The polar bear has become the symbol of the plight of animals in the face of global warming. A new report appears to reaffirm the plight of these incredible animals. A study in the Ecological Applications journal reports that the number of polar bears in eastern Alaska and western Canada has declined by 40%. Perhaps the most unnerving disclosure is that just two of 80 polar bear cubs that the international team tracked between 2003 and 2007 have survived.
The numbers are staggering. The bear population in the area shrank to about 900 in 2010, down from about 1,600 in 2004.
Polar bears serve as a tragic type of canary in a cage for climatologists charting the progress of global warming. The news is obviously not good for them or for us.
The bears rely on ice flows and seal populations to survive. The distance at which they are required to swim has now gotten longer and more painful according to scientists. In one case, a mother had to swim nine days and 426 miles — resulting in her loss of 22% of her body weight. Her cub died.
There was a bear stabilization between 2008-2010 due to unusual oceanographic conditions and other conditions. However, experts now predict that more than two-thirds of the world’s polar bear subpopulations could be extinct by 2050.
Source: LA Times
Squeeky – those radio trackers look painful or at least uncomfortable. If it’s just adhesive, I suppose they eventually fall off. But who wants to swim around with that on your head for weeks? The other seals would laugh at them. I guess it must be pretty difficult to tag a seal and make it unnoticeable.
Max – so . . . nothing? Is it morally and intellectually superior to refuse to answer questions, but cling to your beliefs about science, ill equipped to discuss the matter?
The problem with climate science is that the average American does not actually investigate the data, or even read the data. They just depend on headlines, and others to tell them what to think. They have no idea what has gone on at IPCC, because it’s not well covered here. And they trust the scientific community to rise above petty human foibles. They just assume that wrongdoing is confined to government, but why is that?
Either climate change is anthropogenic, or it’s not. It’s certainly worthy of study.
But hyper-focusing on only carbon drains our energy from other worthy problems, such as heavy metal, arsenic, and petrochemical contamination of our water.
The bi polar aspect of humans is a direct result of climate change. When a person living in New Hampshire says Live Free or Die and moves to some warm clime like New Mexico that person undergoes a mental degradation and adopts antics of both a north polar bear and a south Antarctic polar bear. The twain usually do not meet.
Here is an interesting list of peer reviewed articles that might be interesting in discussing anthropogenic climate change.
The problem with the IPCC is that it is attached to government agencies, and hence the politics that come attached, plus the scramble for grant money. The NIPCC is a non-governmental organization that is SUPPOSED to be unbiased. Whether or not it is remains to be seen.
What I want is pure science, devoid of personal opinions and politics. But that is surprisingly hard to find.
http://climatechangereconsidered.org/academic-references-to-climate-change-reconsidered/
@KarenS
No, it is a real picture. But they are NOT really Muslim Suicide Seals. They are just little seals with radio tracking thingies on their heads. But it kind of looks like a bomb, doesn’t it??? 🙂
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
@LloydBlankfien
Gee, I wonder why us regular people are all sooo skeptical??? Remember, we are now in a post Gruber world. Here is my take on Simon & Garfunkel’s “A Simple Desultory Phillipic”;
A Simple Insultory Flipoff???
A Song Parody Fragment by Squeeky Fromm
I been Obama’ed, over drama’d
My crotch got kneed by old Harry Reid. . .
Found out my doctor’s someone I can’t keep—
Learned I’m a goober from Jon Gruber
And Nancy P. wouldn’t let me see
and Holy Crap! my premium is steep!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
PLUS: The Original Song:
Max – so what you’re saying is, no, you will not answer my sincere concerns, which makes you smarter than me, somehow?
Here is an example of conflict of interest.
Andrew Challinor is a lead author of the IPCC’s Chapter 7. He also served as a guest editor at Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, where he approved publication of 20 research papers, giving them peer reviewed status. In a shocking conflict of interest, he wrote 3 of those papers. He also cited 9 of those papers in the Chapter 7 conclusion, including 2 that he wrote himself. So the IPCC depended on peer reviewed papers that one of its own authors decided to give peer reviewed status, which he also granted to 3 of his own works.
This is generally frowned upon in science. People think that it’s always pure science, all the time, but there’s quite a bit of drama in the scientific community.
Now, I wonder, will anyone address this sincere concern, or will it be either silence or name calling?
Lloyd
See what I mean?
People will ignore the overwhelming evidence and consensus of the majority of climate scientists. Because 97% of the science community is always wrong compared to the fact found by the opinion based, overpaid shills found at FOXNews, Breitbart and Drudge.
Max-1 – just how many climate scientists are there and what is the majority that supports climate change?
Max – any comment on authors serving as the editors that allow their own works to be published?
Or are you going to call me stupid or a “denier” for asking basic questions?
I have serious concerns about documented wrongdoing and negligence in climate science. As such, I can draw no conclusions either way until those issues are rectified. I am neither a denier nor a blind believer. I ask questions, but usually no one here can answer them. Asking questions should be encouraged, not disdained.
Lloyd,
I didn’t mean to confuse. The agenda I eluded too was about the denial process… And how it’s rooted in how well someone is paid to not understand.
Max – were you aware that authors of papers used to base climate police also served as the editors on the “peer reviewed” journals? They made the decision to publish their own work.
It’s one of the many political scandals surrounding the IPCC that does not, obviously, attach itself to 2 + 2. It’s a sad fact that extremely bad behavior has eroded the public trust. Instead of ridiculing concerned people, they should put on their big boy pants and take responsibility for their actions which engendered this mistrust.
We should have pure science, devoid of either personal opinion, politics, or money, but what we have is heavily contaminated by all 3.
Squeeky – please tell me that is a photoshopped image!!!
Lloyd
You do know that 2+2 is up for “debate”…
… By first graders.
What is sad is that it is so difficult for people to calmly discuss a variety of opinions and concerns about Climate Change. It’s a topic that inevitably decays from civil discourse to shoe throwing.
Charlie:
“Aren’t we merely choosing which generation(s) will suffer the most horrific world we can imagine?”
I’m just wondering why you think a warmer world would be the most horrific imaginable? Are you aware that the Earth has regularly swung from warming to cooling trends? For instance, there were species of dinosaurs that lived in what is now Antarctica, when it was warmer and the polar caps had melted. There was intense, teeming biodiversity. Here in CA, you can see ancient sea levels high in the cliffs. I found fossilized shark teeth at a property I used to rent, which was about 75 miles inland.
I’ve spent time in rain forests, which are quite warm, and there’s life packed in to basically every inch. I’m also familiar with deserts, again, warm, but with intense pressure on the flora and fauna from limited moisture.
And, of course, there were the megafauna that managed to flourish under the cold and dry conditions of ancient Ice Ages – mammoths, for one. At one point, the Earth was warming, which was great news for people fighting for survival, not so great for the mammoths, who could not survive either wetter cold conditions, or warmer ones. Global Cooling was also Bad News for the lush ecosystems dominant at the time.
Change is good. Expect more good things.
Funny stuff. So those who say climate change is a potentially dangerous condition and those who have determined that we are in the midst of a mass extinction are agenda driven while those who ignore the science are just right on target. Everything about climate change and mass extinction is a hoax, conspiracy or agenda driven by those crazed scientists and environmentalists who wish nothing but harm to the economy, entire human race and ecosystem. While those who deny the science and just trust their faith based ‘intuition’ are reasoned and analytically focused skeptics who regard the scientific method as flawed and without merit.
Engineering science? Sure I buy it. Rocket science? You bet! Medical science? I bet my life on it! Nuclear science? Of course! Astronomical science? No doubt. Physics and chemistry? Certainly. Mathematics? Does 2 plus 2 equal 4! Oceanographic and geographical sciences? Do fish swim! Geological, ecological, zoological and biological sciences? Starting to get a little sketchy, but ok. Climatology ? ARE YOU KIDDING ME???!!! Ain’t no way!!! Hoax, conspiracy and agenda driven nonsense!!!
Lloyd Blankfien – in all the other fields of science I can duplicate the experiment of the scientist. Not with climate change. Michael Mann has declared his data and the data of other scientists in the field as proprietary. Therefore he can make whatever claims, true or false that he wants. However, since no one else is looking at the data, we have no way of knowing. And he and he buddies are controlling the peer reviewed journals so they can keep out the nigh sayers. Michael Mann should be stripped of his Ph. D and sent to a gulag for 20 years. If global warming has really kicked in, it will be warmer for him.
“Through pride we are ever deceiving ourselves. But deep down below the surface of the average conscience a still, small voice says to us, something is out of tune. ”
― C.G. Jung
I love the humor on this thread. I am amazed @ how so many intelligent people can let emotion overcome reason. The good natured humor is a good way to point that out.
http://youtu.be/hHvDqwU2x-I
Can we prevent climate change and its impacts? No.
Can we delay climate change and its impacts? Maybe.
But if all we can do is delay the impacts (e.g., from 3/5/7 generations from now until 5/7/9 generations from now), does it REALLY matter?
Aren’t we merely choosing which generation(s) will suffer the most horrific world we can imagine?
If climate science proves that we have passed the tipping point, then climate change and its impacts are inevitable.
Don’t get me wrong, I despise Republican ideology (aka, idiocy). Still, I won’t let my personal bias or political correctness prevent me from acknowledging that it is not unreasonable–and only arguably (but not definitively) selfish–to live one’s own life (i.e., this generation) to its fullest.
If the Republicans would take this stance, rather than science denial, I would respect their honesty.