Our Oceans are Under Attack

Is there no limit to your willingness to remain intentionally ignorant?

Polar Bears | Wikipedia

Ringed Seal | Wikipedia

 

Yes, the point is they are very similar in size and evolved from the brown, as we evolved from our ancestors in glatiation times.
Save the inhuits.
Nature has good response for climatic change, better than ours. Our adaptation is mainly cultural.
P.S.: Wikipedia don't create toughts.

 

http://www.polarbearsinternational....hat-scientists-say/polar-bear-grizzly-hybrids

"It seems reasonable that in areas where their ranges are adjacent — that is, where the sea ice habitats occupied by polar bears and the terrestrial habitats occupied by grizzly/brown bears occur side-by-side—that some interbreeding takes place.

It is important to note that although the summer sea ice has changed greatly in the past few decades, it has changed much less during the polar bear's spring breeding season. And, projections show the extent of sea ice during the spring breeding season will change relatively little well into this century. This means that, at present, by the time the sea ice melts in summer and forces some polar bears onto land — where they might encounter grizzlies — the breeding season for both species is over or at least on the decline."

The rest of the article is typical AGW bemoaning loss of ice habitat endangering Polar bear survival. never mind it refutes itself, by claiming only a few summer months will have much diminished ice WELL into the century.

I looked for information on arctic seals time on land vs time in water. walrus spend a third of the time on land. Only reference I found was the British ilses seals 90% time on land.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not condemning any creature to extinction.
I'm not convinced by the AGWers warped logic arguments and generally dishonest grabs for "evidence".
Science MUST be fallible or it's not science. AGWers wiggle out of any set back in data, and find some other "evidence" that anthropogenic CO2 is destroying something.
Ya'll put the cart before the horse.
You already determined "in your own minds" that burning all that fossil fuel is bad, and you're out to prove it. Worse, you want to make a power grab using CO2 as excuse.
I don't trust you, nor your propaganda, and certainly not your agenda.
I'm going to resist you by every means possible.
Logic and your own actions/arguments convinces me, you're untrustworthy.
The world should beware and wary of you, because you promised poor countries they had a RIGHT to money from rich countries.
They're your main clients and allies. We need to explain to them you lied about ability to deliver, so they get angry with YOU!
When I do something or I'm generous from my heart, and the recipient takes the attitude it's their due?
Cancel the check and never write another. But that's what carbon taxes are about. You think you can TAKE the money!
Prepare for battle!

 

Your article is about whether climate change is causing increased hybridization between polar bears and grizzle (brown) bears. It concludes that climate change is not greatly influencing hybridization because most of the polar bear breeding is completed before summer ice-out forces/allows polar bears to come into contact with grizzle bears. Further, they think it will be well into this century before an earlier spring ice-out might permit increased polar/grizzle bear interbreeding.

That's helpful information, as far as it goes. However, it says nothing about the change of when winter ice starts to form. Remember, many of the polar bears eat little or nothing during the summer months, while they are on land. So it is very critical to them when the winter ice start forming, so they can get out on the ice and start capturing ringed and bearded seals.

Here is a crude analysis of polar bears' problems at just one location. In October and November many people like to go to Churchill, Manitoba, on the western shore of Hudson's Bay, to watch polar bears congregate, waiting for the ice to form.

Here is the ice map for November 18, 2013. You can see that the ice is just beginning to form at Churchill (red circle). Let's assume that this is a typical time in recent years for when ice is forming at that location, and thus when polar bears can start hunting out on the ice.



Now let's look at the graph for when sea-ice extant is occurring for the whole Arctic.



The right-most vertical line is on the Nov 18 date for when ice started forming at Churchill last year. That line intersects with where the area of ice currently is at this time of year (about 9,500,000 sq km). The horizontal line intersects with previous decadal averages for that same ice extant. The left vertical line intersect with the horizontal line at the graph line for 1980s ice extant.

As you can see, in the last 3 decades the average date when ice forms has been pushed later by upwards of three weeks. That's three weeks longer (plus whatever is happening at the Spring ice-out) that the polar bears at Churchill are getting minimal nutrition, i.e. fasting.

It is anticipated that as global warming pushes ice-in later and later, the polar bears are going to be at increased risk of starvation at the end of their summer/fall fast.

 

I suspect their summer fasting is instinctive to reduce the blubber that insulates them swimming in frigid waters. Overheats then in summer. I must be part bear myself, preferring a light lunch in hot weather. Chilly weather increases my appetite. But if I'm actually hungry, the weather doesn't matter. Doubt it will matter to polar bears either. They'll hunt something or find carrion.

 

Silly me. I'm sure you're correct. They'll be just fine.

 

Einstein said something about this general subject.

 

That's one of the deceits of your side that turns most Americans off.
You CAN'T refrain from classifying those who disagree with you as ignorant or stupid.
The reason you CAN'T, is because of your elitist political view.
You don't believe ordinary people should rule themselves or control their government or make important decisions. YOU believe you are smarter, more able, and have some natural right or obligation to rule/manage things in everyone's best interest.
You need to camouflage your egoistic disdain because flaunting this philosophy will be the death of you.

 

Strange person

 

Yes Myark. You and I are VERY different and alien in our thoughts and beliefs. You are just as weird to me, as I am strange to you.

 

Yobernacle is convinced that anyone who supports g w theories is anti human and anti progress. Yet his beliefs are driving us to our own extinction. So that would make him the 1 against mankind by not admitting there is a problem. There is so much evidence supporting g w but yob and co refuse to acknowledge any of it.

 

"Robert M. Carter is a Research Professor at James Cook University (Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia). He is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than thirty years professional experience."

Not a member of your universal consensus of scientists I imagine.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/copenh...n-facts-and-ten-myths-on-climate-change/16467

 

"New data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are continuing to rise but global temperatures are not following suit. The new data undercut assertions that atmospheric carbon dioxide is causing a global warming crisis.

NOAA data show atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose 2.67 parts per million in 2012, to 395 ppm. The jump was the second highest since 1959, when scientists began measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

Global temperatures are essentially the same today as they were in 1995, when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were merely 360 ppm. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose 10 percent between 1995 and 2012, yet global temperatures did not rise at all. Global warming activists are having a difficult time explaining the ongoing disconnect between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures.

This isn’t the first time in recent years that global temperatures have disobeyed the models presented by global warming activists. From the mid-1940s through the mid-1970s, global temperatures endured a 30-year decline even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose nearly 10 percent. From 1900 through 1945, by contrast, global temperatures rose rapidly despite a lack of coal power plants, SUV’s, and substantial carbon dioxide emissions.

Remarkably, global warming activists are spinning the ongoing rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, along with the ongoing lack of global temperature rise, as evidence that we are facing an even worse global warming crisis than they have been predicting."

march 2013
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...e-global-temperatures-are-not-following-suit/

 

I believe a lot of people are seriously concerned about the environment.
Intelligent, well intentioned, good hearted people.
Their attention is distracted from real environmental issues, by this political con scheme of the socialists. Tell a lie enough times, some people will believe it.
We all make misjudgments. Look at divorce rates. Person we married wasn't who we thought they were. I'm pointing out over and over, this whole anthropogenic CO2 driving climate change and warming is promulgated by a political organization with a socialist political agenda. The IPCC.
The UN wants to be the world's central government.
Didn't you know?

 

The weather changes we have had here the last few years have been just what the scientists predicted. Every summer now we are getting record temperatures. In w a we had 3 once in a hundred storms in 2 year's. At Wilson's prometary. The southernmost point of the Australian mainland people have seen tropical turtles offshore. Whale sharks and Spanish mackerel turning up in the southern ocean. They are moving south because the water is getting to hot up north.