Last-Ditch Resort: Move Polar Bears to Antarctica?

This is getting absurd. You have to wonder how life ever survived the last 4 billion years without the BBC.

In 1950 the polar bear population was something like 5,000. Last year the population was about 25,000.

Will the Arctic ice cap melt this year? I seriously doubt it. The longest day of the year has passed and we should see the normal seasonal reversal take place at the end of July. That means the amount of Arctic ice will increase again.

For those that are having Climate Change Anxiety Syndrome (CCAS), don't fret. The Antarctic ice volumes are at record highs this year. In fact, the total ice mass on the planet Earth is about the same as it always has been.

Why all the fear mongering? Can you say a-g-e-n-d-a? I knew you could.

"For those that are having Climate Change Anxiety Syndrome (CCAS), don't fret. The Antarctic ice volumes are at record highs this year. In fact, the total ice mass on the planet Earth is about the same as it always has been."

Do you have a source for this? wouldnt mind reading it myself.

I have come in late on this, but can't resist commenting.

1. The report on the bear population has figures from surveys that were done over 20 years ago. This data has no current significance. Those surveys (or estimates) of a more recent date indicate a Polar Bear population decline. Did you actually read the report? It clearly states "In 2006, based on the work of the Polar Bear Specialist Group of the Species Survival Commission of the IUCN (all Canadian jurisdictions are represented at each PBSG meeting), the polar bear (as a species across its entire range) was up-listed from 'Lower Risk' to 'Vulnerable' on the IUCN Red List. This was due primarily to the acknowledged escalating threat posed by global warming and melting of sea ice."

2. The Souther Hemisphere ice charts show the figures for "sea ice". As the major proportion of Southern Hemisphere ice is "land ice", that is; the icecaps on the Antarctic continental land mass, an increase in sea ice indicates an increase in the depletion of the ice covering the land.

So your argument fails to convince.

I'm sorry if I bring a serious note to this jolly thread.

Buncha, (is that followed by 'Crap' by any chance)

I'm no scientist but I do take notice of ambiguities in your post.

"This was due primarily to the acknowledged escalating threat posed by global warming and melting of sea ice."

I think the threat is posed by those that would try to push this adjenda.

"The Souther Hemisphere ice charts show the figures for "sea ice". As the major proportion of Southern Hemisphere ice is "land ice", that is; the icecaps on the Antarctic continental land mass, an increase in sea ice indicates an increase in the depletion of the ice covering the land."

One does not necessarily follow the other. I just read about an international competition to build a new antarctic base because the weight of new snow was destroying the old one. Sometimes facts are made to fit.

Welcome aboard, and THANK YOU for injecting a bit of reality into what was seeming to be turning into a back-pat session for the "ain't no warming here" crowd. Sorry, guys, there is sufficient evidence that polar (north AND south) and Greenland icecaps, as well as mountain glaciers all over the globe are shrinking at an unprecedented (in our history) rate. I am not arguing anthropogenic influences here, merely the fact that it IS happening, whether a "natural" phenomenon only or not.

Bull-winkle.

http://ecoworld.com/blog/2008/04/17/antarcticas-ice-mass/

If you search, there are other web sites that confirm the same. The problem is called selective reporting on the part of the BBC and most mainstream (Chicken Little) news organizations.

Also, there is firm evidence (based on four different standard sources) that show a very rapid cooling trend for the last 18 months, not a warming trend. That trend is still continuing. Why the reversal? We don't know, but it seems to frustrate the Global Warming crowd, so now they just call it Climate Change. The rest of us call it Weather.

The evidence keeps mounting and mounting that the whole Global Warming alarm is a scam. Even if Man-made climate change is true, the whole process for analyzing and reporting this "science" is so perverted with bias and agenda that we will never know the truth, which is inconvenient for the rest of us.

That's not correct Anonymous Hero, and I know I've shown you many times articles that demonstrate that glaciers are retreating around the globe. I've also shown you several articles that contradict your "rapid cooling trend for the last 18 months", here is another one:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

You know, I know you're a good guy Anonymous Hero, from past interactions on non-global warming threads, but it hurts a little to see you fooled by this crap:

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/11/giss-land-ocean-index-dives-in-jan08-matches-trends-for-uah-and-rss-satellite-data/

At least do me the favor of checking the data the article above quotes before you quote it. That's what that first link was, it was one of the four sources that the link above quotes. I've already shown you in the past that all 4 sources say just the opposite of what the article above is trying to say. The author of that blog is a despicable liar, I'm sorry to say it, but if you check his facts they don't work. It makes me sick. Stop letting these liars lead you in circles. Check their sources.

The problem isn't selective reporting, it's selective reading.

I understand AH. Your experience serves you well most of the time because most of the time panic is irrational and exagerated. But in this case I'm afraid the sky is falling, if only a little bit. I'm not of the opinion that this is going to be the end of the world, and nobody hates winter more than me (I don't ski), but there are all kinds of consequences to letting this go that we are already experiencing. You get a lower pH in the oceans as they try to absorb some of this Carbon Dioxide. You get stronger hurricanes since the waters that feed them their power are warmer. You get more extreme weather conditions, increased desertification, but perhaps most troubling is the reduction in glacial melt waters.

You see, in the U.S. we are blessed with rain year round, but in many countries rain is a seasonal phenomenon. The remainder of the year the rivers that provide the drinking water and irrigation for those countries come from mountain glaciers. As those glaciers disappear, the rivers dry up as well leading to desertification on a massive scale. It's a very real and frightening consequence of global warming.

By the way, the link you cited:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

is a NASA editorial. The second paragraph in the summary confirms it.

AH,

The link that I cited and you link to above is the

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis Global Temperature Trends: 2007 Summation

For those of you who don't know, GISS stands for Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which is part of NASA.

I think its a bit much to characterize the 2007 Summation on Global Temperatre Trends from GISS as an "editorial".

I'm perplexed by your statement "The second paragraph in the summary confirms it" is it possible you meant a different paragragh, or did you mean the one I've copied and pasted below, and if so, what about it makes you think its an editorial?

Here is the second paragraph you refer to:

Figure 1 shows 2007 temperature anomalies relative to the 1951-1980 base period mean. The global mean temperature anomaly, 0.57°C (about 1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 mean, continues the strong warming trend of the past thirty years that has been confidently attributed to the effect of increasing human-made greenhouse gases (GHGs) (Hansen et al. 2007). The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.

Figure 1, above. (a) Annual surface temperature anomaly relative to 1951-1980 mean, based on surface air measurements at meteorological stations and ship and satellite measurements of sea surface temperature. (b) Global map of surface temperature anomalies for 2007. (Figure also available as large GIF or PDF.)

Arctic Warmth

The map reveals that the greatest warming has been in the Arctic and neighboring high latitude regions. Polar amplification is an expected characteristic of global warming, as the loss of ice and snow engenders a positive feedback via increased absorption of sunlight. The large Arctic warm anomaly of 2007 is consistent with observed record low Arctic sea ice cover in September 2007.

Here is the text (first sentence):

""Global warming stopped in 1998," has become a recent mantra of those who wish to deny the reality of human-caused global warming."

That is not the makings of a scholarly paper nor the fact-based report I would expect from a NASA scientific paper. It is obviously an opinion, not relevant to the presentation of the data, and it is in the second paragraph of the 'Summary' near the end of the paper.

First, this simply illustrates bias in the report by attacking a group ad hominem, which is a fallacy of argument. Second, the presented data does not make the link of global temperature change to human activity. It is stated as such in the summary, but not substantiated by the facts in the paper.

Now, if we look at the GISS raw data, maybe you can help me, but the raw GISS data does seem to point to a cooling trend. Am I wrong? I don't know or care about the second article you cited, I just want to correctly interpret the facts from the raw data.

Stop using the phrase "Ad Hominem". Use your own words and ideas.

It's the official report from NASA. It has that phrase at the end because clowns keep misusing there data. Here's a related statement from the American Physical Society:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth's climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

It drives me crazy that a you can't see they are playing you AH. You've got to get your head out of the sand and realize we've got a problem and we've got to address it. If people like you don't start stepping up and add a measured voice of reason of how to solve the problem, we're gonna have more debacles like Ethanol which I pointed out years ago would cause crazy food inflation, which it did.

http://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/71190 (Flashback to 2007)
http://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/23003 (Flashback to Dec 2006)
http://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/13783 (Flashback to Oct 2006)

What you don't get, we're not the ones being irrational here.

I'm not so sure we aren't the ones being irrational here, Roger. Trying to convince some of our esteemed colleagues here that they have been misinformed, duped, lied to, bamboozled, hornswoggled, and flim-flammed seems to be an extremely irrational act. After all, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

Personally, I'd prefer not to believe in bad news either, but the facts are there for all to see. Just because some gas-bag with a similar political philosophy to mine says red is green doesn't change the color of the leaves on my trees. Fortunately, I am capable of hearing my own B.S. alarm go off over the clamor, so I ignore that stuff.

None at all. Like I said, I deeply respect your opinions and enjoy our conversations.

Right back at ya.

See Del, its all good. No need for Antarctica.

In situations such as these, I find it useful to examine the personal conduct of leading proponents of each viewpoint. On one hand, we have the "deniers" who do not believe that global climate change is either human-caused or likely to be catastrophic, while at the same time most of these individuals readily advocate the wise use of natural resources in a market-driven economy. On the other hand, we have Al Gore as the poster-child for catastrophic, human-caused global climate change who has done nothing in his personal life to reduce his use of natural resources. After a supposedly "green" renovation of his mansion, it uses more power than it did before (nearly 20x that of an average American home). It appears that he either a) doesn't really believe in the threat he crusades for, or b) feels he is somehow above responsibility for any personal action aside from trying to make everyone else feel guilty about the situation. The song of the crusaders does not ring true.

I'm not trying to make fun of Al Gore, only illuminating the fact that his actions illustrate his true agenda. I have done my own research (of the raw data, not just the reports based on the data) and AH is correct: there is data supporting both arguments. However, the conclusions reached by the CC crowd are seriously flawed from a scientific perspective. It is not possible to say definitively that the climate is in fact warming, much less claim that human activities are an influence. Anyone that can honestly claim that Al Gore does not have ulterior motives has their head in the sand and deserves everything Gore's agenda will produces.

"true agenda", "CC crowd", I wish you could know how dumb all that sounds.

As dumb as this?:

"They're playing you like a fiddle brother, and you're letting them. They've got you convinced that scientists are stupid. They've got you convinced that the newspapers are filled with lies."

Who are "they"?

Roger, I find it curious that you only find fault with how things in this thread are stated (the Descartes exchange, for example) not the actual substance of the post. You seem to be throwing every red herring you can find to take the focus off the actual debate.

You've done your research! If you want to enlighten us, I would love to read up on your research. If you can, post the data youve used to come to your conclusions and those conclusions were.

But then again, I havent seen to many anti CC papers in peer-reviewed journals, so i have my doubts.

As I said, there is data supporting both sides of the argument. In proper scientific methodology, I have not reached any conclusion other than to determine that the conclusions reached by the CC papers are fatally flawed. An unfortunate fact is that you only find what you look for. The data is out there for you to look at for yourself, if you care to. But you seem to have already committed to your side of the fence. My only purpose here is to act on the precept "let no lie go unchallenged". The assertion that CC is an incontrovertible fact is a lie from a scientific standpoint. I cannot allow it to go unchallenged for the sake of other, open-minded readers that may stumble across this thread. That the debate is very much alive needs to be made abundantly clear.

In this instance, the odds that one side of the argument is solely based on facts and that the other side of the argument is solely based on pretense, swiftly falls to zero.

Of that I am convinced. Everything else is open for debate.

They've got you convinced the only one you can trust is them. They'll give you the information you need, they'll tell you how to think, how to act, what to say.

Now that sounds like Al Gore...

Excellent points!

Consider this. What if the changes we are seeing are not significantly influenced by man? Would it be wise to devastate the world economy to correct something that is a normal course of events?

What if the changes are driven by our "hand"? Again, what action do you feel is right for your plan?

It worries me that people want to take action when we really don't know the cause of the effect. Worse, we really don't understand what is happening. We have many computer models, but none are accurate at predicting what we observe. There must be either terms that we are not modeling, terms that we are modeling incorrectly, or both. Looking back historically, there have been many, many predictions in the last 30+ years made by "scientists" and none of them have been very accurate. Actually, most have been absolutely wrong and those that seem to be anywhere near accurate are so probably by chance.

Many of the proponents of action appear to have political agendas that transcend the issue. However, we are starting to run open loop here and reaching a critical mass of group-think driving us. The people that are going to make decisions for our future are those that really do not have the knowledge to make that call.

Those elected officials will make their decision predominately based on the loudest voices heard and what will be the greatest probability to secure reelection and what supports their party. In other words, fact based decisions take a back seat at the end of the bus on this ride. Does that worry you? It worries me.

What worries me the most is that we are not in fact apparently making any plans for any contingencies in the event of any disastrous consequences. Politicians making decisions worries me. What does NOT worry me is whether there is a man-made component to this, or if it is strictly a natural phenomenon that would happen anyway if we still lived in caves and did not control fire. It's the end result that matters, not the specific mechanism.

What worries me is the FACT (not my opinion) that not only is sea ice melting at a never-before observed rate, but also landlocked ice on the Antarctic continent, on the Greenland central mountains, and in northern Canada, as well as mountain glaciers on every continental land mass that has them. We are talking about cubic MILES of ice, and cubic miles of meltwater. Estimates do vary as to how deep our coastal plains would be innundated, but a meter (or a yard, if you don't prefer metrics) would be significant in most places. Consider the elevation (if you know it) of your own living room. How high's the water, Momma?

This is NOT a political decision to be taken, but an engineering/science-based decision based on our best thinking as to how to respond. Will such a disaster actually come to pass? Likely, but even if not, the sheer lack of forethought about what to do if it does is what worries me. I do not feel in any way or part that I am being a "chicken little" nor the boy who cried "wolf" about this. I feel much more like the lad who pointed out that the emperor was, in fact, nekkid. I hope I don't end up having to feel like the Dutch boy who stuck his finger in the leaking dike.

Suppose the global warming scenario is out to lunch? Suppose instead the end result is a reglaciation like what happened during the last ice age. The melting process reverses itself somehow, and we end up with an ice sheet a mile or two thick as far south as Chicago. Would some planning for how to react to THAT be in order? Planning costs little until you don't have it when needed. Then, it can be the most expensive commodity you never had. In planning for disasters, one of the most insignificant bits of information required is "why" it happened. Nice to know, sure, but hardly essential to calculate a reasoned response.

The article cited in NASA is written by a Dr. James Hansen. Doing a little searching, it turns out this person is a piece of work. Actually, he is more of a loose canon, which explains the editorial approach.

In June he petitioned Congress to indict the oil companies for causing global warming. It looks like he is also trying to push a class action lawsuit as well.

Oh, do you mean the Dr. James Hansen that is the head of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center? The one who was trained in physics and astronomy in the space science program of Dr. James Van Allen at the University of Iowa. The one who obtained a B.A. in Physics and Mathematics with highest distinction in 1963, an M.S. in Astronomy in 1965 and a Ph.D. in Physics, in 1967, all three degrees from the University of Iowa?

So basically the man who has worked on climate change for about half a century now. The man who in 1981 predicted that changes in climate would be detected by 1990. This is the man you are saying is a loose cannon, right?

I think you better rethink things.

I agree with you that he has great credentials, but that is an appeal to flattery and an appeal to authority fallacy. Having credentials, no matter how wonderful, does not make a claim true (or even false).

Nevertheless, let's ask some specific questions. Do you feel that his claim that the oil companies should be indicted for crimes against humanity is a valid one?

If you do, how would you substantiate that claim? That is, what specific criminal activity have the oil companies knowingly conspired in that would be considered to be such a crime?

----

My original point was that Dr. Hansen's methods are not what we (the scientific community) would consider to be objective scientific reporting. When I read a NASA paper I am expecting unbiased truth - just the facts in their completion. It is up to the reader to draw a conclusion based on those facts.

When the paper becomes an editorial and an attack against those that do not share the writer's viewpoint (Dr. Hansen's) I am forced to consider that the facts may not have enough merit to win the argument by themselves. Certainly, one could easily argue that Dr. Hansen does not believe the facts contain enough merit in his mind or he would have probably not felt the need to ridicule the peers of his opposition.

Given Dr. Hansen's long list of credentials, I would not expect such behavior from such a person. That is just my observation. I don't know the man personally, I am only making a judgment based on my readings.

Hi AH!

I dont know about that ecoworld article i read, i have my reservations about an article that begins with "That is the relevant question, when you read alarmist stories about ice melt in Antarctica." It seems very Lou Dobbs~ish...(bad).

I personally think that if you want to find websites, it can't be sites like 'ecoworld' where a bunch of average citizens gather and talk about regurgitated facts that are half wrong or badly stated. It has to be official organizations that have respect. IPCC seems to think it exists, the governments seem to think it exists, most scientists in the world (although to be fair, 300,000 'scientists' signed a petition saying global warming was false...but, seriously, how many scientists are their in the world and what background did those 300000 have)... If you want to know if the ice sheets are melting, then there are organizations that deal solely with the monitering of said ice sheets. What do they say? My aunts hubby has led expeditions up into northern canada and has said that there is more melt then usual and that the temperatures are higher then normal.

I personally liked this reply to this ecowhatsits article:

"NeilT Says:
April 18th, 2008 at 7:55 am

Ah yes that old chestnut.

If you take a Look at the overheads, you can see that up to 1/3 of the Wilkins shelf is breaking up. But only this one chunk has, so far, fallen off. But let's not worry about that reality.

As for the Ice mass balance in Antarctica? Well of course we can use the passive microwave data in exculsion. But if we use the GRACE satellites which record the gravity changes of ice loss and gain, we see that around 150 billion tonnes of Ice is being lost in total off the entire continent of Antarctica every year.

And of course we can use the politically sanitised IPCC4 estimate to dismiss need for change over sea level rise can't we? The IPCC4 estimate is under the assumption that we implement Every Recommendation in the report and then we will ONLY see a 1M sea level rise over the next decade. The current rise is 4.5 to 5mm per year. Which means 0.4 to 0.5 by the end of the century. Looks good so far?

But of course that's not the whole story as usual. Because the recorded sea level rise per year in 2004 was 3mm. So if we carry on with this increase in sea level rise, then we get to 2 or 3 meters rise by the end of the century.

And that is not accounting for any of the accelerants on the way.

The scientists are being quite reserved IMO "

No, no. Don't be so quick to dismiss this. Let's look at it from a different angle.

Why should we inconvenience or traumatize the polar bears? THEY haven't done anything wrong, after all. The poor things just want to eat, sleep and make lots of little bears.

If indeed the root cause of the problem is mankind, then it seems far more logical to relocate US to Antarctica. That way we'd have far less impact on the environment. Greenhouse gasses would decrease because, well, there's precious little to burn there. And pollution from cars would similarly dwindle because, well, there's not much reason to drive around.

I think I can get behind this plan! Who's with me?

Dude, where's my wit? Oh,wait a minute it is right here. Yeah, ha, ha move the entire United States to the Arctic, what a hoot. Why not just have your message read: send the corporations from around the US that are causing the issues at hand? Well, if you are going to say that, wouldn't you also have to include ALL of the other Dumb SHITS from around this world of ours who pour more toxins into the air than the US does? Try reading the thread about those flat screen TV's and how harmful they are to the environment, or even your pc. Why don't you just move yourself to the arctic area and offer yourself to the bears as a tasty morsel for them and their cubs, k? Do your share to help the environment. And while you are at it, since you most likely will not be doing this last suggestion, why don't you log in as yourself instead of hiding behind the moniker of guest...?

Ferris

Oh, and when you go to the polar regions, can you please take st gore and tipper with you. Well, come to think of it maybe just tippper because the bears would definitely die of indegestion after eating st gore, seeing as he is so full of crap...

How does Bear taste? Can we just eat them? Then it isn't as sad right?

That's to funny!

Actually, of the different bear populations, the two clans that have a declining population (the remaining clans have increasing populations) are the ones that are being hunted by humans.

Stephen Colbert has made it clear to me we are better off without bears.

This is just another case of survival of the fittest. Those animals who can adapt to the changes humans bring to the earth will pass their genes and instincts to their offspring. No offense to the bear lovers, but if they are going to survive, they have to do it on their own - not by having humans hold their hand and bring them to Antarctica.

A great example of this is squirrels and rats. Squirrels have bushy tails so we let them live in parks and feed them. Rats have hairless tails so we kill them. Survival of the fittest (cutest).

Wait.

So if I'm hearing you, what you're saying is that we should feed the rats to the polar bears? Because the bears are cuter than squirrels.

>.>

Squirrels are cuter than rats is what he said. Aka feed rats to bears instead of squirrels.

But in all seriousness, we can't save all the species that are losing their habitat. It is impossible. Relocation of a species could lead to disaster.

Think of it this way. If you were sitting in your house and had three birds in a cage and two dropped dead, would you:

A. Be worried about saving that third bird
B. Be worried about what was killing the birds.

I'm less concerned about saving the polar bears than I am concerned that the polar bears need saving.

Reminds me of the the saying: "If it happens to you its sad, if it happens to me it's a tragedy" (Meaning that the polar bear dying off is sad but human beings dying off would be a tragedy)

Jaxy is awesome.

Well, the data says - stop hunting them (or at least stop hunting so many). That's what the problem is with the two clans that have a population decline.

I don't know if I agree that polar bears are cuter than squirrels. I do think Polar Bear Cubs may be. We could maybe feed the rats to the polar bears till they get big, then eat them, but then we're eating rat (sort of) and I'm not big on that either. Perhaps I need to just accept that Polar Bear Conservation is a complicated issue with many variables.

What you gonna do if the Polar Bears done want to go?

I have a feeling the bears would like the penguins right into the penguins extinction.

Brad

Good point. That's exactly what I was thinking. Polar bears are fast and aggressive. Penguins are slow and clumsy (on land). What do you think the outcome of a polar bear vs penguin battle would be?

By the way, penguins are cute too. Does that mean that once the cute polar bears start decimating the cute penguins, we humans will start exterminating the bears?

Hey DVader1000,

Polar bears already eat those cute penguins at the North Pole. The penguins are much faster in the water and have some even more aggressive predators there. Concidering how dumb they are it's a wonder there are any penguins to talk about. I guess there really is some safety in numbers.

You're not serious, right? You do know that there are no penguins at the north pole?

that's 'cos the Polar bears have eaten them all. QED.