Quirks & Quarks

This is an obviously politically-motivated effort to appear to be doing something constructive while actually doing nothing about the problem.

It really accentuates the reality of Global Warming (I refuse to use the euphemism 'climate change' any longer) and the immediate danger to mankind which it carries with it. It is no more than putting blinders on and pretending 'all's well with the world,' while simultaneously avoiding a real examination of the future.

As for sea-ice melt, we should not be surprised by its accelerating progress. Take a look at your Scotch-on-the-rocks - When it is first prepared the icecubes are solid as 'rocks,' but as the evening progresses they begin to become smaller (melt) and more porous. This makes them melt even more quickly, and the warmer water in the drink (though still 'cold' to the taste) increases in relative volume, producing an exponential rate of more melt. By the time you are finishing off the drink the last slivers of ice disappear before your eyes. So be prepared to watch the sea-ice go bye-bye long before 2050, perhaps within the next decade.

Co-incidentally with that catastrophe, the bulk of the human population which is living near the equator will have surged northward (there's not really that much land toward the south) and who's to stop them from seeking refuge in more 'temperate climes' like ours?

The polar bear population is doing quite well and, in fact, is increasing in most areas of the Canadian Artic. Picking them as victims of climate change is not borne out by the facts.

What I simply cannot understand about glacial melt is that no one discusses a major envionmental natural process that must have a effect in bringing about climate change and the accompanying accelerated glacier melt. I have summed the annual AA* solar magnetic index for each 25 year period for the last 125 years. Do it yourself. The results show that from 1881 to 2005 the impact of this solar energy hitting the earth has increased
almost by three times. Surely this solar magnetic energy from the sun has some increasing heating effect upon the earth. Why should the glaciers not be subjected to a faster melt? Sunlight gets here in a few minuits. These magnetic storm effect may take hours or days. If you do not think they convey energy to the earth, think about the shutdown of the Quebec power transmission system back in the 60's. Refer to NDGC.NOAA for the index on the internet. The AA* index started in 1868 and continues to the present. Prehaps we should get used to this changing climate but in the meantime where is the media discussion?

Ice just doesn't make it in terms of being charismatic mega-fauna. If ice were as sexy as a cute furry face, then we'd see some action. But to too many people, ice is simply a commodity or a hindrance. It's ice cubes or winter risks.

This is part of the fall-out we can expect to see more of, now that Harper et al have closed their minds to science by closing the science advisory panel. We will see more decisions being made because it is a good photo op, or the charisma of the critter makes good politics. We will see fewer decisions being made on best available data.

A wasted opportunity, in my opinion.
~Russell

I find it interesting the human race focuses on the extinction of the polar bears rather than its root cause. Given that the root cause which is the melting polar ice caps directly effects its own survival, I just can't think of any other species in the animal kingdom that would react this way and not take the necessary steps to protect themselves.
The case to protect polar bears should be far less of a priority for humans. The seemingly unselfish argument Mr. McDonald attacks to protect endangered species is really by far in humans own interest if done the way he suggests by trying to stop ice caps from melting so why won't people employ some of the scientific solutions that already exist?
Will humans have to put themselves on a list to take notice of the threat to their own survival?

The ice is more important than the bears!

It is nice to see an analysis one the listing of Polar Bears that nails it on the head. The listing does nothing to protect the bears, but gives the impression that something is being done. Hunting of sustainable populations is not going to have a impact on this threat which is the drastic change in the Arctic biosphere that Climate Change is bringing.

Inuit knowledge has shown that the population of bears in this area is growing. But at the end of the day when the ice goes this healthy population will go with it, along with other species closely related to ice, Bowhead Whales, Narwhals, Ringed Seal. Species that Inuit have depended on for thousands of years.

This action by the US has just served to distract people from the real threat, while doing nothing to protect the Arctic Biosphere.

This community takes twenty-five polar bears each year (current quota). Of these twenty-five generally about 12 tags are used by Sport Hunters (the number is set each year by the community). Regardless of the listing there will still be twenty-five bears harvest here each year, but because of the listing this community will no longer see almost a half a million dollars in much need revenue.

Thanks for the thoughtful analysis Bob.

I wonder how the polar bears survived the medieval warm period when the Vikings could farm on Greenland.

The Canadian polar bear population is NOT doing "quite well" or "increasing in the Canadian arctic". There are 19 populations of polar bears in the Arctic, Canada, Alaska, Russia, Svalbard (Norway) and Greenland. 13 of these are either totally or partially in Canada, from Hudson Bay in ON to Ellesmere Island in Nunavut and from the Yukon to Labrador. 12 are partially in Nunavut.

Polar bears have to travel huge distances in their annual cycle. Of the 13 Canadian polar bear populations, these are the trends for 11 of them: currently 5=stable, 5=declining and 1=no data. Risk of declining for the next 10 yrs: 5=very high (Hudson Bay area, Beaufort Sea and Baffin Bay areas particularly) 6= lower (especially for bears closer to Greenland).

The main threats to their survival: global warming (melting sea ice and changes to marine supply), contamination of food supply (toxins and mercury etc), marine oil pollution (from shipping and such), disturbance of key habitats from industrial exploration and development, over-hunting. Other factors are conflicts with humans which require the removal of polar bears and tourism. To get the facts on polar bears, check the WWF Canada website.

The case for humans maximizing their environmental efforts is quite simple: we want to ensure that we and future generations have as good a life as possible as far into the future as is possible. Protecting the world we live in makes that happen, even if it means making sacrifices now.

Bob, Thank-you for keeping the focus on the fundamentals.

To show how easy it is to criticize others I offer a few points regarding other posts.

Des Emery – You don’t need to stop using the term climate change. Global warming is the term for describing the increase in the average temperature of the planet. Climate change is what will happen because of Global Warming.

LES (Victoria) – What facts are you waiting for? Do you need reports of a rapid decline in the numbers of polar bears before you are convinced? Usually by the time something is so obvious it is too late to do anything about it.

f Hector – There are a lot of people who would love to have a solid scientific basis for an alternative explanation to global warming. I have seen a news report on the BBC from a scientist whose evaluation was that the warming effect from what you are describing is not significant. That may be why there is little reporting of the matter, it may be too easy to show it is not significant.

Pete Scholtens – I am also curious about that. I would be interested to know if the Medieval warm period actually warmed the Canadian Arctic. If it did perhaps the small number of bears that survived in the furthest northern regions repopulated the area over the hundreds of years since that warm spell ended. By the way the rate of warming for the Medieval warm period may have been much slower than the current one and may have given the polar bear populations a chance to adapt by moving north.

So...

Bob cuts to the main point, addressing climate change and the industrial pollution that we create. Some think that this makes sense: pollution = bad thus making the planet warmer. Others offer reasonable science that suggests other major or more significant causes of global warming (I particularly enjoyed the F. Hector post on the AA* index and want learn more about that!).

Either way whatever theory turns out be right is not relevant as the planet is changing in two ways: its natural state of change (it's getting hotter get used to it) and the other would be our footprint on it.

We need to act for a different reason: pollution, poisons, CO2 gases = bad. Either way, I don't really want them around me or the planet that we depend on.

Argue all you want on causality but we should be striving to be efficient. And by the way - imagine yourself in a garage with the door shut and the engine running (maybe Manilow on the CD)...sounds like DEATH at a local level to me. Now why would anyone think that on a grandiose scale it wouldn't happen? Oh, I know, I know...the issue isn't really agreeing about the problems of pollution is it? It's who will pay for it? Well...we will.

Grim Reaper,

The internet is a wonderful place for reinforcing delusions.

If I wanted the 'facts on polar bears', the last place I'd be looking for information is on an environmental advocacy group's web site.

This decision appears to have been based on a prediction of an unproven 'computer model' that the polar bears' habitat will disappear at some point in the future.

As you know, computer models are notoriously inaccurate and unreliable. I refer you to Edward Lorenz who gave up trying to predict weather much less climate with such models and discovered 'chaos theory' as a result.

Also, the facts just keep on getting of the way.

As you know, the polar bear populations are stable or increasing.

In the US the population grew from 5,000 to 10,000 in the 1950s and 1960s to 20,000 to 25,000 now. That is a substantial increase. Plus, they continue to occupy the full range of their natural habitat.

Dr. Mitchell Taylor, a bear biologist with the Canadian government, wrote in 2006: 'There is no need to panic. Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present.'

So their numbers are not only not decreasing but they are increasing.

So let's look at their habitat.

Satellite daily photos of the polar ice cap going back to 1979 show that the ice cap is larger than it was 29 years ago (for example, see the University of Illinois website).

The amount sea ice in the south and north hemisphere is the highest since 1979 when records started to be kept.

If the polar ice cap was melting communities along Canada's long northern coastline would be drowning but that isn't happening. If it
were, the CBC would be all over that story. But we hear nothing about it because it isn't happening.

Your claim that they are getting thinner is based on ... what? Scientific measurement or
or catastrophizing? If you have the data that show polar bears weigh less let's have it.
However, I suspect that there is no data or that data just doesn't show it.

There is no evidence of polar bears dying from 'global warming' but many more die as a result of hunting. If you wanted to protect polar bears from dying ban hunting.

So we have a decision to declare polar bears threatened when their numbers are increasing and their polar ice cap and sea ice (their
habitat) are growing. THAT is hypocrisy.

I wonder why the Inuit are now reporting increased appearances of polar bears into their communities? Could it be that the bears are hungry and looking for something to eat? Or maybe they're just trying to hide from American hunters?

Alaskan seaside villages are indeed being slowly eroded into the advancing seas. Down at the tree-line, muskeg permafrost melting deep underground is heaving those trees out of perpendicular and pushing up new pingoes. On Canada's Arctic islands, the shallow melt ponds which support different algae species are drying out in the summers now (Canadian Geographic, June/08). The glaciers on Greenland are much, much older than the Medieval Period, so the Viking farmers can hardly be said to have worked a green landscape there. And researchers currently are monitoring the appearance of 'lakes' on the glacial surfaces, which suddenly drain through cracks in the lake bottoms leading to the bedrock far beneath them.

I appreciate Ken Kernoghan's comments, but to me "climate change" merely glosses over the problem, like 'sunny today, rainy tomorrow.' Global Warming (capitalized) signifies that 'Houston, we do indeed have a problem.'

While I myself have never been to the Arctic, I believe those who have been there and report the changes they observe there. Like sea-ice forming in sheets thin enough that they ripple from the ocean surge (not thick enough to support bears hunting seals, or making dens). And there are enough 'small' events happening simultaneously to presage a catastrophic future.

Des,

I am always skeptical of reports that the Inuit say this or that about climate change. I have heard that the Inuit have said the opposite of what you have heard them say.

In any event, the Inuit appear to fiercely opposed to the designation of polar bears as 'threatened' because they have seen their populations increase and the Inuit would suffer economically from any ban on hunting.

In any event, another explanation for 'increased appearances' of polar bears is that their population is increasing (which happens to be consistent with all the evidence).

If, as you say, Alaskan villages are being eroded why aren't northern Canadian villages being eroded?

Maybe there is another explanation other than 'global warming'.

I am glad you are defending the use of the term 'global warming'. It is much more honest than 'climate change'. After all, the earth's climate has dramatically changed over several millennia.

Fighting 'climate change' is a bit like fighting the tide coming in. Someone (King Canute) actually did try that and ... well we know what happened to him.

'Global warming' is exactly what Gore et al have predicted. The only problem is that ... it isn't happening.

Perhaps you heard the head of the IPCC admit (very quietly) the earth hasn't warmed since 2000 (actually it is 1998) and will not warm until AT LEAST 2015.

You didn't see that in a screaming headline of imminent disater for the human race, did you?

And you can't find that prediction in any of their catastrophizing reports, can you?

So much for those dire predictions of doom and gloom. It looks like you won't have to sell you snow shovel at a garage sale for some time to come.

As we come to understand more about our impact on the planet, and our contribution to climate change, it's easy to forget that the earth was never a static environment.

The earth has been warming for thousands of years - we're not quite out of the last ice age yet. Permanent ice at both poles is not the normal situation here on earth.

We have had a massive impact on the rate of warming, and we definately need to switch to cleaner tech, but we didn't initiate the warming - we merely sped it up.

As the planet has warmed since the peak of the ice age, dozens of species of megafauna have gone extinct without any help from us.

There never was any prospect of the arctic ice cap staying frozen. It would have taken longer to melt without us, but it was always going to melt.

Maybe it would have taken long enough for the polar bears to adapt, or maybe not. As callous as it might sound so some, it might be that the polar bears were always doomed.

It's a good thing we have skeptics living amongst us. Everything should be questioned, not accepted verbatim just because (insert name or profession) says so.

But that means that we should also question the skepticism (quis custodiet ipsos custodes) itself. Perhaps it has an ulterior or self-serving motive, perhaps it reveals an underlying fearfulness, perhaps it is sheer contrariness.

Common sense dictates that we should examine carefully both pros and cons surrounding any issue. And having considered arguments about Global Warming, my personal opinions come down quite solidly in favour of its reality, based upon the observations by many different people and their various explanations of what is actually happening.

Of course Earth has undergone many changes over the millenia - but observation indicates that the rate of change right now is accelerating and becoming warmer. And further observation, in an attempt to locate a 'cause' for the change, identifies the advent of the Industrial Age as a prime initiation of that change.

The multiplicity of occurrences since then seem to me to corroborate the imminent tragedy. The desertification of the tropics, the melting in the arctic and antarctic of the ice sheets, the food crisis, the plight of the Adelie penguins, and all the other natural 'little' happenings in the news could each be explained separately by the skeptics, but their confluence persuades me that we don't have a lot of time or many alternatives left.

BTW, King Canute is not an example of overweening pride, but rather of humility. Tired of his fawning nobles and subjects, he took his court to the seaside, commanded the tide to retreat, then turned to the people and said. "See? I am just as human as you are and as subject to the same forces." Skepticism is fine, but reality trumps fantasy every time.

Des,

I am glad to read your comment that
reality trumps fantasy.

You will be thrilled to hear that there is no imminent disaster.

According to the head of the UN IPCC, the earth has been cooling since 2000 (actually it is since 1998) amd will continue to cool until 2015!

That's reality.

This is a great discussion, and there are many valid points above.

Let me give you the bottom line as I see it.

There are two possible realities;
(1)trouble is imminent; and
(2)there is nothing to worry about.

There are two actions we can take;
(a)do nothing; and
(b)do something.
For each permutation there is a cost and a result as follows:

If reality (1)-trouble is immenent- is true;
then action (a)-to do nothing- costs nothing now, but the result is disaster and action (b)-to do something- will be a burden now but save our behinds in the future.

If reality (2)-nothing to worry about- is true:
then action (a)-to do nothing- costs nothing now and pays off in the future as there really was nothing to worry about. Action (b)-to do something- will bear a cost now, and will have turned out to be unecessary as there was nothing to worry about in the first place.

Now, to actually get down to my bottom line that I promised at the beginning of this post, it comes down to our willingness to gamble. Is it worth the gamble? Why is it so difficult for us to take that step toward protecting ourselves when the cost of action (b) is so far less (whether it is necessary or not) than the consequesnces and eventual cost of ending up in a situation 1(a).

There is a clear solution to this problem - artificial ice pads throughout their hunting grounds.

If I could, I would begin a not-for-profit agency raising funds for these artificial ice caps; however, I don't have any funds to begin this project.

In addition, I'm only 20 years old and still in school. I would definitely be willing to begin this project upon graduation.

The head of the IPCC is one man (I think it's a male, anyway) but his single opinion is trumped by the belief of about a thousand other members of the IPCC that Global Warming is a real, verifiable, testable, documented, analysed, process (not a solitary temperature reading) and who are just as much "scientists" as he is.

Peeking at the cards held by the naysayers, I see either political or financial biases most evident. It is not seen to be advantageous for governments to spend money on the environment on the one hand, or, on the other, to make individuals feel that their profligate habits actually do have an influence on how the world will end, not with a bang but a whimper.

I'm just interested that there are so many people who are convinced that scientists are out to lie to you. I understand in the early days of the media insight into global warming, that people had a responsibility to question the facts. But after taking numerous courses in hydrology, climate, and earth history, I have learned the facts. I HAVE NOT BEEN BRAINWASHED, I see and understand how these models and research projects are done. Ask ANY scientist (that isn't getting funding from oil companies or other large corporations who have a serious interest in ensuring that people don't believe in global warming), and they will say, global warming is happening and it's serious. How many of you commenting on this wall will be alive when in 2100? That's the reality of it, it will be my children that will feel the effects, and I am a firm believer in protecting the world for the next generation. So, do we want to go down as the generation that watched the world go to shit, and did nothing

Pardon me, but had anyone evr thought to inquire of the Polar Bears? Hey, animals have feelings, too, right? maybe they don't LIKE to walk on the cold ice all the time. Maybe they LIKE to swim & then be able to rest on solid ground that doesn't move around beneath them. when they began to exist, maybe there was less ice & they adapted, but don't really prefer it that way. But what do humans care? where are the bear-whisperers?