Polar Bears Drowning As Globe Warms 503
An anonymous reader writes "The Times Online is reporting on disturbing findings from the arctic. Polar bears appear to be drowning when they attempt long sea crossings as a result of receding summer ice." From the article: "New evidence from field researchers working for the World Wildlife Fund in Yakutia, on the northeast coast of Russia, has also shown the region's first evidence of cannibalism among bears competing for food supplies ... As the ice pack retreats north in the summer between June and October, the bears must travel between ice floes to continue hunting in areas such as the shallow water of the continental shelf off the Alaskan coast -- one of the most food-rich areas in the Arctic. However, last summer the ice cap receded about 200 miles further north than the average of two decades ago, forcing the bears to undertake far longer voyages between floes. "
Not long at all! (Score:4, Interesting)
Like another poster mentioned, unless this gets much, much worse natural selection will simply start choosing bears better at swimming, or that find an alternate method for moving.
Re:How long till the skeptics post? (Score:0, Interesting)
Tell ya what leftie, prove to us that it's man made and not solar / natural and we'll shut up. Until there, we're right here making sure that your rantings are seen in the same light as the earth being flat and the sun rotating around the earth.
yes . . . if that was the only thing in the world (Score:5, Interesting)
Like another poster mentioned, unless this gets much, much worse natural selection will simply start choosing bears better at swimming, or that find an alternate method for moving.
Interesting thing about evolution: it's not a perfect upwards slope. Indeed, in many ways biodiversity has been on a downwards slope for long before humans came onto the scene. Furthermore, consider that introducing a new way for animals to die doesn't happen in a vacuum; this is one of many examples of shrinking habitats and increasingly hostile situations that animals in the world (including humans, but we're good at changing our immediate environment to offset the overall environment) are finding themselves in.
To go back to what I was nudging towards initially, though: 'natural selection' is not another name for 'all-powerful god', that is to say, just because a new method is needed doesn't mean that this 'natural selection' thing will magically provide it; natural selection is just trimming combined with chaos, there are severe limits to what it can do, and I can't think of many methods that the bears could use other than swimming (I do realize that you said "unless this gets much, much worse", but really, there aren't that many alternate methods of moving, it's not like they'll suddenly develop wings). And anyways, I would think that after so much time, Polar Bears as a species would be pretty damn good at swimming. I doubt it's merely the few weaker ones that are drowning. The article notes that ALL the bears are being forced to swim further from the shore, and some of the deaths noted were from storms that arose; so whether they're good swimmers or not isn't even going to make that much of a difference, it's an extra bonus to the death rate period.
Hmm, in some ways I'm sortof making a straw man out of your argument. But really now, just think about it for a moment. As you mentioned, population levels can swing quite dramatically in rather 'natural' situations, yes. Now say that one of those swings happens for some random reason, combined with the problems noted in the article. It's not that hard to imagine entire populations of polar bears dipping dangerously low. The article mentions increases in the rate of cannibalism due to the lack of food sources, so for many populations there may be a tipping point that would create a downward spiral. Consider also that this is just one of many examples of the effect of humans on the environment that hurts wild populations, so I might agree with you if this was all that was going on in the world (ie. if the only thing that polar bears had to deal with was having to swim further), but it's the combination of many harmful factors that puts species at risk.
Plus, just from an empathic perspective, I'm not exactly going "hurrah! animals are dieing!". I'd rather they, umm, not die when they shouldn't be.
The purpose of environmentalism (Score:2, Interesting)
The point of environmentalism is not to "protect the planet" because animals are cute or because somebody particularly cares, on a moral level, if we pollute or if we exhaust our finite resources per se.
It is completely irrelevant if on geological timescales the earth will cool down again, if it means the human race is nearly or completely extinct by the time it does.
People who say "it is irrelevant because the Earth will heal" are the worst kind of tree-hugging hippies
Re:How long till the skeptics post? (Score:1, Interesting)
Wild extrapolation here we come... (Score:2, Interesting)
But wait, the Arctic from 70-90 is still not as warm as the 1930s, as can be seen from long station records all across the high Arctic (for example Nuuk [nasa.gov] or Ostrov Dikson [nasa.gov] ) This was well before large increases in carbon dioxide.
Since the poster child for linking climate change with carbon dioxide use has been shown to be a product of bad statistics [climateaudit.org] and the whole multiproxy study paradigm shown to be without significance (see Bürger, G., and U. Cubasch (2005), Are multiproxy climate reconstructions robust?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L23711, doi:10.1029/2005GL024155.) I'd say the whole "Cry Polar Bears are drowning" schtick to be Yet Another Fake Panic.
Therefore, hence, or in conclusion: I call bullshit.
Of course this message has been brought to you by Exxon Mobil, the Bush Administration, the Republican Party, the Freemasons, the Illuminati and all stations to Satan.
Re:...and here come the sceptics (Score:3, Interesting)
It will interesting over the next 100 years if the Earth's magnetism switches polarity, as is expected. This too has been shown to be a cycle event yet there will be politically minded people who will blame that on humanity, another nation's greed, or their least favorite politcal party, whatever that happens to be.
Re:white bears swim to "find food". Black bears lo (Score:5, Interesting)
Black with white (dense) hollow hair, that acts similar to millions of small fiber optic pieces to channel light down to the black skin, where it is more efficiently used.
So, more accurately think of an old black man with white hair. I know a few of those, and they are pretty cool!
Re:How long till the skeptics post? (Score:4, Interesting)
Believe it or not, Jaworosky is in the extreme minority in the scientific community (just like those who deny evolution are in the biological community). Those who pick on a single piece of data and claim that it tears down an entire science practice the lowest form of scientific inquiry. Jaworsky actually claims the ridiculous notion that he can prove that the world is getting colder, despite even direct *thermometer* measurements to the contrary and the huge amount of glacial retreat. Jaworosky's theories were not published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. The were published in a magazine run by Lyndon LaRouche. I.e., his claims are a bunch of garbage that wouldn't stand up to peer review, because otherwise he'd have done it.
The reality is that even if you don't want to compare CO2 levels to those 100 years ago, you can compare them to CO2 from 200, 400, etc years ago. Modern CO2 is the highest it's been in several hundred thousand years, and it went that way from low CO2 levels in a hundred (or even if you believe Jaworowsky) a couple hundred years. Even the most rudimentary glance at Vostok data makes it painfully obvious that CO2 levels are extremely tied to temperature (which is obvious from the properties of CO2). And it's obvious that this would be the case - the amount of CO2 that we pump out easily outpaces all animal life on earth and volcanic activity, and expecting that plants can arbitrarily keep up is silly (most plants are not limited by CO2 - they're limited by various nutrients. There are huge oceanic dead zones because of, for example, iron deficiency.)
Re:Not long at all! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not long at all! (Score:2, Interesting)
If you don't want to take the survey, click on the other option. It leads to essays and pictures that explain my point of view. Just because the questions make you think doesn't mean that you have to insult me. Yes, I am a member of the NRA. And I think you need to check yourself for prejudices. Hayseed? I'm a city boy.
annually takes the lives of 17 children by gunfire for every ONE lost in the other 96.5% of the planetary population?
Even if your statistic were true, I have to ask: Do you consider it better for a child to be beaten to death with a club than shot? Just to elaborate, I make no distinction by method. I consider such a death equally tragic, whether it be by gun, knife, club, or any other method.
As for the statistic, I think it's likely to include the old 'child is anyone under 21' statistic, combined with cherry picking the countries for the other '96.5%' statistic. You know, not including africa for one.
Finally, I firmly believe that the best way to prevent child gun deaths is education. Education on proper handling and storage. The good old 'don't touch, tell an adult' for kids.
twisted view of human life and justice
You deduced this, apparantly from just seeing the survey, not even browsing the essays? Is it twisted to want to see the attempted murderer dead, instead of his intended victim? Is it justice to let a rapist conduct his business without opposition? Is it twisted to consider human life so valuable that it's worth defending?
I suggest you read the site.