Some genres need remarkable levels of patience along with all the usual requirements regarding creativity and technique to get the shot. How long could you wait to get the image you wanted? This photographer waited multiple days for the perfect photo, and as this video shows, the results were worth the wait.
Coming to you from Stefano Ianiro, this neat video follows him as he spends multiple days chasing down a saw-whet owl. The journey begins when Ianiro randomly selects the species and dedicates himself to searching for one until he gets a shot, and that drive is tested as the hunt stretches on for multiple days, but when he finally finds one, the images are beautiful. At an average length of about 7 inches (18 cm) and an average weight of 80 g (2.8 oz), saw-whets are some of the smallest owls in North America, increasing the difficulty of finding one. Nonetheless, I really enjoyed not only watching Ianiro's journey, but seeing his enthusiasm throughout the process was a wonderful reminder that in an age of fast results and instant gratification, the willingness to slow down and dedicate yourself to a single shot like this can be tremendously rewarding. Check out the video above to see Ianiro's incredible dedication and the results.
Yeah, Donald-Adam, 6000 birds sounds like a lot compared to 86% range lost in the +3C case https://www.audubon.org/climate/survivalbydegrees
Try to learn some basic school math and run a comparison again maybe? This is life, don't take it personal, Don. Keep fighting with windmills and drinking bleach ;)
The smartest governments in the world can't stop the spread of a virus, but if you pay them enough money (taxes), they can change the temperature of the Earth. Just so you know, I've had all three jabs, I own an electric snow blower, and I recycle. But I'm not going to drink your kool-aid thinking that we puny humans can control the climate.
Humans could simply stop doing what they're doing to prevent the upcoming crisis. Not just you, or "that guy", but all of us. All should take a responsibility. No need to point fingers at some random companies. People are doing this. People must stop doing this. FYI it has nothing to do with your 3 jabs and recycling.
The only people drinking kool-aid here are the people that don't believe in science. Like you. You think that you are smarter than 97% of climate scientists around the globe, and they all conspire against you. May I ask you if you have a degree in climate science?
I've come to the conclusion that you don't know how to read or refuse to let what's printed sink in. I said I know that the climate is changing. It's been changing every day since there's been a climate. I stated that humans don't have the ability to control the climate. If you need me to, I'll say it slower next time.
Were you around when the articles fearing global cooling were all the rage (1970s)? There was fear that half of North America would be covered with a snow shield, that the population would be stacked up like cord wood along the Gulf South. That was the science then. Ooops! Good thing we didn't do what should have been done to avoid the science.
Stop what we're doing? You first. I see that you're considering a Z9 from another thread. What's wrong with you? Do you understand what it takes to produce that Z9? All the raw materials that have to be mined? The plastic that comes from PETROLEUM? You must get nose bleeds from being up on top of the moral high ground. Actually, I hope you buy 10 Z9s. We need Nikon to succeed. Every Nikon camera sold helps that cause.
Get over yourself. The Earth is going to do what the Earth is going to do. We can't stop it. Those of you that think that we puny humans can are delusional. Oh, and when you get that Z9, ponder what you've done. Maybe you can come down just a little bit from that high ground you sit on.
If the amount of gasses our species is emitting was negligable, your argument would be valid; however, the quantity of gasses humans emit is not negligible:
"In 2019, about 43.1 billion tons of CO2 from human activities were emitted into the atmosphere."
Although the atmosphere is an extremely complex non-linear dynamic system, and models necessarily yeild outcomes within a range of probabilities (4°C rise being the most likely at current); the absorption and emission attributes of molecules is well understood, as are the consequences of increasing their concentration in the atmosphere.
I note a couple of things:
1. Atmospheric behaviour to date is consistent with the models.
2. There are a significant number of proxies which confirm there is a problem, such as species migrating vertically and latitudinally; almost no petmanent ice in the Arctic left; melting glaciers and of the Greenland ice cap (the volume of melt is mind bending); changes in the time plants flower (insects and flowers are going out of synch); the explosion of wood borers due to higher winter temperatures (see forest die off); and melting permafrost.
3. Noting your comment about the 1970s speculation of an ice age thing, the Gulf Stream is slowing significantly.
What we are doing to the environment is going to bite our species in the arse and there is nothing any of us can do to stop it; all we can do is mitigate our personal risk.
Now, you (or anyone else) can choose not to believe, but that doesn't mean that you won't be left standing there wondering what happened - because non-linear systems have the property that state changes are rapid, and we have multiple feedback factors which are just going to make it worse.
Deleted User, do you have a math background? I just ask because you seem to know a lot about nonlinear systems.
Hi Alex. My first time at uni I did science and engineering, and non-linear dynamic systems was one of the units I did.
My wife is gently suggesting I should go back to uni (again), and if I do that, it will be to do post grad focusing on stability in multivariate nonlinear systems.
Naaaaa....what going to bite us in the arse is that comet or asteroid that's coming. It's not if, it's when. You see, astronomy is my other love. There's an asteroid that's going to be really close by in 2029 called Apophis. It will return in 2068 and there's a very good chance that it'll collide with Earth during that return. I'll have assumed room temperature by then as will most of the people here, but our youngsters may just see the end of civilization in one big flash. Poof! Nothing left buy 'possums and cockroaches. And that's just one of about a billion comets and asteroids out there. As Jack Horkheimer, rest his soul, used to say,"keep looking up."
There are reasons many of us are skeptics. Again, I cite the 'science' of the 70s that said global cooling was coming. Didn't happen. We've had alarmist say that we'd be out of certain strategic metals by now. Didn't happen. We had alarmist say that we would be in crisis because the population was growing too fast and would cause world wide food shortages. Hasn't happened. We had alarmist say that oil was in short supply. As it turns out, there's at least 300 years worth.
At some point, crying wolf gets really old.
Your argument is fellacious; specifically, you assert that because the risks have not manifested in a way that is obvious to you (ignoring that they are manifesting), they will therefore not manifest. The one does not follow from the other.
I note you reference The Limits to Growth, and I observe:
1. A study out of Melbourne University concluded the modelling in Limits to Growth was correct.
2. By way of example, over 90% of fisheries are fully exploited, or exploited to collapse.
We have a situation where our species has massively increased fishing capacity and efficiency, yet yields are crashing.
Over 2 billion people rely upon the oceans for survival.
Interesting side note: we're running out of sand for construction.
***
Regardless, it doesn't matter in the slightest whether you believe it or not.
I'm lucky to be in the position where I can retrain and professionally pivot into horticulture. And once I do, people will pay me to mitigate their personal risk.
"I'm lucky to be in the position where I can retrain and professionally pivot into horticulture. And once I do, people will pay me to mitigate their personal risk."
And there you have it. A capitalist willing to do whatever it takes to make a buck. And, being an unapologetic capitalist, I applaud your thought process. You find a service that is needed and you exploit it. That's how it's done in a free society. I'm an official codger, retired, and former business owner that is happy I don't have to worry about this stuff. I'll be room temperature before too long, so I'll leave the mantle of business to you youngsters.
You have good insight, though I disagree with your thought that man can somehow control the climate. Question: Does it bother you that governments say they can 'fix it' by charging a tax? As a Libertarian, that's like garlic to Dracula for me. Give the government enough money and they can control the climate? That would be hilarious except that there are people that buy into that crapola. I mentioned earlier that the governments can't stop the spread of this virus. How do you expect these smartest people in the room to place a thermostat on our planet?
You have to ask yourself, how much of these Western Civilization comforts are you willing to give up? You see, I have faith in mankind to adapt. You see how quickly companies were able to come up with a vaccine for this wretched disease. If you let people do what they do best, they can overcome. The governments gave big pharma the green light (in other words, they got out of the way) and they did it.
Would it be good if we could control the climate? Not in today's world. You factor in the evil side of the equation and that climate control would be weaponized in no time. You know I'm right. Mankind had a great breakthrough that entered us into the nuclear age. A lot of good came from it, but it took little for Oppenheimer and the rest, read government, to weaponize it. Heck, even Starfleet, with its humanitarian endeavors, equips their starships with super weapons. Phasers, photon torpedoes, quantum torpedoes. You have to be careful what we wish for.... ;-)
Appeal to hypocrisy; again, fallacious. Even if I were a hypocrite, it would invalidate nothing I've said (in the same way saying Al Gore has money, or Obama bought a house, doesn't invalidate what they're saying).
Ad hominem does have valid use; for example, the vast majority of people who have published work denying climate change are funded by fossil fuel companies or right wing think tanks (I have that study somewhere on my hard drive).
Addressing your ad hominem:
1. In the same way there is negative and positive liberty (Berlin, Two Concepts of Liberty, 1958), there is negative and positive environmentalism.
I have spent my life practicing negative environmentalism, in that I have minimalised my impact upon the environment.
What I am starting to do with myself is grow food and habitat on my property (positive environmentalism).
The fact that others will pay me to learn to feed themselves, and to create habitat on their properties will allow me to extend that positive environmental impact.
2. Just because the economy is going to fall to pieces, doesn't mean the mortgage goes away.
What you pejoritively frame as capitalistic selling out, is risk mitigation. I'm not going to get rich, I'm going to survive.
3. If I was a greedy capitalist, I would be wealthy. My principles have come at significant cost.
4. The fact that you seem to think I can just cut out of the system I was born into speaks poorly of your thought process.
Unlike you, this stuff will impact me, and those I care about. You'll be dead, and you don't care about anyone who will be impacted; I'm happy for you - that's not snark, it must be nice not to care.
Side note: "I'm a libertarian". Libertarianism is a self-defeating ideology; its adherrents lacking the basic logic to comprehend the internal contradictions of libertarianism, and the courage to be anarchists.
No, I'm not going to waste my time discussing political economics with you.
And finally, (again) it doesn't matter whether you believe. I'm not trying to convince you. You're irrelivant.
I'm sorry you misunderstood me. I LIKE the fact that you use capitalism to your advantage. That's a good thing. As far as the rest of the stuff, I'll let that go as you and I aren't in agreement on anything other than the fact you are a practicing capitalist. And just so you know, being a capitalist has nothing to do with being wealthy. It means that you like a more or less free market and all those advantages we have because we have that freedom.
By the way, I've been growing my own stuff for probably longer than you've been alive. I've also hunted game to eat. I chalk it up to enjoying that sort of thing. I don't make claims about my environmental relevance. And you are no more or no less irrelevant than I am.
No, David, it means I live in a world where you either make money, you enter some sort of commune, or you live on the street.
You seem to think there's an alternative.
And you chose wisely. We are very fortunate that we are afforded those choices. You could have been born into a family of lithium miners digging day in and day out so that the westerners can have camera batteries and electric snow blowers. Those poor souls didn't have a choice. The world is a vampire.....
I am abundantly and painfully aware of things like child/slave labour in the supply chain, and physical externalisations to foreign jurisdictions. I am equally aware a lot of the world's polulation does not have clean drinking water.
I receive all sorts of flack when I suggest people shouldn't be buying stuff made in China.
Here you go, David, here's one of those proxies.
https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYWJjLm5ldC5hdS9yYWRpb25...
I've said time and again that the climate is dynamic, not static. It warms, it cools. Been doing that since there's been a climate. I'm not a climate change denier, never have been, never will be. Man still can't put a working thermostat on Mother Earth. If you wish to believe that man has that power, you know a heckuva' lot more about that top secret research than I do.
Around 450,000 years ago, Greenland was covered with boreal forests. Like I said, dynamic, not static.
*No one* is asserting climate is, or ever has been, static.
Your argument is a straw man.
Climate naturally varies over millennia; we're driving the same changes over decades.
Yes, I understand the physics.
And yes, you are, by definition, a "climate change denier".
For the record, there is no place where "I don't believe" is an argument; not in law, not in philosophy, and most certainly not in science (try getting "I don't believe" peer reviewed).
Well, William....we're at a stalemate. You take your list of scientists and believe them, I'll take mine. Mine says man's influence is minimal at best. So that means that you deny what my list of scientists have decided. I guess that makes both of us deniers. Who'd a thunk it?!
No, your refusal to èven look at evidence is not "stalemate".
You are a manifestation of the previous generation of targets of the fossil fuel lobby; disaggregate the polity by sowing doubt, leveraging things like confirmation bias, loss aversion, and cognitive dissonance (not exhaustive). Once you disaggregate the polity, you prevent politocal consent, and thereby prevent action. They've now moved on to a narrative of adaption and a technical fix narrative (which the majority of the polity has latched onto); as I said, this is a no technical fix problem, but they'll make profits by saying their products are "green".
Remember that study I mentioned, where it examines all of the iterature which denies climate change (literally all of it); the same study finds every single publication is seriously methodologically flawed. I'm more than happy to find the paper should you wish to read it; but given you couldn't even be bothered to listen to the podcast I posted, I have reasonable doubts you'll read anything.
You try to paint me as a denier; I actually have bothered to learn the science, and to examine reviews of the counter literature; you won't even look at it.
You also talk about "your list of scientists"; at no point have you presented any such thing. You actually haven't made an argument.
You haven't made an argument (I don't count your litany of fallacious statements), you haven't presented evidence, and I have no reason to respect "I don't believe".
The difference between you and I is I'll change my opinion when presented with evidence; that's how science works. I'd suggest look up Bayes Theorem, but you won't do that either.
BTW, you know how snow pack is disappearing in Ca, and how farmers are having issues getting water, and you know how economies and supply chains are both integrated and fragile?
I wouldn't be so confident you won't be impacted.
It becomes super fun when you realise there are a bunch of economic, and geopolitical, and domestic political risks on top of environmental risks.
Before, you assumed I was being pejorative when I said you're irrelivant, and you responded "so are you"; as I said to Tammie, the probability of the environmental risks manifesting is 100%, I could convince a million people, and it would make zero difference.
What I can do is act locally, at a practical level. I also have thoughts on what I can do with going back to university for more study; but that's a lot of heavy lifting, and I'm tired, so we'll see.
Ultimately, our descendants are going to have to clean up this mess, we owe them to help them in any way we can; making arguments around "discounted utility" is morally bankrupt, verging on sociopathic.
We're at a historical inflection point, and it's going to hurt.
I do my little part by recycling including my Nespresso cups, keeping the thermostat at a reasonable temperature, bought a battery powered snow blower which I needed badly since we've had the coldest, snowiest winter in 40+ years, and all those little things that I can control.
Remember the scientists I've chosen to believe? They've done all the heavy lifting as far as the evidence goes. Their conclusion is that we humans have had minimal impact. If those people that are a dozen pay grades above me aren't convinced as you are, I'll take my chances with them.
Well, I have to prepare an image review for our photo club. It's been interesting, but I'm done. And to at least make some reference to photography, here's one of the photos I'm putting in for our image review. It's been so cold here that I've not been out to shoot anything, so I'm putting in three bird photos of my backyard in Mandeville, LA. I hope this gorgeous critter never runs into a wind farm. ;-)
You just don't pay any attention at all, do you.
"I don't care about pesky things like evidence, I don't believe".
I think my favourite part is that you're a libertarian, but don't see the issue stealing from our descendants; ideologues don't get much more selfish than libertarians.
Geez, William. I really tried to lighten things up a bit but you're going to develop an ulcer. I'm a lost cause. No need to get you bowels in an uproar over me. Look for someone else that will agree with you. You'll feel a lot better.
Yes, that's always the way with you people, you provoke an argument, then when you find out your interlocutor actually knows what they're talking about, you say crap like "it was just a joke" or "I was just trolling", or some other thing that is intended to convey the other party has a defective personality.
The garbage you spit out was old two decades ago.
It says a lot about you that you think I'll feel better if only other people agree with me.
I've dedicated my entire life working on these issues (and again, at considerable personal cost), so no, I don't have a sense of humour when it comes to people who can't even be bothered entertaining evidence.
You people. Give it a rest. It says a lot about you using the 'you people' phrase. That's the typical rant of a racist or a bigot. You've just spoken volumes. No need to go any further.
It was quite deliberate; it was low hanging fruit that I knew full well you'd grab for. You are tediously predictable.
Yes, David, I demonstrate racist bigotry with respect to elderly white men. Next you can tell me about the white genocide.
iM a LiBeRtARiAn
PS. fun fact, when Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, she was excoriated by people just like you. I figured given your love for birds, that may be interesting to you.
cApItALiSm Is GoOd
And yet you can't resist a reply. You are supremely predictable as well. I know what tweaks your nose as well. So easy. " . "
David Pavlich We can't stop it because the people like you. People that stuck in their narrow-minded thinking, people that live in the past.
BTW if you tell me how much CO2 will be emitted to make one Z9 - I may not consider buying it all. Unlike you I'm willing to learn.
You keep believing that humans can control the climate it that's what gives you hope. Neither one of us will be here to see it happen because it won't happen. I'll sign off now.
But before I go, I said nothing about a Z9 and CO2. I stated that in order to build it, precious metals and plastic are needed, but you neglected that. You see, you talk about the science unless it doesn't fit with your agenda. But, I'm not surprised. That's how the liberal mind works; follow the science until it gets in the way.
Explain please how metal extraction is tied to global warming besides CO2 and methane emissions? What am I missing? What agenda do I have?
You don't get it. Mining is damaging the Earth. You like science until it gets in the way. Have you seen what it takes to get the lithium out of the ground? You know, the stuff that's in the little battery in your camera, yea that lithium. How about the plastic? It's a product of petroleum.
You're stuck on CO2, but the other stuff that's harming the environment is okay. You liberals....science is important until it isn't. Kill birds if it means you get your windmills and solar farms. Rape the third world for its minerals so you can get your camera. And make sure the oil keeps flowing since the plastic to produce the camera and lenses you have are made from petroleum. You can't have it both ways.
Please stay on the subject. We were taking about global warming. Mining won’t displaced billions of people and won’t cause the same damage as global warming. Mining won’t cause hurricanes, floods and droughts. Do you see the difference or do you still prefer to keep your head deep in sand? If you’re so concerned about windmills killing birds - look at how many birds die when hit by cars. 89 - 340 millions a year in the US alone. Does it sound like a joke to you?
So you don’t have a camera? How many 3rd world countries did you “rape” in order to get it?
Tammie, despite the fact David refuses to accept, he's not incorrect with respect to there being other issues.
As I previously stated, there are three environmental existential risks humans are responsible for:
1. Anthropogenic Climate Disruption;
2. Species extinction; and,
3. Accumulation of synthetic chemicals (endocrine disruptors being of particular note).
Even if a small number of humans survive underground, eating goo we grow, we can adapt to numbers 1 and 2; however, 3 is the most serious risk, and that's the one almost no one is talking about.
There is no *either or* with this stuff; we're looking down the barrel of a truly nasty future with all three. People who focus on Anthropogenic Climate Disruption to the exclusion of the other two risks are doing no one any favours.
Edit: David is also correct about physical exernalisations to other jurisdictions. There are good reasons China has the bulk of rare Earth production.
I'm just pointing out your blatant hypocrisy when it comes to the environment. Your problem, and the problem with so many other humans is you pack history into a lifetime. The Earth has been through major disruptions since its inception and it'll be here LONG after we're gone. Remember the asteroid? Bruce Willis and company ain't gonna' stop it.
I know where all the strategic minerals come from. I don't hide the fact that I know it comes from exploited regions. I was emphasizing that fact in an attempt to prove that you, nor anyone else here, is as pure as the wind driven snow when it comes to the environment. We like our Western Civilization comforts. No harm in that. But don't try to make it sound like you're ready to chuck that away for Gaia. You're not. I highly doubt that anyone here is ready to chuck these creature comforts. I can tell just by the fact that they post here. That means they have a computer and at least one camera and all that other stuff that makes posting here possible. The difference is I'm not afraid to admit it.
Yea....I did my research about birds. More birds are killed by just flying into buildings. But since less are killed by wind farms, the wind farms are hunky dory. All you have to do is admit that wind farms aren't animal friendly and that you're willing to have that collateral damage because you believe that the wind farms are more important than the birds they kill.
My overriding factor for all this banter is that there is no way that you or anyone else can convince me that humans have the ability to place a thermostat on this planet. Heck, even President Obama, a campaigner for the elimination of fossil fuels, bought a multi million dollar home on a beach that's about 6 feet above sea level. Go figure!