I saw an article on the CBC National recently, about the record decline of summer sea ice. And this from Canada.com:
Just a day before Prime Minister Stephen Harper was to arrive in the Far North today to try to boost Canada's claims of sovereignty over a melting Arctic, a U.S. climate expert announced that the ice cover in the northern hemisphere has shrunk faster this summer than in any year since reliable satellite imagery of the polar cap became available in 1979.
We are slow to learn, as this warning from 2002 shows:
"What really is important about polar bears surviving is that they are the top animal in the Arctic marine ecosystem," said Mr Stirling, a research scientist with the Canadian Wildlife Service.
"A healthy population of polar bears probably tells you that the ecosystem as a whole is pretty healthy."
Experts say there are between 22,000 and 27,000 bears in the world, divided among 20 populations varying in size from a few hundred to a few thousand in Alaska, Canada, Russia, Norway and Greenland. Sixty per cent of the bears live in Canada.
They are found throughout most of their original range, and in numbers similar to those before the industrialized era.
Most of the original habitat of the polar bear remains intact -- and not inhabited by humans.
But people do not have to live on the next iceberg to cause trouble.
Many scientists believe the burning of some fuels releases carbon dioxide and other gases into the atmosphere, trapping heat and triggering global warming, the so-called greenhouse effect.
Many scientists believe the effect will be felt most acutely in polar regions.
The World Wildlife Fund report said Arctic temperatures have been rising over the past century, and the presence of sea ice has fallen.
Within the last year or so, people who study polar bears found the first evidence ever of polar bear cannibalism. A mother was found partially eaten just outside her den, and the cub some yards away, also partially eaten. Polar bears are also drowning, having to swim farther I'm going to miss polar bears.
An interesting discussion, DG. Some of the opinions expressed in that thread, show what an uphill struggle conservationists have:
quote:
I am personally of the thinking the warming trends we see are natural occurances. We as humans have no control one way or the other on which way the wind blows. I am sure we will once again see a time come with predictions of another ice age especially when the Global Warming we've been promised doesn't pan out.
As the climatologist in the 2002 ABC article said, "Primarily people don't start thinking about the conservation of a species until there are 500 of them left."
That study might also indicate that polar bears are dying out because bush had a BBQ and served polar bear meat. However, since the term or the words "polar bear", "bush", "BBQ", or "animal life" were not mentioned in the article, I think it's unlikely.
But take heart, LR. Maybe you will read somewhere that there are more annual expeditions to the Arctic Circle now than ever before, and you can blame the increased heat produced by their exhalations for breaking up the polar ice cap.
Posts: 16750 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Volcanic activity is a more likely source of the ice melting than climate chane.
Actually where I take heart is if the ice does melt, the possibility of setting drilling rigs for oil exploration. The Arctic has posed a problem due to having a hard time drilling through ice.
Posts: 2277 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02
"Volcanic activity is a more likely source of the ice melting than climate chane."
Is this just a hunch on your part, or does anyone with anything close to serious credentials suggest this. If so, please provide a link, otherwise, my theory of hot air applies.
Posts: 16750 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
DG-Take a look at my first post on this subject and you will find a link from yahoo on the volcanic activity that has been studied. Also here is another link as well...
I read well, LR, and I did not see any reference to polar bears, or any wildlife in the link you gave me. But you are claiming that somehow what that link describes explains why the polar ice cap is melting. All I ask is that you provide someone with any type of verifiable scientific credentials to give any credence to what you are claiming. I don't see that is asking too much, but then, maybe it is. I'll withhold further comments until you provide such a reference in order that you have enough time to find one.
Posts: 16750 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
LR, do you ever read your own links? Both articles present the volcanoes in the arctic as phenominal geological activity, not as evidence of the reason for climate change. These volcanoes erupted 4km beneath the surface 10 years ago. Geophysicist, Robert Sohn of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, led the expedition:
quote:
The scientists say the heat released by the explosions is not contributing to the melting of the Arctic ice, but Sohn says the huge volumes of CO2 gas that belched out of the undersea volcanoes likely contributed to rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. How much, he couldn't say.
So your theory that, "Volcanic activity is a more likely source of the ice melting than climate change," is incorrect.
At the most, this activity contributed to a rise in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but as you can see, we don't know by how much.
What we do know, is that arctic ice is melting at an alarming rate:
With the Arctic experiencing the most rapid and severe climate change on Earth, the plants and animals that have evolved to survive in this extreme habitat come increasingly under threat. Like the canary in the coal mine, the Arctic can serve as our early warning sign of impending climate change. Observing the tumultuous change its inhabitants are experiencing can be a lesson to us about the changes in store for the rest of the world. Arctic Bears: The Melting Arctic's Impact on Its Ecosystem
The US put polar bears on the endangered species list back in May, btw. From the US Department of the Interior:
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne today announced that he is accepting the recommendation of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The listing is based on the best available science, which shows that loss of sea ice threatens and will likely continue to threaten polar bear habitat. This loss of habitat puts polar bears at risk of becoming endangered in the foreseeable future, the standard established by the ESA for designating a threatened species. Secretary Kempthorne Announces Decision to Protect Polar Bears under Endangered Species Act
LR, too late to edit, but I wanted to add, more than two thirds of the world's polar bears live in the Canadian arctic. Canadians are as interested in in the effects of global warming as other nations. Some people are calling 2008 the year of the polar bear. It’s become the new poster child for climate change, the perfect photogenic symbol for selling an environmental message. This is a link to an interesting CBC documentary about the animal:
Originally posted by DorianGreyed: I read well, LR, and I did not see any reference to polar bears, or any wildlife in the link you gave me. But you are claiming that somehow what that link describes explains why the polar ice cap is melting. All I ask is that you provide someone with any type of verifiable scientific credentials to give any credence to what you are claiming. I don't see that is asking too much, but then, maybe it is. I'll withhold further comments until you provide such a reference in order that you have enough time to find one.
My apologies for not mentioning the poor ole polar bears. After all when their very home is melting right out from underneath them, I forgot to focus on the bears themselves.
So you wanty creditable sources. I have to go no further than the yahoo link...
"But when a team led of scientists led by ROBERT SOHN of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts finally got a first-ever glimpse of the ocean floor 4,000 meters (13,000 feet) beneath the Arctic pack ice, they were astonished."
and...
"On land, explosive volcanic eruptions are nothing exceptional, although they present a major threat," said VERA SCHLINDWEIN, a geologist with Germany's Alfred Wegener Institute for Sea and Polar Research, which took part in the study."
In bold print are two people who hav studied the volcano activity in that region. So just how creditable do you want to get.
I could ask of you to present some creditable scientists who can back up the claim that the ice is melting due to Global Warming based on man made climate change. However that wouldn't be fair because there aren't any.
Posts: 2277 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02
Here is something I think you will find of interest...
"A: Temperatures at the North Pole never get above freezing (32° Fahrenheit or 0° Celsius), even in the summer when the sun shines 24 hours a day.
The North Pole is in the middle of the Arctic Ocean, which is covered by 10 to 15 feet of floating ice. The ice never melts completely, but some of the top does, forming puddles."
Assuming this information is correct, we are talking about an area with 24 hour a day sunshine that never gets above freezing, yet water puddle are to be found on the surface. So how is this possible??? While the article goes on in a round about way to attempt to explain this, there is something not mentioned. That is the eventual heat transfer from the core temperature of the earth up to the ice. Or transfer from the bottom up. And if there is any volcanic activity that would contribute to it. So if the outside area never gets above freezing, it would make any effect by the green house effect irrelevant.
Posts: 2277 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02
uh, LR...Please read Schlindwein's quote again. She was referring to eruptions on land. The way to tell is to look at the first two words of the quote. (It's a trick English teacher use to understand what a sentence means: you look at what it says.)
As dg pointed out, you have (once again) proved my point by your link. Thanks.
Posts: 16750 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
dg-You are getting a little picky here. BTW, yes I do read them.
No, not picky, I just like accuracy. You have taken links unrelated to the man-made global warming issue, and used them to support an argument against it. The scientists in the reports you link us to, say the heat released by these volcanoes is not contributing to the melting of arctic ice. But you disagree, and you must have some impressive scientific credentials to dispute the findings.
quote:
A: Temperatures at the North Pole never get above freezing (32° Fahrenheit or 0° Celsius), even in the summer when the sun shines 24 hours a day.
The North Pole is in the middle of the Arctic Ocean, which is covered by 10 to 15 feet of floating ice. The ice never melts completely, but some of the top does, forming puddles."
Again, you have posted a link that has no relevance to your argument..a completely unrelated article, that you can't possibly have read in it's entirety. Had you done so, you would have seen the explanation for melted water on top of the ice. Arctic Ocean hides Icy Puzzles
Originally posted by DorianGreyed: uh, LR...Please read Schlindwein's quote again. She was referring to eruptions on land. The way to tell is to look at the first two words of the quote. (It's a trick English teacher use to understand what a sentence means: you look at what it says.)
As dg pointed out, you have (once again) proved my point by your link. Thanks.
Glad to be of service, whatever your point is, it is still quite vague to me. But what I get out of it is the fact the environmentalists position pushing the man-made Global Warming temperature myth is getting weaker. After hearing this stuff for years and also seeing energy prices sky-rocket along with hearing we shouldn't be drilling for our own energy, people are questioning this stuff the environmentalists are putting out there.
Posts: 2277 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02
Again, you have posted a link that has no relevance to your argument..a completely unrelated article, that you can't possibly have read in it's entirety. Had you done so, you would have seen the explanation for melted water on top of the ice.
dg-I stand by what I previously said. I posted the links, they served the purpose that I had intended. I can also agree or disagree with them. Whether you like the way I use them, it is not my concern. You may choose to agree or disagree with me. If we agree on something, great. We disagree, well thats just apart of it.
As for my "credentials", I am just an average person like anyone else. But I tend not to go along with the crowd. In other words I do not believe in everything that the scientific community puts out there.
As for the subject of this thread, right now I even question the justification of putting Polar Bears on the endangered list. Is it because their numbers are going down or because their habitat is being threatened??? Either way this is the work of Mother Nature.
Posts: 2277 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02
In other words I do not believe in everything that the scientific community puts out there.
No, you don't. But you selectively quoted the scientists involved in the study, without proving your argument. What you do, is use comments made by scientists to support your half-baked theories. You posted two or three links, but LR, where, in any of those links, does anyone in the scientific community say that volcanic activity in the arctic is the reason for the decline in arctic ice?
quote:
As for the subject of this thread, right now I even question the justification of putting Polar Bears on the endangered list. Is it because their numbers are going down or because their habitat is being threatened???
Their numbers are declining, LR, because their habitat is vanishing. It was the US government that put them on the endangered species list. I suggest you read the link I gave you. Why their habitat is vanishing may be up for debate, but the fact is, the species itself is likely to become extinct if we don't wake up.
quote:
Actually where I take heart is if the ice does melt, the possibility of setting drilling rigs for oil exploration. The Arctic has posed a problem due to having a hard time drilling through ice.
Get in line; the US is just one of several countries that has claims to oil in the Arctic. Read your own link again .. Russia planted it's flag on the ocean floor, while the reseach on the volcanoes was being carried out.
dg: "No, you don't. But you selectively quoted the scientists involved in the study, without proving your argument."
LR: I shall point out you haven't proven your argument either. And as for using selective quotes, you and everyone else on these boards does the very same thing.
dg: "What you do, is use comments made by scientists to support your half-baked theories."
LR: My theories are no more half-baked than the BS these scientists & environmental organizations put out. Do you think they are going to point out an observation that goes against the grain of their position??? SO tell me dg... What is wrong with me or someone pointing it out??? And when I do how can you are anyone else without any conclusive evidence say it is wrong to do so???
dg: You posted two or three links, but LR, where, in any of those links, does anyone in the scientific community say that volcanic activity in the arctic is the reason for the decline in arctic ice?
LR: So what is wrong with me drawing my own conclusion and stating the obvious??? Stating the position they want to stay away from. Once again dg, you criticism of my posts are baseless.
dg: "Their numbers are declining, LR, because their habitat is vanishing."
LR: I posed a question to you. Thank you for answering it.
dg: "Why their habitat is vanishing may be up for debate, but the fact is, the species itself is likely to become extinct if we don't wake up."
LR: It wonn't be the first time a species has died out. That is a part of nature. Species die out because of their inability to adapt to change. Those species that do adapt, survive.
dg: Get in line; the US is just one of several countries that has claims to oil in the Arctic. Read your own link again .. Russia planted it's flag on the ocean floor, while the reseach on the volcanoes was being carried out.
LR: This is nothing new. This has always gone on. Some might even suggest the United Nations should make their claim to such a region but they wouldn't have a clue what to do with it,
Posts: 2277 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02
"Temperatures at the North Pole never get above freezing (32° Fahrenheit or 0° Celsius)... The ice never melts completely, but some of the top does, forming puddles." ... Assuming this information is correct, we are talking about an area with 24 hour a day sunshine that never gets above freezing, yet water puddle are to be found on the surface."
No volcanoes necessary. Take a glass of ice, let it start to melt, and measure the temperature of the water. As long as the ice stays, the water will be 32 F. Same thing at the north pole. As long as the ice stays, the water around it will be the same temperature as the ice.
