Global warming hurting polar bears

SOJOURNER · Post by **SOJOURNER** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 3:10 pm

The global warming is shortening the polar bears hunting season. The bears need the ice to go out and hunt the seals. They are finding the mother bears approximately 55 pounds lighter than perviously and they are having fewer cubs. At the current rate, polar bears could become extinct in about 100 years........ This is sad and a bit scary.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 3:42 pm

100 years. That's not a long way off, even if I won't live that long. Hopefully, we may have reversed the trend by then (i.e., wiped ourselves out:wah: ).

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 3:48 pm

Here is the article link, let us hope it is climatic change that will reverse itself over the next century with the decrease in global warming.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/521451.stm

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 3:53 pm

Poison! Why Clipper.............................

Actually, I think 55 lbs will have alot to do with reproduction of the poor polar bears, but time will tell.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 3:55 pm

I saw this las night on 60 Minutes, the message I got out of it is as FAR stated no matter what we do it will cycle up, then change it is what the Earth does. :-6

Sure we play a part in it but know this if Mother Nature and this Planet called Earth wanted us pesky Humans off of her, it would be like a dog shaking off fleas.. we would be gone in a flash..!! Mother Earth is just putting up with us for now..!! :-6

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 4:02 pm

Oh, Polar Bear is the P in PMS........................................

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 4:04 pm

There are quite a few different variables involved. For instance, the Earth's orbit takes it closer to the Sun during the winter season.

We have done some damage to our ole rock, but, as yet, it's not conclusively irreversible. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't encourage changes if it makes the environment a better place for us all to live in.

Rapunzel · Post by **Rapunzel** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 6:26 pm

SOJOURNER wrote: The global warming is shortening the polar bears hunting season. The bears need the ice to go out and hunt the seals. They are finding the mother bears approximately 55 pounds lighter than perviously and they are having fewer cubs. At the current rate, polar bears could become extinct in about 100 years........ This is sad and a bit scary.

I was watching a programme tonight about the El nino effect and how it has actually been discovered to be a globalised phenomenon and not just a localised one.

Apparently, in El Nino years, there is a huge dearth in the number of Krill in Arctic waters, and Arctic Krill are the main food source for penguins and seals. So the knock on effect is also a large reduction in seal and penguin numbers as a greater number than usual die and far fewer than normal are born. So they in turn, also provide a more limited food supply source for the polar bears.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 6:31 pm

SOJOURNER wrote: The global warming is shortening the polar bears hunting season.
So are they cutting the price of the permits, then?

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 7:24 pm

Interesting, I noted an article in a science journal a couple of days ago regarding the greenland ice sheet, it was already known to be shrinking, but apparently the rate at which this is happening is a much faster one than was believed before. I have to say as a somewhat weary scientist at this stage that man-made global warming directly linked to CO2 emissions is an absolute reality and the only people who pretend it isn't are those with a vested interest in fossil fuels, and basically they are lying. The question is not at this stage about whether this is happening (it is), what is more important now is how bad are the next 100 years going to be and is there anything practical that we can do to mitigate the effects of the events that will occur. Unfortunatly the damage has already been done now and even if all carbon emissions were stopped in the morning (which is of course impossible) the atmosphere will still warm up over at least the next 50 years as it takes this long for the carbon cycle to occur in the upper atmosphere. What is imperative now if that we seriously begin to consider how we will somehow manage and contain present emissions, while dealing with the ecological diasters that are almost certain to occur in the coming decades. I have to say that the scientific community are beginning to think that the situation may become very bleak indeed over the next 20 years, it is uncertain what will ensue, but it will almost certainly not be pleasant for many people accross the world. If you do not believe me then I suggest you take a look at some recent article in mainstream scientific journals such as Nature or The Scientific American.

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 7:42 pm

Accountable wrote: So are they cutting the price of the permits, then?

Hmmm so you won't go ice fishing but you would go hunt polar bears. You'd still better wear your bran and panties, I hear it's cold up there tooo. :p

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 7:44 pm

Sheryl wrote: Hmmm so you won't go ice fishing but you would go hunt polar bears. You'd still better wear your bran and panties, I hear it's cold up there tooo. :p
First off, you eat bran. :yh_tong2

Second, you can't skin a trout and wear the pelt to keep warm.

Third, it's supposed to be warming up, so it shouldn't be so bad. :rolleyes:

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 8:25 pm

Accountable wrote: First off, you eat bran. :yh_tong2

Second, you can't skin a trout and wear the pelt to keep warm.

Third, it's supposed to be warming up, so it shouldn't be so bad. :rolleyes:

yea i like raisan brain so what's wrong with that?

I don't think it's warming up that much.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:24 pm

Far Rider wrote: Gal, with all due respect I'll lay down a 10 spot and the airfair for you to come collect, plus a great BBQ at my house if in 20 years we arent crying the exact opposite!:-3

Far Rider, I respect your opinions of course, but in this instance I have to remind you that you are a military man and i am a scientist. This is not some opinion I picked up from reading books, I work in this field, and believe me I take no pleasure in telling you that the political class in the U.S. are just delusional if they think that this will go away or is just some kind of hippy fad. CO2 levels in the atmosphere are heading for 450 ppm by 2025. Once this level is reached all climatic bets are off and that is official. What you choose to believe in terms of the politics of fossil fuels and environmentalism is up to you, but that is the reality, and whether you believe me or not these things are happening and will continue to happen and deteriorate. I take no pleasure in this, it worries me, frankly, I dont know what we are actually going to be able to do about it.

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 11:31 pm

Galbally wrote: Far Rider, I respect your opinions of course, but in this instance I have to remind you that you are a military man and i am a scientist. This is not some opinion I picked up from reading books, I work in this field, and believe me I take no pleasure in telling you that the political class in the U.S. are just delusional if they think that this will go away or is just some kind of hippy fad. CO2 levels in the atmosphere are heading for 450 ppm by 2025. Once this level is reached all climatic bets are off and that is official. What you choose to believe in terms of the politics of fossil fuels and environmentalism is up to you, but that is the reality, and whether you believe me or not these things are happening and will continue to happen and deteriorate. I take no pleasure in this, it worries me, frankly, I dont know what we are actually going to be able to do about it.

I've heard all the stats and believe that this is a potential disaster...I say 'potential' because we humans have a vile way of surviving...I have not heard the lines of thought on solutions yet. Are there any?

I met with a scientist who specialised in remediation of contaminated soil. Is there any such thing possible for the air? For soil they arobicised natural bacteria to convert the toxins to ozone at an incredibly exponential rate. (he said 'arobicised' and I'm still trying to shake the image of amoebas with headbands from my mind) Anyway, is this making any sense?

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 1:50 am

Far Rider wrote: Hey bud, relax, according to science the worlds been around way longer the 65 million years right? well we'll make it another hundred no problem!

pop a beer, injoy your favorite game, and if im wrong and your right you got yourself a free trip to the US and my world famous BBQ, I promise to cook with whatever non fossil fuel is around then......:wah:

Yes FR, the Earth is about 5,000,000,000 years old and will be around long after we are gone, and the earth will survive of course, and so will life, in fact so will mankind, but if average mean global temperatures rise more than a couple of degrees over the next 50 years then trust me the modern world as we know it is in for one hell of a rough ride. Don't want to sound panicky, but this is real, and it is only going to become more apparent in the coming years, what has been revealed about greenland in the past few weeks is very disturbing and may (I'm being completely serious) be the signal of an environmental catastrophe, we knew this was going to happen but we hoped for a best case scenario, but our more darker fears may be being realized. And frankly I am quite worried as I would like to enjoy the company of happy grandchildren when I'm older. But seeing as their is not a cats cance in hell that I can do anything personally of any significance then I will happily join you for a beer, though I may look a little worried during the party.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 1:55 am

koan wrote: I've heard all the stats and believe that this is a potential disaster...I say 'potential' because we humans have a vile way of surviving...I have not heard the lines of thought on solutions yet. Are there any?

I met with a scientist who specialised in remediation of contaminated soil. Is there any such thing possible for the air? For soil they arobicised natural bacteria to convert the toxins to ozone at an incredibly exponential rate. (he said 'arobicised' and I'm still trying to shake the image of amoebas with headbands from my mind) Anyway, is this making any sense?

To answer your question is their anything that we can do, well in the short term, no. In fact shutting down civilization wouldn't help as what is happening now is courring because of at leat 150 years worth of pollution, and we can't simply turn the power off anyway as most people would starve. All we can do is try to limit the groth in CO2 emissions as much as is practical and hope that the changes do not wreak catastrophic shifts in climate in the temperate zones where most people live and where most food is produced.

SOJOURNER · Post by **SOJOURNER** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 3:00 pm

Galbally,

Can you comment on the rising waters and the changing coastlines?

In the future, say 100 years from now, where would a good place be to live? Inland? Mountains? Northern hemisphere?

SoJo

Rapunzel · Post by **Rapunzel** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 3:48 pm

SOJOURNER wrote: Galbally,

Can you comment on the rising waters and the changing coastlines?

In the future, say 100 years from now, where would a good place be to live? Inland? Mountains? Northern hemisphere?

SoJo

My geography tutor at Uni said that if we stopped polluting the planet tomorrow, it would still take 100 years before we could start to turn the pollution situation around.

As the planet warms, the ice caps will start to melt, causing sea levels to rise. If water is warmed it also expands so levels will be higher than may be expected. In England, only mountaintops and perhaps the Pennine Way are expected to remain above sea level.

Also, the temperature at the Equator will rise. It will eventually become so hot and arid that nothing will be able to live there. No plants, trees, animals, bugs, or people. The temperatures will rise all over the globe, so creatures that could once live only at the Equator will move further into either the Northern or Southern hemispheres, to wherever the temperature is right for them.

This means that bugs, and anything that flies, eg mosquitos, will move away from the Equator and start to cause infestations in countries that were previously too cold for them to survive in. Likewise, creatures that can only survive in the cold waters of the Arctic and Antarctic will begin to die out. Already the Arctic waters are becoming too warm for Arctic Krill to survive and breed. Arctic Krill are tiny fishes which are the main food source for penguins and seals, etc.

The Amazon rainforest ingests 20% of the worlds CO2 emissions daily. Already too much deforestation has, and is continuing to, take place. Trees collect rainwater through leaves and roots and through evapotranspiration. Less trees means less rainwater. River levels drop. The ground becomes arid and dry. Less trees are able to grow. So less rainwater is collected. Its a degenerative cycle.

Eventually all the trees could be lost through deforestation (which is mainly man-made) and rising climates. CO2 emissions will rise and will slowly poison us.

If we don't blow ourselves to pieces first, the human race will probably eventually die out from too much atmospheric pollution and too little food. (How can you grow food on a mountain top?)

Once we stop polluting the planet (i.e., once human life has been decimated), Mother Nature will gradually correct all problems we have caused and in another millennia, aliens may once again land on our planet and repopulate it!

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 4:08 pm

Bet they hide that darned tree of the knowledge of good and evil this time.:rolleyes:

Rapunzel · Post by **Rapunzel** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:08 pm

OpenMind wrote: Bet they hide that darned tree of the knowledge of good and evil this time.:rolleyes:

Lol! Most of the Bible stories are just that...stories!

They were repeated by word of mouth for hundreds of years before they were finally written down, and stories change with each person who tells them!

Also, they were written in a time when things which weren't understood were explained as 'mystical' or 'magical'.

I was educated in a Catholic Convent School and we were taught to regard them as stories to guide you rather than absolute truths which actually occurred!

*Now watch the chit hit the fan!*

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:07 pm

Rapunzel.

They were repeated by word of mouth for hundreds of years before they were finally written down, and stories change with each person who tells them!

I am currently reading through Genesis. I have so far noticed 1 or 2 changes of style of writing. I will be reading Chapter 12 tonight.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 2:06 pm

OpenMind, do not forget that unless you are reading from the original Hebrew, you are reading a translation-or a paraphrase version, there can be various writing styles involved.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 3:05 pm

chonsigirl wrote: OpenMind, do not forget that unless you are reading from the original Hebrew, you are reading a translation-or a paraphrase version, there can be various writing styles involved.

If I thought I could gain access to the original text (which is apparently copied diligently by certain Jews, I would learn ancient Hebrew. Unfortunately, I don't think these are available for people like myself that are not at least Rabbis.

I believe there were about 50 people made up of an even number of clergymen from the Protestant and Catholic churches (who scrutinised each other closely) who oversaw the translation of the King James Version. [Ref: In the Beginning. The Story of the King James Bible. Written by Alister McGrath.] This would account for the different styles of writing to some extent. I haven't scruitinised it that closely, yet, as I am mainly concentrating on the body of the story.

The most surprising thing that I spotted last weekend is that there is a contradiction in Genesis concerning Lot's relationship with Abram. Now, would this be the translation, or is this the original text? I honestly would not know.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 3:08 am

SOJOURNER wrote: Galbally,

Can you comment on the rising waters and the changing coastlines?

In the future, say 100 years from now, where would a good place be to live? Inland? Mountains? Northern hemisphere?

SoJo

My comment is that it is at this stage apparent to all those concerned with this issue that we are currently experiencing a mild warming of the atmosphere that is being directly caused by elevated Carbon Dioxide levels in the upper atmosphere that are the result of human acticities, and that this will have knock-on effects in terms of sea levels over the coming century. Now what exactly the mean temperature will actually rise by is not certain though pessimistic forecasts would put it at 2 to 4 degrees centigrade (whatever that is in farenhiet) over the next hundred years, that might not seem like very much, but it represents far more energy being present in the climate than is currently the case. (I would remind you that the differences beween the last 2 ice ages was only a mean of 6 degrees celcius). Again eactly what temperature correlates to which sea-level rise is also uncertain as the mechanisms are not clear, but should there be a large scale melting of the greenland icesheet, or part of the Ross ice shelf in Antartica we would see very dramatic sea level rises, of several meters, probably more than it would be possible to cope with effectively, what the result of such events would be is anybodies guess. Other effects would be an increase in violent oceanic storm systems, increased precipiation, a shifting north of the temperate zones and an increase in the occurence of extreme climatic events such as droughts, monsoons, storms, etc etc.

In terms of where would be a good place to live in 100 years time, its pretty hard to make any accurate guesses. But just based on my own opinion, I would say the delta's of large river systems, such as the missippi, the river plate, the yangtse, the amazon, low-lying coastal areas, areas that are vunerable to oceanic weather systems, and definetely holland, would all be at some sort of risk. However, is there any point in freaking out and selling your house and moving to Montana next week? I think not, It would be more prudent to see what happens over the next 10 years, and like Far Rider says, perhaps this is a storm in a teacup after all. But then again.

Raven · Post by **Raven** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 6:08 am

OpenMind wrote: There are quite a few different variables involved. For instance, the Earth's orbit takes it closer to the Sun during the winter season.

We have done some damage to our ole rock, but, as yet, it's not conclusively irreversible. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't encourage changes if it makes the environment a better place for us all to live in.
And people forget our sun is dying. It's starting to get bigger, so naturally we're getting a little warmer.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 8:58 am

Raven wrote: And people forget our sun is dying. It's starting to get bigger, so naturally we're getting a little warmer.

Yes, but fortunatly as the sun is a main sequence star that is only mid-way through its life cycle, we will have to wait another 5 billion years before it become a life or death issue for us, I think we can afford to concentrate on carbon emissions for the time being.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 7:12 pm

SnoozeControl wrote: Call me selfish, but I'll probably be dead before our sun.

I hope not, but yes, you are right.