Polar Bears Face 'Tipping Point,' Bringing A Sudden, Dramatic Decline

BBC :

Climate change will trigger a dramatic and sudden decline in the number of polar bears, a new study has concluded.

Read the whole story: BBC

Comments

[Alhitch]

11:44 AM on 06/25/2010

I am really bored today so, just for fun, I thought I would come in here and abuse the gullible wormers today. Who wants to be first?

[Overtone]

08:06 PM on 06/18/2010

POLAR BEARS MAY BE LIKE THE CANARY IN THE COAL MINE.

THIS MAY PROVE TO BE THE GREATEST EMERGENCY SINCE THE ATTACK ON PEARL HARBOR!

See: Life Threatening Danger at http://www.aesopinstitute.org updated today.

Also, What to Do! on the same website.

Chris Landau, a geologist, believes the solution may be to drill 8 or more new, vertical wells, in a circle around the gusher, on the assumption that far more oil will be produced than can otherwise be controlled.

He states the oil might continue to be produced in huge quantities.

He believes several new wells can allow recovery of the oil, which may need to continue for a very, very, long time.

You may want to also read Moving Beyond Oil and Running on Water on that Aesop site.

With adequate support, a 24/7 development program could move breakthrough technologies into production.

This may prove to be an emergency equivalent to nuclear war!

These new technologies are much less complicated than weapons systems.

The science is hard to believe, as it disagrees with conventional wisdom. But, independent and National laboratories are increasingly involved. Once prototypes for schools are in production, it will become obvious that gasoline, oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear power will face low cost competition that can leave all of them behind.

Recognize this emergency! We have a difficult, but possible, job to do!

So, let's begin to really do it! An important step is to learn more about what to do!

[NL207]

03:11 PM on 06/11/2010

Yet another alarmist prediction based upon a computer model whose accuracy cannot be verified.

[realpolitic]

04:51 AM on 06/12/2010

Poor NL, you no longer offer any data or valid arguments, just denier flame throwing propaganda.

[Stefan Zeiss]

04:06 AM on 06/10/2010

The premises of this article is nonsense. Greenland was warmer than is is today, yet the Polar Bears survived. Enough of the Global Warming garbage.

[Wasp35]

11:56 PM on 06/18/2010

Great comments on this issue, Stefan Zeiss! The Climategate scandals revealed just how corrupt the Climate Change "scientific community" had become and proved that with billions of dollars in research money and lucrative "green" businesses at stake, scientists at the highest level of the debate chose politics over science. They had an opportunity at that point to regain their credibility by returning to hard science and purging their ranks of unscrupulous left-wing puppets, but they blew it. They just pretended like the Climategate scandals never happened and returned to the same tired approach that got them into trouble in the first place: adopt the robotic mantra that "the science is settled" and that the "debate is over"; aggressively denounce scientists expressing a contrary viewpoint as "quacks" and destroy their credibility in the scientific community (this includes bullying the editors of scientific periodicals that might consider publishing a "denier's" findings); arrogantly and viciously ridicule non-scientist "deniers" as slack-jawed imbeciles who are simply too stupid and uneducated to understand the overwhelming scientific evidence that conclusively proves the existence of AGW.

So, they are still using the same tactics only now it's pathetic instead of menacing. No one is afraid of them anymore.

Fanned.

[realpolitic]

08:06 PM on 06/05/2010

Projections of future climate change anticipate an additional warming of 2.0 to 11.5 F (1.1 to 6.4 C) over the 21st century, on top of the 1.4 oF already observed over the past 100 years...

There is also the potential that the Earth system could cross thresholds that result in abrupt changes or other "surprises." The potential consequences of such events could be irreversible and highly challenging, but their likelihood is not very well understood.

Despite these uncertainties and complexities, it is clear that Earth's future climate will be unlike the climate that ecosystems and human societies have become accustomed to during the last 10,000 years, leading to significant challenges across a broad range of human endeavors. It is likewise reasonable to expect that the magnitude of future climate change and the severity of its impacts will be larger if actions are not taken to limit its magnitude and adapt to its impacts.
______________________

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/Science_Report_Brief_Final.pdf

[Richard2]

06:42 PM on 06/02/2010

Speaking of tipping points...

As Newsweek put it recently,

"Some of the IPCC’s most-quoted data and recommendations were taken straight out of unchecked activist brochures, newspaper articles, and corporate reports—including claims of plummeting crop yields in Africa and the rising costs of warming-related natural disasters, both of which have been refuted by academic studies."

[MGhamma]

06:47 PM on 06/02/2010

Newsweek is not a scientific publication.

Please cite actual scientific references.

[realpolitic]

09:59 PM on 06/02/2010

That will be the day! Richard is still doing his best to misrepresent the San Francisco tidal station data. That and his attacks on the IPCC and CRU are all he has.

[Richard2]

09:25 PM on 06/04/2010

"Newsweek is not a scientific publication."

Neither is the 2007 IPCC report on Climate Change.

The IPCC report quotes many publications less objective than Newsweek. For example, the publication that claimed that the Himalayan Glaciers would disappear by 2035.

[realpolitic]

09:58 PM on 06/02/2010

From the Newsweek article, which is just a blog of a couple paragraphs.

"Very few scientists dispute a link between man-made CO2 and global warming."

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/05/28/uncertain-science.html

By the way, the costs of natural disasters are rising. There is also more development along coastal areas, which makes the comparison's difficult. Roger Piekle Jr. has made a whole career out of stating that exact same thing in different ways.

[Richard2]

10:55 AM on 06/05/2010

The Royal Society has appointed a panel to rewrite the 350-year-old institution’s official position on global warming. It will publish a new “guide to the science of climate change” this summer. The society has been accused by 43 of its Fellows of refusing to accept dissenting views on climate change and exaggerating the degree of certainty that man-made emissions are the main cause.

The society appears to have conceded that it needs to correct previous statements. It said: “Any public perception that science is somehow fully settled is wholly incorrect — there is always room for new observations, theories, measurements.” This contradicts a comment by the society’s previous president, Lord May, who was once quoted as saying: “The debate on climate change is over.”

[realpolitic]

11:21 PM on 05/31/2010

"Record temperatures in northern India have claimed hundreds of lives in what is believed to be the hottest summer in the country since records began in the late 1800s."

"The death toll is expected to rise with experts forecasting temperatures approaching 50C (122F) in coming weeks. More than 100 people are reported to have died in the state of Gujarat where the mercury topped at 48.5C last week. At least 90 died in Maharashtra, 35 in Rajasthan and 34 in Bihar."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/30/india-heatwave-deaths

[realpolitic]

09:44 PM on 05/31/2010

"Human-caused global warming is poised to wipe out polar bears. The normally staid U.S. Geological Survey -- studying whether the bear should be listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act -- concluded grimly last Friday:"

"Projected changes in future sea ice conditions, if realized, will result in loss of approximately 2/3 of the world's current polar bear population by the mid 21st century. Because the observed trajectory of Arctic sea ice decline appears to be underestimated by currently available models, this assessment of future polar bear status may be conservative."

"That's right -- this grim prediction is optimistic, a best-case scenario."

http://www.grist.org/article/will-polar-bears-go-extinct-by-2030-part-i/

[realpolitic]

09:26 PM on 05/31/2010

* BP, the largest oil company in the UK and one of the largest in the world, has this opinion:

"There is an increasing consensus that climate change is linked to the consumption of carbon based fuels and that action is required now to avoid further increases in carbon emissions as the global demand for energy increases."

* Shell Oil (yes, as in oil, the fossil fuel) says:

Shell shares the widespread concern that the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities is leading to changes in the global climate.

* Eighteen CEOs of Canada's largest corporations had this to say in an open letter to the Prime Minister of Canada:

"Our organizations accept that a strong response is required to the strengthening evidence in the scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We accept the IPCC consensus that climate change raises the risk of severe consequences for human health and security and the environment. We note that Canada is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change."

http://www.grist.org/article/global-warming-is-a-hoax

[Richard2]

11:27 PM on 05/31/2010

It is somewhat disconcerting to observe someone quoting BP as a credible witness in support of alarmist global warming positions. Perhaps BP should have kept their eyes on the ball, in the game they serious game they play with oil from the Gulf of Mexico.

[realpolitic]

11:43 PM on 05/31/2010

It is amazing how selective deniers can be to make their pseudo-arguments. I quoted BP, Shell. Oil, 18 CEOs of Canada's largest corporations, the U.S. Global Change Resource Program, and then I quoted these organizations all who support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change.

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
* Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
* The Royal Society of the UK (RS)
* American Geophysical Union (AGU)
* American Meteorological Society (AMS)
* American Institute of Physics (AIP)
* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
* American Meteorological Society (AMS)
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

And then...

* Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academie des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

[Stefan Zeiss]

09:54 AM on 06/10/2010

Its quite clear that BP supports the AGW dogma because they view it as big revenue opportunity. That is why they contributed to 0bama's campaign. I do not favor nationalization of heavy industries, but I will not shed a tear for a sleazy company that is bed with these AGW religionists and also trades with F@acist theocracy of Iran. Drop dead BP!

[Richard2]

08:25 PM on 05/31/2010

"Polar Bears are not at Risk" says environmental minister.

http://www.cbc.ca/canad/north/story/2010/05/28/nunavut-polar-bear-status.html

[Richard2]

08:45 PM on 05/31/2010

"Scientists on the committee have argued that although Canada's polar bear population has improved over the last 50 years, the future of the species could be threatened by climate change and receding sea ice."

"Certainly, we recognize that the Arctic may experience substantial impacts from climate change," Shewchuk said. "But listing polar bears now, based on predicted but unknown future impacts, is not reasonable."

[realpolitic]

09:30 PM on 05/31/2010

More denier misinformation.

[realpolitic]

09:30 PM on 05/31/2010

Are polar bears endangered?

"Experts in polar bear science believe they are. They predict that as the Arctic continues to warm due to climate change, two-thirds of the world's polar bears could disappear by 2030."

"In 2005, PBSG classified polar bears as vulnerable on the IUCN World Conservation Union's Red List of Threatened Species" noting that extinction could occur due to sea ice changes."

"In May 2008, U.S. Department of the Interior listed the polar bear as a Threatened Species under the Endangered Species Act. Russia lists the polar bear as "a species of concern."

"At the 2009 meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG), the world's leading polar bear scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, eight were declining, three were stable, and one was increasing. They lacked sufficient data to say what is happening to the remaining seven."

[Publicola]

08:50 PM on 05/30/2010

Richard2: "From Newsweek magazine..."

Meanwhile, back in the world of actual science...

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:

--------------------------------------------
There is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that Earth is warming. Strong evidence also indicates that recent warming is largely caused by human activities, especially the release of greenhouse gases through the burning of fossil fuels. Global warming is closely associated with other climate changes and impacts, including rising sea levels, increases in intense rainfall events, decreases in snow cover and sea ice, more frequent and intense heat waves, increases in wildfires, longer growing seasons, and ocean acidification. Individually and collectively, these changes pose risks for a wide range of human and environmental systems. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations...

continued...

[Publicola]

08:51 PM on 05/30/2010

...continued

Projections of future climate change anticipate an additional warming of 2.0 to 11.5 F (1.1 to 6.4 C) over the 21st century, on top of the 1.4 oF already observed over the past 100 years...

There is also the potential that the Earth system could cross thresholds that result in abrupt changes or other “surprises.” The potential consequences of such events could be irreversible and highly challenging, but their likelihood is not very well understood.

Despite these uncertainties and complexities, it is clear that Earth’s future climate will be unlike the climate that ecosystems and human societies have become accustomed to during the last 10,000 years, leading to significant challenges across a broad range of human endeavors. It is likewise reasonable to expect that the magnitude of future climate change and the severity of its impacts will be larger if actions are not taken to limit its magnitude and adapt to its impacts.
______________________

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/Science_Report_Brief_Final.pdf

[realpolitic]

10:14 PM on 05/30/2010

As said by the US Global Change Resource Program...

1. Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced.
Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. (p. 13)

2. Climate changes are underway in the United States and are projected to grow.
Climate-related changes are already observed in the United States and its coastal waters. These include increases in heavy downpours, rising temperature and sea level, rapidly retreating glaciers, thawing permafrost, lengthening growing seasons, lengthening ice-free seasons in the ocean and on lakes and rivers, earlier snowmelt, and alterations in river flows. These changes are projected to grow. (p. 27)

3. Widespread climate-related impacts are occurring now and are expected to increase.
Climate changes are already affecting water, energy, transportation, agriculture, ecosystems, and health. These impacts are different from region to region and will grow under projected climate change. (p. 41-106, 107-152)

http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/key-findings

[research]

11:24 PM on 05/31/2010

"There is also the potential that the Earth system could cross thresholds that result in abrupt changes or other “surprises.” The potential consequences of such events could be irreversible and highly challenging, but their likelihood is not very well understood.

Despite these uncertainties and complexities, it is clear that Earth’s future climate will be unlike the climate that ecosystems and human societies have become accustomed to during the last 10,000 years, leading to significant challenges across a broad range of human endeavors. It is likewise reasonable to expect that the magnitude of future climate change and the severity of its impacts will be larger if actions are not taken to limit its magnitude and adapt to its impacts."

that's a great description of the chaotic nature of climate change, and why's it's such a danger.

Chaotic Climate paper by Edward Lorenz:

http://eapsweb.mit.edu/research/Lorenz/Deterministic_63.pdf

1963 Deterministic nonperiodic flow. Journal of Atmospheric Sciences. Vol.20 : 130—141””
“cooling possible:

http://www.gfy.ku.dk/~pditlev/papers/2008PA001673.pdf”

[fumes]

07:25 PM on 05/30/2010

well isn't this a rice demonstration..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYLmLW4k4aI&feature=player_embedded

[MGhamma]

07:36 PM on 05/30/2010

The claim that humans only contribute 15 ppm of CO2 is false.

CO2 has increased from 285.ppm to over 350 ppm, due exclusively to human activity.

That's over 65 ppm.

Thanx for spreading more lies fumes.

[realpolitic]

07:41 PM on 05/30/2010

I refuse to go to youtube to find out scientific information.

[Publicola]

12:59 AM on 05/31/2010

Here's some excellent scientific information on youtube, rp - I recommend the entire series:

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#grid/user/A4F0994AFB057BB8

[chrisd3]

02:55 PM on 05/31/2010

There's also Peter Sinclair's superb "Climate Denial Crock of the Week" series.

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/c/029130BFDC78FA33

[MGhamma]

07:11 PM on 05/30/2010

Can any of you "skeptics" name one legitimate scientific orginization that disputes manmade global warming?

[MGhamma]

07:37 PM on 05/30/2010

I guess not.

[realpolitic]

07:40 PM on 05/30/2010

Fox News, but they are a scientific organization only to deniers.

[realpolitic]

06:25 PM on 05/30/2010

We will not be intimidated by deniers. When I see disinformation related to climate change I will use legitimate academic or government citations to correct it, otherwise these threads will be fonts of denier misinformation. It is too important a subject to let deniers claim a right to their own set of facts. This site is not Fox News.

[Richard2]

05:46 PM on 05/30/2010

From Newsweek magazine: The lead paragraph of a longer article:

"UNCERTAIN SCIENCE

Bickering and defensive, climate researchers have lost the public’s trust.
Blame economic worries, another freezing winter, or the cascade of scandals emerging from the world’s leading climate-research body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But concern over global warming has cooled down dramatically. In über-green Germany, only 42 percent of citizens worry about global warming now, down from 62 percent in 2006. In Britain, just 26 percent believe climate change is man-made, down from 41 percent as recently as November 2009. And Americans rank global warming dead last in a list of 21 problems that concern them, according to a January Pew poll."

[realpolitic]

05:59 PM on 05/30/2010

We told you guys that a freezing winter is a weather phenomena and does not alter climate science, which is not altered by opinion polls either.

According to NASA, "2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. The analysis, conducted by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, also shows that in the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year since modern records began in 1880."

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/

[Richard2]

11:27 PM on 05/30/2010

Think that Newsweek found the "bickering and defensive" line by reading this website!

[MGhamma]

07:28 PM on 05/30/2010

People not versed in the science of global warming are less concerned about it because they're more concerned about being able to feed themselves and their families.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon and the CIA are more concerned about how MMGW is going to adversely affect global economic and political stability.

Who knew that our military and intelligence were a bunch of "whacko enviromentalists".

I"ll take the word of the Pentagon over a bunch of message board warriors any day of the week.