Slashdot Mirror

Huh? https://arcticwwf.org/species/... and huh? https://polarbearsinternationa... Fact check, Blenkinsop, fact check.

As to your non-answer of "scientists"... actually if you look at historical averages there was a trend line going UP before the modern era. So... not so much if you look at a full trend. Subtract the rise in temperature from the previous trend in temp increases and you're talking about an extremely tiny change if anything.

Sorry, no. The long term trend line over the past 2000 years is generally down until you hit the recent warming. You might be talking about the "little ice age" but the recovery from that ended before the recent warming.

As to polar bears, their numbers are up. And the whole polar bear citation was ultimately based on non-polar bear experts taking photos of "a" dead polar bear and spinning up AGW theories on "a" dead polar bear. Do you have anything on the polar bears that says they're dying out? Because I'd love to see that. Literally anything. Hit me with your best shot. I'm going to show the debunk information on whatever you cite. Just FYI. I want to show you that your information on the issue is in error. Present me your information so I can destroy it, please.

Some of the observed populations are increasing and some are decreasing. The populations that are increasing are recovery from hunting during the 60s and 70s. Unfortunately, the populations that would be worst hit by warming are also the ones we have the least information about, because they are the furthest north. The primary conservation concerns for polar bears are habitat loss and reduce access to their primary prey due to climate change.

As to it getting too hot for plants to grow... jungles are a lot hotter than most places and plants are pretty happy there... obviously. What are you basing this "too hot for agriculture" on? Obviously if the air fucking boils or something that will sterilize the planet but I don't think anyone outside the UFO theorists is suggesting that is happening.

Actually, I was thinking of crops in particular. The majority of the world's food supply comes from a handful of species adapted to our current temperature ranges, increase the temperature too much and their yields decline. For example, warmer temperatures are cause grain seeds to mature faster but at a smaller size reducing the yields of those crops and that's before we consider other climate change factors like increased flooding or increased droughts.

As to the oceans being stable prior to the modern period. http://www.fws.gov/slamm/Chang...

Yes, the oceans rose after the land glaciers melted at the end of the last glacial period.

You can see from that and this: http://academics.eckerd.edu/in... That they haven't actually been stable. They've been going up pretty consistently for a long time. The last 25,000 year one shows that we're in a plateau but that we've been going up in that for thousands of years. And in the other graph you can see that sea level increases have been roughly consistent since the early 1800s which predates most of the CO2 releases. So... my point is sustained.

The second link says:

While sea levels have varied by over 120m during glacial/interglacial cycles, there has been little net rise over the past several millennia until the 19th century and early 20th century, when geolog-ical and tide-gauge data indicate an increase in the rate of sea-level rise.

That's almost exactly what I quoted from the NOAA, so no, you were wrong.

Second, build with an appreciation for the fact that a storm will come and when it does that will mean the water is going to hit a given depth at given elevations.

But hey, no big deal, they're, like, attuned with the earth or some other primitivist bullshit.

I don't think he was spouting "primitivist bullshit" as you so eloquently put it. He was attesting to the adaptiveness of his people and their capabilities to survive in a changing environment. He expressed concern about the industrial societies that are not paying attention to the side effects of pollution. Doesn't sound primitivist to me.

"Fuzzy dolphins", good one that! What can one say in reply?

"Driven South". Great observation. Well thought out. Considering that the Inuit population and polar bear distribution areas almost completely overlap, the bears must be moving south from a hitherto unknown location near Alert. Also, if melting ice is the problem then you would think the bears would be going North, not South. You might want to look at a couple of maps and then redraw your conclusions:

http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/rs/pubs/images/fg2-eng.gif (Inuit settlements in Canada)
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/polar-bears/maps-and-trackers/population-and-distribution (Polar bear distribution)

Also, understand that although the Inuit population is widely distributed and has low density, they communicate and stay in touch quite effectively.

Your opinions are excellent examples of what he said he has experienced: condescension and dismisiveness from people who do not have the benefit of his life experience or knowledge of his people's history.

First, it's important to note that scientists lack historical data on polar bear numbers—they only have rough estimates. What we do know, though, is that in the 1960s, polar bear populations dropped precipitously due to over-hunting. When restrictions on polar bear harvests were put in place in the early 1970s, populations rebounded.

Just pointing out that the Polar Bears were saved from possible extinction once isn't proof they aren't in danger of extinction again.

True story:

A few decades ago, Norwegian arctic researchers wanted to determine if polar bears really hibernate (like the brown bear does), or just take a lot of long naps.

To check this the father of a guy I knew used to dig/push his way into polar bear burrows, with a revolver and a rectal thermometer in front of him.

He never had to fire the gun, but the temp readings he got showed that the polar bears were only sleeping, not hibernating.

See the polar bear FAQ.

Terje

That's a myth.

From the same article:

Climate change is the main threat to polar bears today. A diminishing ice pack directly affects polar bears, as sea ice is the platform from which they hunt seals. Although the Arctic has experienced warm periods before, the present shrinking of the Arctic's sea ice is rapid and unprecedented.

Citation?

Here. There's more if you google for it, but I happened to read that just a moment ago when somebody else linked to it.

Check this link.

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/

While polar bears merit some attention, from the sounds of it we're doing quite well at keeping them around. Even if all the ice melts on the surface of the poles it sounds like there are plenty of other places the polar bears are alive and well and will do fine.

You're thinking _ANTARCTIC_ ice layers, not Arctic. Arctic ice is _sea ice_ and as sea ice, it melts and refreezes and it _moves_ all over the damn place.

You are right, I was thinking of Antarctic ice, sloppy of me. However, there are other ways. We can for instance find geological evidence from lake bed sediment cores.

And ice cores? The ice at the Arctic was 9 feet thick _at its thickest parts_ back in 1958. Just where are you going to get ice cores?

Greenland, for instance. I know they are not the same, but as an indicator of the climate of the area it is an indicator, right?

We can't prove that cracks that these haven't happened before, I agree, but we can prove with some pretty good evidence that the north pole hasn't gone through this amount of change recently (within a couple of hundred thousand years). Even before this latest evidence came, many scientists were warning that the north pole could disappear completely during northern hemisphere summertime before the end of this century. And this is something that hasn't happened for along time. See for instance polar bears who need sea ice to hunt for seals. They evolved probably around 200 000 years ago.

Even the Economist, who have been global warming deniers for years recently admitted that global warming was real and was going to have severe environemental and economic impact. You don't find this alarming?