La impactante imagen de una osa polar desnutrida en el Ártico

Tema en 'Foro Libre' iniciado por misteriosa, 30 Ago 2015.

  1. misteriosa

    misteriosa

    Mensajes:
    1.663
    Me Gusta recibidos:
    640
    Registrado:
    1 Mar 2014
    Género:
    Femenino
    La impactante imagen de una osa polar desnutrida en el Ártico

    • La fotógrafa alemana Kerstin Langenber subió la instantánea a su Facebook para denunciar los efectos del cambio climático

      [​IMG]

      La fotógrafa alemana Kerstin Langenber realizó esta fotografía en las islas Svarlbard, entre Noruega y el Polo Norte. En la imagen que colgó en sus redes sociales puede verse a una osa polar desnutrida, algo que ha servido para denunciar las consecuencias tan graves que el cambio climático tiene en los animales. La publicación ya ha sido compartida más de 25.000 veces.

      Langenber añadió junto a la fotografía varios comentanrios para denunciar la situación: «Sí, he visto osos en buen estado, pero también especies muertas o desnutridas. Osos que caminan en las orillas buscando comida, tratando de cazar alces o comiendo huevos de aves, musgos y algas; y me doy cuenta de que los gordos son casi siempre machos».

      «Afirman que la población es estable, incluso en aumento. ¿Cómo puede ser estable si tiene cada vez menos hembras y cachorros? ¿Cómo puede una población estar bien, si la mayoría de los osos presentan un índice de masa corporal de 2.3 sobre 5?», añadió la alemana acerca de la situación de los osos polares.

      Pese a ello, asegura no tener datos científicos para respaldar su teoría, pero que sí tiene «ojos para ver». Además, Langenber concluye: «Hagamos algo. Quizá no podamos salvar a esta osa, pero cada pequeña acción que hagamos para cambiar será un paso en la dirección correcta».
     
    • Gracias Gracias x 8

  2. Xarradora

    Xarradora

    Mensajes:
    570
    Me Gusta recibidos:
    354
    Registrado:
    6 Nov 2006
    ¡¡ Qué tristeza !! ¿Pero qué estamos haciendo con el planeta?
     
    • De acuerdo De acuerdo x 2
  3. el porqué de las cosas

    el porqué de las cosas

    Mensajes:
    5.555
    Me Gusta recibidos:
    1.486
    Registrado:
    16 Mar 2013
    No te preocupes, dentro de poco nos harán pagar - al mundo mundial - la tasa sobre las emisiones de dióxido de carbono y todo el problema resuelto ;)
     
    • Bingo Bingo x 4
    • De acuerdo De acuerdo x 3
  4. misteriosa

    misteriosa

    Mensajes:
    1.663
    Me Gusta recibidos:
    640
    Registrado:
    1 Mar 2014
    Género:
    Femenino
    Además aparte de la imagen tan penosa de la OSA fijaos encima de que trocito de hielo está
    El otro día salió que el deshielo de los glaciares este año ha sido brutal.
    En pocas décadas no habrá sitio para algunas especies

    Yo no soy experta en el tema, pero hoy un bochorno de 35 grados aquí y llevamos así todo el verano que no es normal.
    Ya dicen que España en unos años será la nueva Marruecos en cuanto a clima.
    Pero independientemente de lo que notemos más o menos nosotros en nuestro día a día lo que es incuestionable es el deshielo del ártico y últimamente a marchas forzadas

     
    • Gracias Gracias x 2
    • No estoy de acuerdo No estoy de acuerdo x 1
  5. warual

    warual

    Mensajes:
    17.956
    Me Gusta recibidos:
    5.557
    Registrado:
    21 Jul 2007
    Vamos hacia una glaciación, aunque interese decir lo contrario.
     
    • Bingo Bingo x 4
    • De acuerdo De acuerdo x 2
  6. Bubi

    Bubi

    Mensajes:
    9.032
    Me Gusta recibidos:
    2.197
    Registrado:
    20 Oct 2009
    claro que vamos hacia una glaciación, estamos en un periodo interglaciar, y si se llama interglaciar es por algo... eso si la glaciación puede ser tranquilamente de aqui a unos pocos miles de años, no confundir glaciación con las llamadas miniedades de hielo que son epocas que debido a la actividad solar principalmente produce bajadas de temperatura durante unos años pero que no son ni de lejos glaciaciones, ya que una glaciación es provocada por cambios en la rotación de la tierra, y suele pasar cada unos pocos miles de años.... pero mientras ya habremos acabado nosotros con más especies que ninguna glaciación habida...
     
    • De acuerdo De acuerdo x 2
  7. royalblue

    royalblue

    Mensajes:
    1.372
    Me Gusta recibidos:
    380
    Registrado:
    12 Ene 2010
    Género:
    Femenino
    Ubicación:
    Seattle, Panama
    terror
     
    • Me parto Me parto x 2
  8. el porqué de las cosas

    el porqué de las cosas

    Mensajes:
    5.555
    Me Gusta recibidos:
    1.486
    Registrado:
    16 Mar 2013
    Se lo están inventando, [email protected], para:

    1. asustarnos: les hace falta nuestro dinerito ;) Carbon Emmition Tax
    2. crear la nueva religion mundial: El Desarrollo Sostenible, lo que quiera decir esto ;)

    aquí:

    http://www.spiegel.de/international...-earlier-extinction-predictions-a-960569.html

    "In 2007, the IPCC predicted that rising global temperatures would kill off many species. But in its new report, part of which will be presented next Monday, the UN climate change body backtracks. There is a shortage of evidence, a draft version claims.

    'Crocodile Tears'

    At most, the draft report says, climate change may have played a role in the disappearance of a few amphibians, fresh water fish and mollusks. Yet even the icons of catastrophic global warming, the polar bears, are doing surprisingly well. Their population has remained stable despite the shrinking of the Arctic ice cap.

    Ragnar Kinzelbach, a zoologist at the University of Rostock, says essential data is missing for most other life forms, making it virtually impossible to forecast the potential effects of climate change. Given the myriad other human encroachments in the natural environment, Kinzelbach says, "crocodile tears over an animal kingdom threatened by climate change are less than convincing."

    The draft report includes a surprising admission by the IPCC -- that it doubts its own computer simulations for species extinctions. "There is very little confidence that models currently predict extinction risk accurately," the report notes. Very low extinction rates despite considerable climate variability during past hundreds of thousands of years have led to concern that "forecasts for very high extinction rates due entirely to climate change may be overestimated."

    In the last assessment report, Climate Change 2007, the IPCC predicted that 20 to 30 percent of all animal and plant species faced a high risk for extinction should average global temperatures rise by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (3.6 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit). The current draft report says that scientific uncertainties have "become more apparent" since 2007.

    It notes that key environmental processes and life form characteristics were given scant consideration in the models -- the ability of plants and animals to adapt to new climatic conditions, for example. Consequently, the new assessment report will not include any concrete figures regarding the percentage of species that could become extinct as a result of global warming.


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...uters-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html

    World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong
    [​IMG]

    ...más...

    UN IPCC HEAD PACHAURI ACKNOWLEDGES GLOBAL WARMING STANDSTILL: ‘Has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises’
    [​IMG]

    http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-head-pachauri-acknowledges-global-warming-standstill/

    Dr Pachauri, the chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said that open discussion about controversial science and politically incorrect views was an essential part of tackling climate change.

    In a wide-ranging interview on topics that included this year’s record northern summer Arctic ice growth, the US shale-gas revolution, the collapse of renewable energy subsidies across Europe and the faltering European carbon market, Dr Pachauri said no issues should be off-limits for public discussion.

    In Melbourne for a 24-hour visit to deliver a lecture for Deakin University, Dr Pachauri said that people had the right to question the science, whatever their motivations.

    “People have to question these things and science only thrives on the basis of questioning,” Dr Pachauri said.

    He said there was “no doubt about it” that it was good for controversial issues to be “thrashed out in the public arena”.

    Dr Pachauri’s views contrast with arguments in Australia that views outside the orthodox position of approved climate scientists should be left unreported.

    Unlike in Britain, there has been little publicity in Australia given to recent acknowledgment by peak climate-science bodies in Britain and the US of what has been a 17-year pause in global warming. Britain’s Met Office has revised down its forecast for a global temperature rise, predicting no further increase to 2017, which would extend the pause to 21 years.

    Dr Pachauri said global average temperatures had plateaued at record levels and that the halt did not disprove global warming.

    “The climate is changing because of natural factors and the impact of human actions,” Dr Pachauri said.

    “If you look at temperatures going back 150 years, there are clearly fluctuations which have occurred largely as a result of natural factors: solar activity, volcanic activity and so on.

    “What is quite perceptible is, in the last 50 years, the trend is upwards.

    “This is not to say you won’t have ups and downs – you will – but what we should be concerned about is the trend, and that is being influenced now to a large extent by human actions.”

    He said that it would be 30 to 40 years “at least” before it was possible to say that the long-term upward trend in global temperatures had been broken.

    Dr Pachauri, the chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said that open discussion about controversial science and politically incorrect views was an essential part of tackling climate change.

    In a wide-ranging interview on topics that included this year’s record northern summer Arctic ice growth, the US shale-gas revolution, the collapse of renewable energy subsidies across Europe and the faltering European carbon market, Dr Pachauri said no issues should be off-limits for public discussion.

    In Melbourne for a 24-hour visit to deliver a lecture for Deakin University, Dr Pachauri said that people had the right to question the science, whatever their motivations.

    “People have to question these things and science only thrives on the basis of questioning,” Dr Pachauri said.

    He said there was “no doubt about it” that it was good for controversial issues to be “thrashed out in the public arena”.

    Dr Pachauri’s views contrast with arguments in Australia that views outside the orthodox position of approved climate scientists should be left unreported.

    Unlike in Britain, there has been little publicity in Australia given to recent acknowledgment by peak climate-science bodies in Britain and the US of what has been a 17-year pause in global warming. Britain’s Met Office has revised down its forecast for a global temperature rise, predicting no further increase to 2017, which would extend the pause to 21 years.

    Dr Pachauri said global average temperatures had plateaued at record levels and that the halt did not disprove global warming.

    “The climate is changing because of natural factors and the impact of human actions,” Dr Pachauri said.

    “If you look at temperatures going back 150 years, there are clearly fluctuations which have occurred largely as a result of natural factors: solar activity, volcanic activity and so on.

    “What is quite perceptible is, in the last 50 years, the trend is upwards.

    “This is not to say you won’t have ups and downs – you will – but what we should be concerned about is the trend, and that is being influenced now to a large extent by human actions.”

    He said that it would be 30 to 40 years “at least” before it was possible to say that the long-term upward trend in global temperatures had been broken.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...n-climate-debate/story-e6frg6n6-1226583112134

    THE UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain’s Met Office, but said it would need to last “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend.

    Dr Pachauri, the chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said that open discussion about controversial science and politically incorrect views was an essential part of tackling climate change.

    http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2011/10/25/1

    Barnes had uncovered a piece of a puzzle that has provoked, frustrated and focused climate scientists over the past half decade. It is a mystery that has given cover to forces arrayed against the reality of human-driven global warming. And it is a question that can be easily stated: Why, despite steadily accumulating greenhouse gases, did the rise of the planet’s temperature stall for the past decade?

    “If you look at the last decade of global temperature, it’s not increasing,” Barnes said. “There’s a lot of scatter to it. But the [climate] models go up. And that has to be explained. Why didn’t we warm up?”

    The question itself, while simple sounding, is loaded. By any measure, the decade from 2000 to 2010 was the warmest in modern history. However, 1998 remains the single warmest year on record, though by some accounts last year tied its heat. Temperatures following 1998 stayed relatively flat for 10 years, with the heat in 2008 about equaling temperatures at the decade’s start. The warming, as scientists say, went on “hiatus.”

    The hiatus was not unexpected. Variability in the climate can suppress rising temperatures temporarily, though before this decade scientists were uncertain how long such pauses could last. In any case, one decade is not long enough to say anything about human effects on climate; as one forthcoming paper lays out, 17 years is required.
     
    • Gracias Gracias x 3
  9. el porqué de las cosas

    el porqué de las cosas

    Mensajes:
    5.555
    Me Gusta recibidos:
    1.486
    Registrado:
    16 Mar 2013
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ts-says-knew-data-verified.html#ixzz0dUoPiTkG

    Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn't been verified

    By DAVID ROSE FOR THE MAIL ON SUNDAY
    CREATED: 00:54 GMT, 24 January 2010

    The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

    Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

    In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.

    ‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’

    [​IMG]

    Chilling error: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change wrongly asserted that glaciers in the Himalayas would melt by 2035

    Dr Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furore over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because it has no scientific foundation.

    According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.

    The claim that Himalayan glaciers are set to disappear by 2035 rests on two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which were then recycled without any further investigation in a 2005 report by the environmental campaign group WWF.

    It was this report that Dr Lal and his team cited as their source.

    The WWF article also contained a basic error in its arithmetic. A claim that one glacier was retreating at the alarming rate of 134 metres a year should in fact have said 23 metres – the authors had divided the total loss measured over 121 years by 21, not 121.

    Last Friday, the WWF website posted a humiliating statement recognising the claim as ‘unsound’, and saying it ‘regrets any confusion caused’.

    Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.’

    In fact, the 2035 melting date seems to have been plucked from thin air.

    Professor Graham Cogley, a glacier expert at Trent University in Canada, who began to raise doubts in scientific circles last year, said the claim multiplies the rate at which glaciers have been seen to melt by a factor of about 25.

    ‘My educated guess is that there will be somewhat less ice in 2035 than there is now,’ he said.

    [​IMG]
    Forced to apologise: Chairman of the IPCC Raj Pachauri

    ‘But there is no way the glaciers will be close to disappearing. It doesn’t seem to me that exaggerating the problem’s seriousness is going to help solve it.’

    One of the problems bedevilling Himalayan glacier research is a lack of reliable data. But an authoritative report published last November by the Indian government said: ‘Himalayan glaciers have not in any way exhibited, especially in recent years, an abnormal annual retreat.’

    When this report was issued, Raj Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, denounced it as ‘voodoo science’.

    Having been forced to apologise over the 2035 claim, Dr Pachauri blamed Dr Lal, saying his team had failed to apply IPCC procedures.

    It was an accusation rebutted angrily by Dr Lal. ‘We as authors followed them to the letter,’ he said. ‘Had we received information that undermined the claim, we would have included it.’

    However, an analysis of those 500-plus formal review comments, to be published tomorrow by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), the new body founded by former Chancellor Nigel Lawson, suggests that when reviewers did raise issues that called the claim into question, Dr Lal and his colleagues simply ignored them.

    For example, Hayley Fowler of Newcastle University, suggested that their draft did not mention that Himalayan glaciers in the Karakoram range are growing rapidly, citing a paper published in the influential journal Nature.

    In their response, the IPCC authors said, bizarrely, that they were ‘unable to get hold of the suggested references’, but would ‘consider’ this in their final version. They failed to do so.

    The Japanese government commented that the draft did not clarify what it meant by stating that the likelihood of the glaciers disappearing by 2035 was ‘very high’. ‘What is the confidence level?’ it asked.

    The authors’ response said ‘appropriate revisions and editing made’. But the final version was identical to their draft.

    Last week, Professor Georg Kaser, a glacier expert from Austria, who was lead author of a different chapter in the IPCC report, said when he became aware of the 2035 claim a few months before the report was published, he wrote to Dr Lal, urging him to withdraw it as patently untrue.

    Dr Lal claimed he never received this letter. ‘He didn’t contact me or any of the other authors of the chapter,’ he said.

    The damage to the IPCC’s reputation, already tarnished by last year’s ‘Warmergate’ leaked email scandal, is likely to be considerable.

    Benny Peiser, the GWPF’s director, said the affair suggested the IPCC review process was ‘skewed by a bias towards alarmist assessments’.

    Environmentalist Alton Byers said the panel’s credibility had been damaged. ‘They’ve done sloppy work,’ he said. ‘We need better research on the ground, not unreliable predictions derived from computer models.’

    Last night, Dr Pachauri defended the IPCC, saying it was wrong to generalise based on a single mistake. ‘Our procedure is robust,’ he added.

    ------

    y como estas noticias...centenares....;)....pero esto no llena la hucha del "Cambio Climático" ;)
     
    • Gracias Gracias x 1
  10. el porqué de las cosas

    el porqué de las cosas

    Mensajes:
    5.555
    Me Gusta recibidos:
    1.486
    Registrado:
    16 Mar 2013
    Hora y media...muy instructivo (y)(y)



    Climate Change Disclosure-Lord Christopher Monckton Speaking in St. Paul
     
    • Gracias Gracias x 1
  11. el porqué de las cosas

    el porqué de las cosas

    Mensajes:
    5.555
    Me Gusta recibidos:
    1.486
    Registrado:
    16 Mar 2013
    • Gracias Gracias x 1
  12. Kami

    Kami

    Mensajes:
    1
    Me Gusta recibidos:
    0
    Registrado:
    25 May 2015
    Género:
    Femenino
    la verdad esa foto me impacto muchisimo, que pena que pasen esas cosas
     
    • De acuerdo De acuerdo x 2
  13. olaf

    olaf

    Mensajes:
    835
    Me Gusta recibidos:
    303
    Registrado:
    3 Mar 2009

    dioss menos mal que hay mas gente despierta!!!! si señor!!!!! gracias!!!!:kiss::kiss::kiss::shame::shame::shame:
     
    • De acuerdo De acuerdo x 3
    • Me Gusta Me Gusta x 2
  14. el porqué de las cosas

    el porqué de las cosas

    Mensajes:
    5.555
    Me Gusta recibidos:
    1.486
    Registrado:
    16 Mar 2013
    • De acuerdo De acuerdo x 1
  15. el porqué de las cosas

    el porqué de las cosas

    Mensajes:
    5.555
    Me Gusta recibidos:
    1.486
    Registrado:
    16 Mar 2013
    • Bingo Bingo x 2
  1. Este sitio usa cookies. Para continuar usando este sitio, se debe aceptar nuestro uso de cookies.