Tragic mascots
Polar bears become pawns in legal wrangling
Published Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!Some wildlife advocates cheered when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced it would list polar bears as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act; others grimaced and groaned.
Many Alaskans were among the latter, and in this column, we predicted little impact for the bears and a coming onslaught of attorneys and legal wrangling.
In recent days, the Pacific Legal Foundation and the state of Alaska have brought suit against the service, as well they should. They had little choice. We don’t mean that comment about an onslaught of attorneys in a negative way. It is what it is.
But as court actions proceed, Alaskans should keep in mind that this has less to actually do with polar bears than it does about who has political and legal control of environmental regulation. And, more importantly, it has to do with the future of the Endangered Species Act as an effective law.
The act works its best on specific land use and wildlife utilization issues that have direct effects on the sustained well-being of given species. But that is not the case with the polar bear listing. The bear population is thriving, and land use issues are not threatening. The listing is a travesty of political influence.
The polar bear is a circumpolar species with only about 2,000 of a total estimated population of 27,000 coming under the auspices of the act. Those 2,000 live off the coast of Alaska and have lived as a protected (un-hunted) species and been the subject of much study and regulation under the auspices of the Marine Mammal Protection Act for decades.
Our local, un-hunted, population has fared no better or worse than polar bears in northern Canada, where Inuit guide-hunters have continued their long-held hunting traditions as well as bringing millions to their local economies by guiding U.S. hunters. Our country chose to strip those opportunities from Alaskans many years ago, and now, because U.S. hunters are regulated by the act, Canada’s Inuit will suffer economically as well. One would suppose this will simply make the bears less valuable to those people closest to them.
The listing will change little, if anything, in terms of land use and wildlife use for the 2,000 bears in Alaska. It is based on a global warming theory that speaks to carbon emissions — of which the U.S. is no longer the greatest emitter — and potential for polar bear troubles 40 or 50 years from now.
U.S. Sen. John Kerry called the polar bear “a tragic mascot of the impacts of climate change” when he argued against oil exploration in the Chukchi Sea in January.
And mascots they have become. Rather than concern itself with the biology, mitigating impacts of climate change or working closely with those people who are closest to the animals, the U.S. will continue to draw legal lines to distance people from the animals, make a joke of the Endangered Species Act and wrangle endlessly in court for political environmental influence.
From the polar bear to the ringed, ribbon, bearded and spotted seals — this listing has opened the door to a line of mascots, followed by their lawyers.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Ah...the News-Miner has spoken and so it must be true. Of course, the USFWS disagrees with the NM and Palin. Even wildlife biologists within AK. F&G disagree with the NM and Palin. Natives along the Coastal Plain disagree, but, heck, what do they know compared to such august experts as the NM and Palin?
Question then arises what could the NM and Palin have in common to stand against such overwhelming evidence of a need to protect our polar bears? Well, the NM is a strong supporter of the Alaska Outdoors Council and Palin...is...a member of that same group. Hmmm? And what does the AOC get out of this cosiness? Well, they exist for one reason and one purpose only and that is to be able to kill whatever Alaskan wildlife they want.
We're not talking subsistence hunting. The AOC appeals mainly to the trophy hunter and, in fact, has very staunchly opposed any rural preference in hunting allocations (as does Palin). Nope, it would be great for the AOC membership if they could go up to the North Slope and start trophy-hunting polar bears. So, without regard to their conservation, they push to have a hunting season created.
Going back to where the NM's and Palin's interests intersect in this it's simple. How much do you think an ad run by Ralph Seekins, also of the AOC, for his Ford dealership brings into the News-Miner? Quite a bit. Far more than any conservation group puts in the NM cash register. And, as I noted, Palin is an AOC member as are 6 out of the 7 members of the Board of Game.
So...we see an editorial such as this one coming out of the News-Miner, in keeping with Palin's views, going against both the available scientific knowledge as well as the observations of the people living in the affected areas. It would be nice to see unbiased reporting in this matter by the NM but they are in business for the revenue not the journalistic integrity, something that has always been abundantly clear over the decades.
How did the polar bears survive the last extended warm period (900-1200AD)? It was even warmer with less Arctic ice. I think this is fear-mongering to hinder development and provide a cash-cow for the legal industry (they've contributed $107M to DNC in 2008 of which, $19M went to Obama). We were warned that the polar bears would be decimated by development at Prudhoe. Instead, the bear population quadrupled. Greenies have no credibility on this issue.
Excellent. A 347 word ad hominem attack, completely free of any factual arguments addressing the issue. Obviously anyone who disagrees with the writer is evil, and disagrees only because there's money in it for them. No other possibility exists.
Won't be long before it will be brown bears, black bears,moose and caribou in Alaska. They won't be happy until Alaska becomes one great big wildlife reserve.
And once again, climate change will also benefit many actually endangered species such as the top ten most endangered species that are all amphibians. But polar bears are “cute and fuzzy” while frogs are “gross and slimy”. The vast majority of “environmental” groups are run by and for lawyers who take advantage of soft-hearted but empty-headed folks.
Protecting most endangered species is an important government function, but such decisions should be based on efficiency (the long-run benefits of saving the species versus the costs) and not based on some new-age human-hating religious belief. I fully support the separation of church and state.
it is obvious most of this environmentalism and animal protection stuff is media driven and taken advantage of by lawyers. go where the money is. environmental groups are slick. they use emotionalism to take advantage of mostly urban dwelling people who haven't the time to educate themselves in a deeper way about these issues. what do you do about it? fact is, we do need some environmental protections but boy has it gone way overboard. and it doesn't appear as if this problem is going to abate anytime soon.
Of the 19 recognized polar bear subpopulations, 5 are declining, 5 are stable, 2 are increasing, and 7 have insufficient data. How can the NM say "The bear population is thriving, and land use issues are not threatening."?
Polar bears depend on sea ice as a platform for hunting seals, which is their primary food. They rarely catch seals on land or in open water. So, how can NM ignore the fact that global warming and a decrease in sea ice will cause a decrease in polar bear survival?
I travel to villages often for my work and I have never seen a live polar bear, although I have seen polar bear hides tanning on frames near several dwellings...........so, NM calls it "Our local, un-hunted, population". Perhaps it is not legal to harvest polar bears, but one cannot ignore the fact that they are actively being harvested in the villages.
So, the point NM is making is that the polar bear listing is nothing more than a political game and that the bears will not actually benefit? Sure, listing the bears will not stop global warming, so, we should just pack our bags, go home and let the polar bears die off? Once bears are listed, it will give policy makers more leverage if they want to decrease negative influences that humans are having on the bears (e.g. disturbances, pollutants, hunting etc...).
Lastly, Prospector, yes, the bears obviously survived the last warming period, but there is no guarantee that they can survive this one? What is your point? Humans survived plagues, diseases, drought etc... So, next time a doctor recommends a vaccination for a child should all parents say "no thanks, I'm not paying the medical field to vaccinate my child for something that the human race can survive"?
Being an Alaskan I can say that my fellow Alaskans love our animals. Not just because they are potential food but because they are beautiful amazing creatures that we hope will be here to see forever. I have heard arguments from all over this country about what should be done with the animals in our state. I can promise everybody that we have no want to drive the animals and nature to the brink of extinction and we have a great group of Alaskan people who spend there days studying them and making sure that there is a balance. Balance is the key word here. We have to help the environment balance itself sometimes and we people deserve to thrive. Nobody here favors development at the cost of our environment. I can't help but wonder with all of this extreme one sided attack from people outside of our state, what there motives are? Are there that many stupid people out there? God do they have nothing better to do than to make it impossible to be a self sufficient state. We need jobs and we need resources! I do believe it is the lawyers feeding off of ignorant idealists.
Polar bears are not endangered by lack of sea ice, but by us. Many subspecies are not in decline as stated above, further more the subspecies that are in decline are located in colder temp areas. Hunting is the largest danger of polar bears. The cute and fuzzy bears are canaries in the coal mine, political fodder.
noonecares, Polar bears are absolutely endangered by lack of sea ice....AND by us. Of course, you could argue that the sea ice is decreasing due to human influences. Polar bears feed on seals that use the sea ice as haul-out platforms. The edge of the sea ice places the seals over the portions of the ocean that are rich in prey (far richer than near-shore areas). If the sea ice goes away, the seals would spend too much time and energy to swim from land to the areas where there are high concentrations of prey and would likely die off.........after the seals are gone, the polar bears would either die off or change their diet (what will that do to the balance of the system??). Also, once bears are forced to stay on land it is more likely that they will be shot by humans either hunters or in defensive of life and property, they will be subjected to more of the land-based pollutants, disturbed more by human activities etc....
Shoot, I meant "in defense of life and property" not "in defensive of life and property"......I hate typos and misspellings.
workin_mom,
The problem is, your argument takes one slightly studied aspect, and assumes that bad case after bad case will occur, in a domino-effect like series of events.
First, many International biologists say Polar Bear numbers are stable, with most species staying the same or increasing in numbers.
Second, you assume that all seals will die if sea ice decreases. In reality, they would decrease in numbers slightly, leaving lower numbers, which would result in lower polar bears due to lower food supply. It doesn't necessarily wipe them out. However, this would assume that all the sea ice went away. As we've seen this summer, sea ice is at higher levels than the global warming crowd predicted, temperatures are cooler, leading to the possibility that we may be nearing a cooling again. These cycles have gone on for millenia after all. Assuming it'll all warm and melt is like saying "Oh geez, it's 1 degree warmer today than yesterday... that means in 300 days it'll be 300 degrees"... Not really a long term view.
As we've seen with Prudhoe, Polar Bear populations have increased by having larger surviving amounts of Caribou/Seals, and having more shelter to hide behind (they love ATCOs).
Don't worry, the world isn't going to end for the Polar Bear any time soon, or the species they feed upon.
pragmatist
If you look at the polar ice cap, it has been decreasing at an alarming rate for at least 30 years. The multi-year ice has all but disappeared; this is a big deal for folks in places like Diomede who depended on that ice for their fresh water source. You said, "These cycles have gone on for millenia after all. Assuming it'll all warm and melt is like saying "Oh geez, it's 1 degree warmer today than yesterday... that means in 300 days it'll be 300 degrees"... Not really a long term view." Look up the data on the polar ice cap and tell me that it is just a transient warming trend.
The seals that use the ice, not all species, but several, will not survive without ice. There have been no cases in the past where ice seals were seen living on land.
Polar bears are one species. You said, "First, many International biologists say Polar Bear numbers are stable, with most species staying the same or increasing in numbers." 2 populations of polar bears are increasing, 5 populations are decreasing, 5 are stable, and 7 are unknown. Ignoring the 7 unknown, it definitely looks like polar bears are in trouble.
The polar bears in Prudhoe have NOT increased; they have been driven onto land because their normal habitat on the ice is not available. Numbers in that population are down, but it seems like there are more because they are more visible to people on land.
Do your research.
hey workin_mom - did you know?
"At present, polar bear populations are robust and, according to native people, are considerably larger than they were in previous decades.[29] Predictions of polar bear endangerment are based on two sets of computer models: one set predicts how much Arctic sea ice will melt as a result of global warming, and the other predicts how polar bear populations will respond. But computer models of climate are known to be fraught with problems, and the ecological models used to predict polar bear response are equally limited."
You should check out this website - (do YOUR research)
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.27...
Oh, and when you're done, please stop emitting ANY carbon dioxide, as you believe you are helping to decimate the arctic sea ice on which they "need" to survive.
Did you know polar bears are descended from the grizzly, a land based bear?
Did you not read the story in the paper about the three ships that were STUCK in the arctic ice over the last couple days because there is SO MUCH OF IT? Obviously you were not paying attention, there is a WHOLE lot of ice up there. How warm has it been in Alaska this summer, eh? I'm afraid the ice is back, and it's calling Al Gore a liar.
Now, forget what Brittany and Paris are up to and pay attention.
workin_mom - ice caps melting indeed. check this inconvenient truth out -
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/200...
noonecares: hunting polar bears in legal in Canada, but not in Alaska. I believe Alaska Natives can hunt polar bears, but not the rest of Alaskans.
Polar bears are not any more endangered than humans are. If the ice melts, so what? The ice has melted in past global warming (s), and the polar bears have managed to survive. When the ice melts, bears adapt or perish. A form of adaptation is moving inland, and eating other than just seals. Just look at the grizzly/brown bear, since it has adapted quite well.
It is possible that there is a link between polar bears and brown bears:
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/...
Mr Green,
You’ve posted 2 websites that claim polar bears are fine and global warming is just a bunch of arm waving…
1) “Is the Polar Bear Endangered, or Just Conveniently Charismatic?” is an article in the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, authored by a Kenneth Green (you I assume).
This is not a scientific paper, it is a politically motivated paper that is full of opinions. You’ve included a graph (taken from some scientific research) that says 6 of the 12 populations of polar bears that we have data on are depleted. How can you ignore that and claim that the polar bear is not decreasing? You have it in your paper in black and white print, but continue to fill that article with opinions.
You said “At present, polar bear populations are robust and, according to native people, are considerably larger than they were in previous decades.[29]” and yes, as I mentioned in a previous post, it appears that polar bear populations are larger because they have been driven onto land so are more visible. Yet, when a scientific population count is conducted, these are the populations that are the most depleted.
2) “Watts Up With That?” Commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, technology, and recent news by Anthony Watts
What a waste of time, who is Anthony Watts and who said he is an expert on the polar ice caps?, it shows an icebreaker stuck in ice and this is supposed to prove that the polar ice caps are not shrinking? No one ever claimed that ice does not form during the winters……..overall the multi-year ice is what has shrunk substantially. With the decrease in ice, many new shipping lanes have opened up and I would bet that this ice breaker is in an area that was not accessible 10 years ago.
I could find websites and opinion papers that argue that bigfoot and the loch ness monster are alive and well, but until you give me some scientific facts, I'm not going to believe it.
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/research/climat...
Here is a link for you, this is NOAA data, based on research, facts and without opinion. I’m sure you looked at this data when you wrote your opinion paper, but chose to ignore the data that the models are based on. You can say that you don’t like the model showing what the ice will look like in 2085, and that is fine, you are allowed to have an opinion, but you cannot argue that the ice caps have shrunk substantially from the 1800s to now. So, you tell me what is going to change that will stop this trend?
workin-mom - you say - "This is not a scientific paper, it is a politically motivated paper that is full of opinions." Really?
They seem nonpolitical and very scientific to me.
"The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research is a private, nonpartisan, not-for-profit institution dedicated to research and education on issues of government, politics, economics, and social welfare. Founded in 1943, AEI is home to some of America's most accomplished public policy experts--from economics, law, political science, defense and foreign policy studies, ethics, theology, medicine, and other fields" and
"The Institute does not perform contract research and, with rare exceptions, does not accept government grants. Its research agenda is determined by its president in consultation with its trustees, scholars and fellows, and academic advisers; the substance and conclusions of its research and publications are determined by the individuals conducting the research."
YOUR link is simply a computer's prediction. NO facts, NO science(unless you consider computer predictions and math science). Simply GOVT funded crap. So you TRUST the govt, then? Haven't you been paying attention? Those computer modelers were debunked a couple of years ago by a couple of engineers.
Um, the "watts" link is fact- a ship was stuck in ice that WASN'T supposed to be there. No political BS. Simply FACT. Too much ice.
And , no, I'm not the author of the previous link's article, just coincidence. And that link is CHOCK-FULL of scientific data, which, I guess you chose to ignore? If you actually read the article, you would have read that it is actually VERY difficult to monitor Polar Bears. So most data on decreasing or increasing bears is very scarce. Which is why all you hear about are the two populations of bears near Hudson Bay. And yes, those bears HAVE been on the decline, but did you know, that area has also experienced COLDER temps? Look into that.
And did you know that roughly 300 to 500 bears are SHOT each year by hunters? 49 each year around Hudson Bay, THAT is why their numbers are down, workin-mom, not this "man-made" warming crap.
When researchers from Canada, Russia, Greenland, etc all estimate a GREATER number of bears than 25 years ago, I choose to believe them, not Mr. Gore, sorry. He is a politician with a background in THEOLOGY, not science.
It's too bad you didn't see that article about the 3 ships stuck up in the ARCTIC ICE. They pulled it before too many people saw it. Oh well, just keep believing that you are destroying the planet, Chicken Little. What sort of SUV or minivan do you drive? Oh, no, better stop emitting CO2! Oh, no, my lifestyle is killing the bears, what to do, what to do. Just arm waving
wokin-mom - check this out too -
More science, the Earth is COOLING.
"evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped." - from
.http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature%2BMonitors%2BReport%2BWorldwide%2BGlobal%2BCooling/article10866.htm?a
Sorta hard to dispute that.
and just so you know-
"Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news."
Guess what? Polar bears survived the last warming trend, why won't they survive this one?
And I found this too -
"The ice we were told so hysterically last fall had melted to its "lowest levels on record?" Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past."
The ice is back.- from -
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/colu...
it also mentions - "Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says - "Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year."
And if you want to verify who he is, well, look here -
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F...
And those computer models weren't perfect - look here http://global-warming.accuweather.com/20...
Yes, the ice is back, stop worrying about CO2 emissions, PLEASE. If you STILL dispute this info, then your FAITH is simply a new religion.
Do you want carbon taxes. Do you? I don't.
above link should be:
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature%2BM...
MrGreen, REALLY, your last post if full of personal attacks, let's discuss the topics and exchange ideas/information. So, I beleive that global warming exists, you do not. Fine, there is no way to come to an agreement, so let's agree to disagree. Only time will tell.
You did not respond to my point that the article by the other Mr Green (sorry, I should not have assumed that it was you) ignores the facts about the polar bear populations that are included in his report.
Also you say "YOUR link is simply a computer's prediction. NO facts, NO science(unless you consider computer predictions and math science)." That computer prediction is based on a current trend, then mathematically extended into the future. The current trend IS fact, it is the measured size of the polar ice caps for several years. AND, yes, I do consider math an integral part of science. Without it scientists could not report averages, trends, statistics etc...
In your last post, you say "And did you know that roughly 300 to 500 bears are SHOT each year by hunters? 49 each year around Hudson Bay, THAT is why their numbers are down, workin-mom, not this "man-made" warming crap."
So, back to the original topic, if the populations of polar bears are decreased by hunting (which I point out in one of my fist posts)..........I say, lets LIST THEM as endangered, then we will have more leverage to protect them.
I never said I don't believe in a warming trend, it's just not caused by humans is all. So you dispute NASA and the other satellite data? That's cool. Those same satellites, combined with the weather balloon data from all over the world, show a cooling trend since 2001. I know, hard to believe that when Al Gore spins the media the other way.
And the article above describes the LACK of info that we have on polar bears, which raises questions about putting them on the "threatened" list. How can our "scientists" claim to have the facts, when, plainly, other experts from around the world, including here in Alaska, believe we now have around 25,000 bears globally. That number is far more than the 5000 to 6000 estimated back in the 70's. So, you see, over 30+ years, their numbers have quadrupled or more, despite a warming trend. And, remember, they are descended from the grizzly, a land based bear, they have already adapted before.
Yes, hunting practices must be monitored, which they are, here in Alaska. But in Canada, natives reap huge benefits from allowing Sport Hunting. They already monitor the bears in Canada for this reason, if they lose the bears, they lose millions of dollars, so they won't let that happen.
But the declining bear populations that you hear about, are the 2 most studied populations, so everyone has an eye on them. And aqain, 49 or so are shot each year from those areas(south Hudson Bay).
Bottom line, though, Alaska's polar bear population is fine. Canada also feels strongly that their bears are fine as well. The move, politically, to list the polar bear as "threatened", is solely to stop any drilling in the ANWR region. Ask the Environmentalists. I'm sorry, but they, along with Al Gore, don't want you using anymore evil carbon-based fuels, they say we are destroying the planet with it.
And, if you to believe that as well, and continue to emit ANY CO2(by driving, using electricity, breathing, buying any plastics, etc, etc), then you are DIRECTLY helping to kill the polar bear. I find that rather silly. Don't you? STOP emitting CO2? Huh? It's not a pollutant, period. We are NOT causing the earth to warm beyond control. Look into the 30 year solar cycles, and you'll see, we are about to enter a COOLING trend again. Again, ask NASA.
Are you old enough to remember the "consensus" in the 70's that we were entering an ICE AGE? I am, I remember being told about in grade school. That was about 30 years ago. Solar cycles. In the 1940's, same thing - a cooling trend. Again, 30 year solar cycle.
But, believe what you want. Carbon taxes are on the horizon, can you afford them?
Anyone interested in learning more about climate research, Global Warming, and Temp. trends should check out what this gentleman has to say -
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spen...
Mr. Spencer is a leading climatologist from AL. PH.D in meteorology, was a Senior Scientist at NASA, in fact, he helped develop the original satellite method for measuring precise global temps, and has testified before congress many times. He's definitely worth listening to.
Have a nice today.
Mr Green, you keep showing websites that say global warming is a myth.
I have 2 questions for you:
1) Do you deny that the polar ice caps are receeding?
2) What do you think will happen to the polar bears if (when) they are forced to move onto land and start dessimating the caribou herds or eating people/pets?
Mr Green, you claim "Alaska's polar bear population is fine. Canada also feels strongly that their bears are fine as well."
Here are some numbers that dispute that:
The best-studied population, in Canada’s western Hudson Bay, fell by 22% from 1194 animals in 1987 to 935 in 2004, according to the US Fish and Wildlife Service. A second group in the Beaufort Sea, off Alaska’s north coast, is now experiencing the same pattern of reduced adult weights and cub survival as the Hudson Bay group.
Again, those are the most studied and most hunted groups of bears. And , again, only 2 of 19 bear populations. So, by that logic, you could, say, determine how ALL salmon populations will fare by studying only 2 groups. Amazing.
And, yet again, NO ONE is saying that "global warming" is a MYTH. I AGREE 100% that we showed a warming trend until 2001. Satellite and weather balloon data prove that.
And, yes, the polar ice caps are NOT receding, but growing. Again, NASA satellite data. Have you researched how Antarctica has been growing? There are plenty if pics of stations down there which have had to be evacuated due to being buried under too much ice.
See for yourself -
http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Antarct...
And just to prove I BELIEVE in global warming - read this article from the LA Times -
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/may/20/...
Evidence of more precipitation on Antarctica due to a warming trend.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...
And this one is FULL of links to melting stuff -
http://www.warmingscaretactics.com/Ice_S...
Until science can determine how much of the CO2 increase is natural vs. "man-made", Global Warming predictions for 100 years from now are merely SPECULATION. Did our local weather man predict the weather correctly just last week, or the week before? NO. So how can climate researchers(which are simply long-term weather forecasters) predict weather patterns 100 years from now?
They can't. Period. Computers can't either. Sorry.
The polar bears will be fine. All life adapts. It's called - Evolution.
And just to clarify - one more time- I DO believe in Climate Change - the Earth has done it for billions of years. BEFORE we were here, and will continue to do so AFTER we are gone.
Mr Green, if there were 19 salmon populations and 2 were increasing, 5 were declining, 5 were stable and 7 had insufficinet data I WOULD feel comfortable taking the conservative path and assuming that salmon were on the decline.
Polar bears do not live in Antarctica (remember, we are talking about polar bears).
Do you deny that the arctic ice is declining - even since 2001, you know, the ice the polar bears live on.
workin_mom-
This time last year the NOAA measured the ice as this -
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/...
And here is today's(well yesterday's) - 8/13/08 -
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/...
Which is still more than Oct 13th of last year -
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/...
So, you see, THIS year the ice has grown back quite a bit, time will only tell now if it continues to grow or not. If you look through the archives on this NOAA site - the ice has gradually lessened from the 80's to the mid 90's, when it grew again, and then really melted up until last year. But as you can see, it seems to be growing again. Keep in mind that the 70's saw a global cooling trend, so the sea ice was quite extensive beginning in the 80's. so, yes, since THAT time period we have seen a slow decline in sea ice - until the mid 90's when it grew again, then declined until 2007, and now I believe we will see a cooling trend again. I relate this to solar activity.
Here is total ice over the years -
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/...
Here you can see the downward trend since the 70's, the spike in the mid 90's, but unfortunately it is missing the most recent spike again. So, once 2008 is added to this chart, we'll see an increase in total ice again. Will that continue? Who knows.
Using the late 70's as a baseline will of course indicate a loss of sea ice, but we do know that the ice melted away before our satellites were implemented. Evidence of this exists from the 30's and before.
And this site quotes the "Deadliest Catch" guys.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppa...
I'm sure the bears will get some ice back, we only have 35 years of real measurements to base our predictions on.
So, later, I'll watch the first 4 minutes of a sports game and tell you who will win, OK? And I'll use a computer to do it. See, that would be nonsense, wouldn't it?
Mr Green, I think the most telling line in your sea ice graph is the summer ice. There is a substantial lack of multi-year ice (i.e. thick ice) so that the thin single year ice easily melts each year.
Also, if you talk to people who live on the Diomede Islands. Last winter was the first winter that the sea ice was not solid around their islands. The elders say that they do not belive this has happened before in the history of the settlement there.
So, again, I'll take the conservative route and stick to my belief that the sea ice is shrinking and polar bear habitat is threatened.
Mr Green,
WOW, you are totally missing the point on those ice maps. If you look at the ice cap in August of 2007, there is a substantial portion of the ice that is 100% ice (i.e. solid). If you look at the map from Aug of this year, it has streaks of broken ice all through the portion that used to be 100% ice.
So, in the spring, when a lake/river is breaking up, what happens? The ice gets cracked and slushy then melts completely. EVEN THOUGH it may get a film of ice across the open water each night, that is not enough to keep it frozen because it is thin and weak ice that readily melts.
There is no "point" that the satellite data is trying to convey. It simply shows what IS. Believing that the north pole is trying to make a "point" shows how religiously you view this topic.
So, God spoke to Moses, and the Earth speaks to EcoFreaks. Great.
When you've sold your car and started walkin to work, disconnected your electricity and stopped using your computer, quite populating, quit consuming(you know, stop emitting CO2 and using resources) then, and only then, will I start to believe there is a problem with "man-made" global warming.
Alaska is suing the US fish and wildlife service because the STATE knows the polar bear is doing fine. Believe what you want. Later.
The STATE biologists do not believe the polar bear is doing fine. They submitted a report that said the polar bear was in trouble, and the politicians decided to ignore that inconvenient fact and submit their own report that said that the polar bear was fine. I personally know the folks who work for the STATE who submitted that report, so don’t even try to twist that and say I am wrong.
I didn't say the maps were trying to make a "point". But you put links to those maps up to argue that there is no ice loss, yet there is a definite lack of 100% (i.e. solid) ice….so, you are missing the point, the ice is thinning and shrinking (even if there is thin/slushy ice present).
Also, there is no way you can deny that CO2 levels have risen, and the most parsimonious explanation is man. So, if there is a carbon tax implemented at some point, sure, it might be difficult to get used to, but I would support it.
You keep bringing up the carbon tax and talking about how much CO2 I am producing. Sounds like a guilty conscience to me......what do you drive? How big is your house? What company pays your paycheck? Is the polar bear threatening your lifestyle and that is why you are all fired up and willing to mis-interpret data so that it supports the view that is the most convenient for you?
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.