' Warfare. You name it they sell it - never cheaply.
Like all good sales people they are slick. And to be fair, many of them passionately believe their stories.
If you listen to them without thinking critically, with blind passion - and without independent access to the facts - they even make sense.
Very sincerely,
shannon
shannon.di.corse@gmail.com
PR-Giants
10-14-2013, 07:09 AM
We're not going to say that rats in Hawaii aren't bad, right?
Good idea, start with killing all the rats and after you're finished, then have a debate on who's next.
PR-Giants
10-14-2013, 07:33 AM
University of Hawai'i at Manoa - Control of Coqui Frog in Hawai'i (http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/coqui/background.asp)
"in Hawai`i, mating pairs produce a clutch every 2½ weeks without loss of fertility – that’s 26 clutches a year"
Why Are Coqui Frogs a Problem in Hawai'i?
"Coqui frogs have a voracious appetite that puts Hawai'i’s unique insects and spiders at risk."
"They can also compete with endemic birds and other native fauna that rely on insects for food."
"Scientists are also concerned that an established coqui frog population may serve as a
readily available food source if (or when) brown tree snakes are accidentally introduced in Hawai'i"
Hawai'i is lucky we sent the Coqui (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coqui) instead of the Chupacabra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chupacabra).
PR-Giants
10-14-2013, 07:41 AM
Home Depot was saved
:woohoonaner:
"Early successes include removing coquis from a landscaped area of the Iwilei Home Depot parking lot"
Honolulu Star-Bulletin News (http://archives.starbulletin.com/2003/06/24/news/index2.html)
shannondicorse
10-14-2013, 07:58 AM
University of Hawai'i at Manoa - Control of Coqui Frog in Hawai'i (http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/coqui/background.asp)
"in Hawai`i, mating pairs produce a clutch every 2½ weeks without loss of fertility – that’s 26 clutches a year"
Why Are Coqui Frogs a Problem in Hawai'i?
"Coqui frogs have a voracious appetite that puts Hawai'i’s unique insects and spiders at risk."
"They can also compete with endemic birds and other native fauna that rely on insects for food."
"Scientists are also concerned that an established coqui frog population may serve as a
readily available food source if (or when) brown tree snakes are accidentally introduced in Hawai'i"
Hawai'i is lucky we sent the Coqui (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coqui) instead of the Chupacabra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chupacabra).
PR,
Isolated evolved in situ "island biomes" have histories of chaotic collapse, because there is no evolved robustness of the ecosystem. Once a random new species makes landfall and establishes itself it can destroy a lot.
The solution, I assert, is not to fritter away resources on keeping things out; but to focus on building robustness in a way that preserves the pre-invasion diversity as far as practically possible.
This means investment in high-quality quantitative field studies and supercomputer simulations to understand the ecosystem dynamics; with prescribed action being taken after.
For some island species this means that they will only remain extant in preserves and other artificially maintained collections. For some substantial majority there might be hope that they can survive in a re-engineered wilderness.
This is not a view that appeals to many environmentalist-conservationists.
My heart bleeds for the fruit flies of Hawaii and the little frogs of Puerto Rico. But Eden is gone forever. And to build a conservation strategy based on a return to Eden is folly.
shannon
shannon.di.corse@gmail
wolfyhound
10-14-2013, 09:10 AM
Florida has a massively increasing population of Cuban tree frogs. And as charming as I find Cuban tree frogs(I had one for a while named Gilbert the Creepy Tree Frog), they are destroying native frogs. In many places the native tree frogs disappear entirely and there's nothing but the Cubans.
I love frogs. I love most all critters in fact. But non-native species are a huge issue and making it all about how wonderfully cute the little froggies are and how "every creature is precious" isn't realistic when trying to rehab a ecosystem. How much has Hawaii already lost?
People trying to "fix" things is how Florida ended up with Cane Toads. When they decide on a course of action it should be in conjunction with a lot of study to make certain they're not making things worse(spraying whole jungles with poisons??).
PR-Giants
10-14-2013, 10:31 AM
"cane/marine toads (:ha:Bufo marinuss:ha:), which also have been introduced to Hawai'i"
Biology and Impacts of Pacific Island Invasive Species. 8. Eleutherodactylus Planirostris, the Greenhouse Frog (Anura: Eleutherodactylidae) - Pacific Science | HighBeam Research (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-297310081.html)
robguz24
10-14-2013, 11:02 AM
robguz,
This simply isn't so. 'Anthropocene' extinction pales by comparison to what happened over and over again in the last 3 million years.
Our world is filled with marketers. They sell everything: Expensive Climate Change Mitigation/Carbon Credits; Expensive Health Care; Expensive Banana Breeding Programmes; ...and good ol' Warfare. You name it they sell it - never cheaply.
Like all good sales people they are slick. And to be fair, many of them passionately believe their stories.
If you listen to them without thinking critically, with blind passion - and without independent access to the facts - they even make sense.
Very sincerely,
shannon
shannon.di.corse@gmail.com
Conflating scientists working on protecting native species with the military industrial complex and health insurance companies isn't serving your arguments well. I'll let our governor know he can go ahead and fire all the inspectors that are actively keeping out previously unintroduced snakes (we have none), plants, and plant diseases. Wow, what an expensive waste of resources!
caliboy1994
10-14-2013, 06:20 PM
It is true that we may live in a new geological era where Earth's ecology and biochemistry is being heavily altered by the influence of mankind, but that doesn't give us the excuse to be passively accepting of it and not do anything about it. As the new dominant species on the planet, it is OUR responsibility to make sure that our actions don't ruin the planet's preexisting ecological balance, and if our actions are doing so then we need to make a coordinated effort to mitigate these impacts. We are intelligent; we have all of the capabilities, resources, and know-how to make sure that our own presence doesn't screw everything up. There is no point in advocating not trying to lessen the current impacts we are having on Earth's biosphere and not trying to clean up the messes we have made. Because if we allow ourselves to ruin everything, we are nothing more than a cancer on the face of the Earth that will cause long-lasting or even irreversible damage to its systems.
shannondicorse
10-14-2013, 07:32 PM
Conflating scientists working on protecting native species with the military industrial complex and health insurance companies isn't serving your arguments well. I'll let our governor know he can go ahead and fire all the inspectors that are actively keeping out previously unintroduced snakes (we have none), plants, and plant diseases. Wow, what an expensive waste of resources!
robguz,
no... this is not what I'm saying... at all!!
What I routinely see are grossly misplaced scientific resources.
Good protection and quarantine are critical in the short & medium term but they will not make as huge a difference as we think, in the long run.
Because unless civilisation collapses, the long run matters enormously. An ecological garrison strategy cannot be sustained in the long run.
If the annual probability of successfully blockading any potentially offensive species per year is p (p<1) then the probability of the blockade being successful in N years is p^N. Lim p^N; N >>infinity = 0
Understanding a biosystem in quantitative depth; and then building robustness into it is the only sustainable way*.
But no-one is systematically funding this. And the reasons lie in the short-run economics of the business aspect of scientific research. There are several ways to add robustness. These have to be case specifically quantitatively researched in minutiae. That is ALL I'm saying.
Sorry to offend anyone.
sincerely,
shannon
shannon.di.corse@gmail.com
* I can, however, see other strategies involving specially targeted artificial viruses etc... but waging biological warfare is a deadly slippery slope. I'll not go there!
shannondicorse
10-14-2013, 07:51 PM
...We are intelligent; we have all of the capabilities, resources, and know-how to make sure that our own presence doesn't screw everything up. There is no point in advocating not trying to lessen the current impacts we are having on Earth's biosphere and not trying to clean up the messes we have made....
caliboy,
I argue in my post to robguz that currently we don't have the capability and resources to mitigate some of the things that you fear.
At the current level of human population and industrial development there is no way that we can avoid making (past, present & future) significant and telling impacts on the planet.
What these impacts are; and their dynamics; are woefully under-studied.
This is because we have not deployed resources towards in depth understanding of the dynamics of the biosphere and its constituent subsystems.
The Human Ecology has significantly impacted the system. There are objective, but not comprehensive, measures of this impact.
That humans have "messed" up the system is an aesthetic statement. "We" have to decide what we think we want. "We" have to research whether or not what we think we want is realisable. "We" currently do not have that capability; because we do not put our resources into such study.
I'm kinda sorry that PR-Giant's semi-lighthearted post engendered such deep and weighty consequences.
But these things have to be said.
shannon
shannon.di.corse@gmail.com
robguz24
10-15-2013, 02:12 AM
robguz,
no... this is not what I'm saying... at all!!
What I routinely see are grossly misplaced scientific resources.
Good protection and quarantine are critical in the short & medium term but they will not make as huge a difference as we think, in the long run.
Because unless civilisation collapses, the long run matters enormously. An ecological garrison strategy cannot be sustained in the long run.
If the annual probability of successfully blockading any potentially offensive species per year is p (p<1) then the probability of the blockade being successful in N years is p^N. Lim p^N; N >>infinity = 0
Understanding a biosystem in quantitative depth; and then building robustness into it is the only sustainable way*.
But no-one is systematically funding this. And the reasons lie in the short-run economics of the business aspect of scientific research. There are several ways to add robustness. These have to be case specifically quantitatively researched in minutiae. That is ALL I'm saying.
Sorry to offend anyone.
sincerely,
shannon
shannon.di.corse@gmail.com
* I can, however, see other strategies involving specially targeted artificial viruses etc... but waging biological warfare is a deadly slippery slope. I'll not go there!
No worries, I agree with some of your points. I guess I come from the perspective living here where I see little emphasis is put on science, or any understanding of our native ecosystems vs. things like tourism. In the long term, really even 10 million years is short term in geological time, all the Hawaiian islands will be long gone due to natural geological processes, and new islands will emerge. In the short term, I am just saying there is real impact on the existence of some species, and certainly in some cases as impacts people living in certain areas. The irony of the coqui is that you have to disclose it on real estate transactions. Some people won't live in such areas, and it keeps where I live a bit more affordable! It also make tourism less attractive which is also nice overall, though I have nothing against tourists, having been one for years before I moved to Hawaii.
PR-Giants
10-15-2013, 04:14 AM
caliboy you are not consistent, today in this thread http://www.bananas.org/f2/real-ice-cream-19161.html you seem to accept that "real pests" were being transported around the world without any formal inspection. This could be happening hundreds of times a day, so who is going to be responsible for the people who are not responsible.
The Coqui provides a benefit and the Banana Weevil is a major pest.
It is true that we may live in a new geological era where Earth's ecology and biochemistry is being heavily altered by the influence of mankind, but that doesn't give us the excuse to be passively accepting of it and not do anything about it. As the new dominant species on the planet, it is OUR responsibility to make sure that our actions don't ruin the planet's preexisting ecological balance, and if our actions are doing so then we need to make a coordinated effort to mitigate these impacts. We are intelligent; we have all of the capabilities, resources, and know-how to make sure that our own presence doesn't screw everything up. There is no point in advocating not trying to lessen the current impacts we are having on Earth's biosphere and not trying to clean up the messes we have made. Because if we allow ourselves to ruin everything, we are nothing more than a cancer on the face of the Earth that will cause long-lasting or even irreversible damage to its systems.
PR-Giants
10-15-2013, 05:27 AM
I'm kinda sorry that PR-Giant's semi-lighthearted post engendered such deep and weighty consequences.
But these things have to be said.
shannon.di.corse@gmail.com
You might enjoy this thread http://www.bananas.org/f9/climate-change-hoax-exposed-10394-73.html
shannondicorse
10-15-2013, 05:58 AM
You might enjoy this thread http://www.bananas.org/f9/climate-change-hoax-exposed-10394-73.html
PR,
The "Global Warming" that has morphed into "Climate Change" has now become a Carbon Cult.
Religious matters stir deep emotions in people; so I don't discuss religion. I have no wish to be burnt at the stake (...thereby adding even more CO2 to the atmosphere - lol!).
I don't want to disclose much of my background; because I'm only here to fool around breeding bananas...
...but I've NEVER seen a quantitative General Circulation Model that works over an extended timeframe without tweaking to fit the data as it comes in. Even modelling paleoclimates fails abysmally - when everything is retrospective.
In fact, I resolutely maintain that predictive Climatology is just where predictive Economics is: informative and perhaps entertaining. Nothing else.
Just ask anyone to explain in detail how a "greenhouse gas" works to increase mean temperature globally... and try hard (...i mean really hard!) to contain your laughter.
shannon
shannon.di.corse@gmail.com
caliboy1994
10-15-2013, 06:00 PM
Climate models may not be entirely accurate in terms of predicting shifts in weather patterns in the future, but the current observed warming trend and its extremely strong correlation to increased GHG concentrations is very real.
designshark
10-15-2013, 06:46 PM
:ha: If it wasn't for "global warming / climate change" I'd be on top of a glacier right now! :ha:
:rollerbananadone:
caliboy1994
10-15-2013, 06:57 PM
Yeah, and if it weren't for anthropogenic climate change Glacier National Park in Montana would have 150 glaciers instead of 25!
Retreat of Glaciers in Glacier National Park | Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center (NOROCK) (http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/glacier_retreat.htm)
designshark
10-15-2013, 07:18 PM
Studies show Mars is warming too, I've stayed awake at night wondering how us humans have caused that? Then I came to the idea that maybe it's the sun! Ah ha! That would cause Earth and Mars to warm more than previous years. But on the other hand, that's too simple. The governments of the world wouldn't be able to tax the sun so we must convince everyone us humans have caused all the warming, even before we arrived. Just a thought. :ha:
caliboy1994
10-15-2013, 07:52 PM
We don't know enough about Mars' climate systems to say what's causing any warming that may be happening there. Many of the variables at work on Mars are much different than what goes on here (for example their atmospheres are much different, the influence of albedo on both of the planets is very different, particulate concentrations and compositions on Earth and Mars are very different, their climate cycles are very different, and of course we have the biosphere which plays a role in regulating climate). There have been no significant increases in solar energy in recent years either. If changes in solar output are in any way contributing to Earth's current warming trend, then they aren't contributing much to it at all. The IPCC reported recently with 95% certainty that anthropogenic GHG emissions are the cause. And this is a no brainer, because we know for a fact that global average temperatures and greenhouse gas concentrations are directly linked.
sunfish
10-15-2013, 07:59 PM
How the hell can they only be 95% certain
designshark
10-15-2013, 08:45 PM
And only I can prevent forest fires . . .
Richard
10-15-2013, 09:57 PM
How the hell can they only be 95% certain
Tony, "certainty rate" is a standard term in statistics that refers to a calculation with respect to a "confidence interval". So the meaning is much different than it appears at first glance. For example, it does not mean that 95% of researchers are sure, or that all researchers are 95% sure ...
caliboy1994
10-15-2013, 11:39 PM
Here's a good analogy: Say you got a chest x-ray and there was a lump in your lung. It was not entirely clear what it was though, and it was impossible to tell for sure what it was. The doctor said that there was a 95% chance that it was a cancerous tumor, and a 5% chance that it was either a benign tumor or nothing at all. What would you do? I, for one, would certainly go through cancer treatment just to be sure. We call that the precautionary principle. :)
caliboy1994
10-15-2013, 11:43 PM
caliboy you are not consistent, today in this thread http://www.bananas.org/f2/real-ice-cream-19161.html you seem to accept that "real pests" were being transported around the world without any formal inspection. This could be happening hundreds of times a day, so who is going to be responsible for the people who are not responsible.
The Coqui provides a benefit and the Banana Weevil is a major pest.
It may be beneficial for controlling banana weevil populations, but it certainly isn't good for native insect populations in Hawaii's forests now, isn't it? Couldn't we bring in some other form of bio-control in Hawaii to control banana weevils, one that wouldn't become invasive?
Same thing with kudzu. It's great for building soil, but it invades native temperate forest in the Eastern US, and eventually chokes out anything that it climbs on.
Richard
10-16-2013, 12:24 AM
Here's a good analogy: Say you got a chest x-ray and there was a lump in your lung. It was not entirely clear what it was though, and it was impossible to tell for sure what it was. The doctor said that there was a 95% chance that it was a cancerous tumor, and a 5% chance that it was either a benign tumor or nothing at all. What would you do? I, for one, would certainly go through cancer treatment just to be sure. We call that the precautionary principle. :)
As a college mathematics+ teacher, I would say you misunderstood the meaning of 95% likelihood.
caliboy1994
10-16-2013, 12:56 AM
As a college mathematics+ teacher, I would say you misunderstood the meaning of 95% likelihood.
Well, that was more meant to communicate the precautionary principle across than illustrate the principle of likelihood. Hence, a very powerful argument as to why we should take action.
sunfish
10-16-2013, 09:32 AM
Here's a good analogy: Say you got a chest x-ray and there was a lump in your lung. It was not entirely clear what it was though, and it was impossible to tell for sure what it was. The doctor said that there was a 95% chance that it was a cancerous tumor, and a 5% chance that it was either a benign tumor or nothing at all. What would you do? I, for one, would certainly go through cancer treatment just to be sure. We call that the precautionary principle. :)
Say you needed to work on an electric circuit. You ask your scientist assistant if he shut off the breaker. He says I'm 95% certain I did. Would you touch the wires or go check the breaker .
caliboy1994
10-16-2013, 10:51 AM
Well, according to the precautionary principle, I would probably want to double check to see if the breaker was off myself.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.