Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Protecting the Polar Bears


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1    Cinders

Cinders

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,012 posts
  • Joined:09 Jan 2006
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Oregon

Posted 28 December 2006 - 08:12 PM

Not sure if anyone saw or read about this, but I merged the two videos from BBC and CNN from todays news regarding Protecting the Polar bears, global warming and the Bush administration. I also provided related links on the video information as well:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xvmgh_pro...-bears-12282006

Seems the Bush administration is FINALLY taking notice due to a lawsuit.

NOTE: If the video hangs, click on video window to pause it so it can load, then hit play

Edited by Cinders, 28 December 2006 - 08:45 PM.

"We are like butterflies who flutter for a day and think it's forever." ~Carl Sagan


#2    jedi_yarael_poof

jedi_yarael_poof

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 91 posts
  • Joined:14 Dec 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Where the shadows run from themselves

Posted 29 December 2006 - 11:35 PM

I remember reading that all but two species of polar bears (11 of 13 I think) are thriving. What I read may have been a few years old, but, why should we try to stop the change? Animals come and go, the same with empires. We should adapt to change, not change the change.


#3    Mattshark

Mattshark

    stuff

  • Member
  • 16,985 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK

  • Sea Shepherd, making conservation harder.

    If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......

Posted 29 December 2006 - 11:46 PM

Quote

I remember reading that all but two species of polar bears (11 of 13 I think) are thriving. What I read may have been a few years old, but, why should we try to stop the change? Animals come and go, the same with empires. We should adapt to change, not change the change.

There is only one species of polar bear. Its habitat is under threat due to the ice cap melting, this is a man made threat, not a natural one. This is a different scenario to natural extinction patterns.

Algae : Protists not Plants!

YNWA

#4    jedi_yarael_poof

jedi_yarael_poof

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 91 posts
  • Joined:14 Dec 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Where the shadows run from themselves

Posted 30 December 2006 - 01:11 AM

Alright, you made me look it up, it's 11 of 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, which is where almost all the polar bears are. One of these populations is talked about in this CBC article dated July 15, 2005.  And the Toronto Star site has an article, but its been taken down or moved somewhere else.


#5    Mattshark

Mattshark

    stuff

  • Member
  • 16,985 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK

  • Sea Shepherd, making conservation harder.

    If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......

Posted 30 December 2006 - 01:16 AM

Quote

Alright, you made me look it up, it's 11 of 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, which is where almost all the polar bears are. One of these populations is talked about in this CBC article dated July 15, 2005.  And the Toronto Star site has an article, but its been taken down or moved somewhere else.
Populations makes more sense than species.

I think you'll find there are popualtions that are much larger in Russia.  The population according to the IUCN currently vunerable. The threat is from melting ice caps, restricting the food availabilty for the bear.

Algae : Protists not Plants!

YNWA

#6    jedi_yarael_poof

jedi_yarael_poof

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 91 posts
  • Joined:14 Dec 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Where the shadows run from themselves

Posted 30 December 2006 - 02:50 AM

Personally, I believe that the warming is natural, not man made.  And the polar bears need to adapt to the change.  The climate is always changing.  Some extinctions are probably caused by man, but animals cannot be expected to survive forever.  It'll happen sooner or later.  I don't know what will help them besides protection from hunting, relocation, hope for recovery in the arctic regions. I don't think there's anything else to do for them. Hunting protection only does so much. Relocation would take money to fund the capture and transport. But where would the bears go to? Would there be a large preserve created, such as the Tallgrass Prairie, where bison are kept? What will be done about it? the warming will probably continue for a few decades or and then slowly cool off as it did after the Medieval Warm Period.


#7    Mattshark

Mattshark

    stuff

  • Member
  • 16,985 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK

  • Sea Shepherd, making conservation harder.

    If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......

Posted 30 December 2006 - 03:11 AM

Quote

Personally, I believe that the warming is natural, not man made.  And the polar bears need to adapt to the change.  The climate is always changing.  Some extinctions are probably caused by man, but animals cannot be expected to survive forever.  It'll happen sooner or later.  I don't know what will help them besides protection from hunting, relocation, hope for recovery in the arctic regions. I don't think there's anything else to do for them. Hunting protection only does so much. Relocation would take money to fund the capture and transport. But where would the bears go to? Would there be a large preserve created, such as the Tallgrass Prairie, where bison are kept? What will be done about it? the warming will probably continue for a few decades or and then slowly cool off as it did after the Medieval Warm Period.

The warming is very much a)man made, the earth should actually be cooling right now and b)happening at an unpresidented rate. Whether people like it or not it is happening because of CO2 and other green house emmisions being so high. This is not at all like other mild warming cyclical events, this is causing fundermental whether pattern and ocean current shifts and is in fact our fault.

Algae : Protists not Plants!

YNWA

#8    jedi_yarael_poof

jedi_yarael_poof

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 91 posts
  • Joined:14 Dec 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Where the shadows run from themselves

Posted 30 December 2006 - 04:00 AM

The Earth is in an interglacial period, we should be warm.  The last Ice Age ended about 20,000 years ago, not long on a geological scale. The Earth just got out of the Little Ice Age, which was during the 1600s-1800s. Before that was the Medieval Warm Period, which was warmer than today.  During this time, the Vikings were able to explore and settle further away. In all, the last 12,000 years had 9 coolings and 9 warmings. CO2 is not the largest contributor of greenhouse gases, water vapor is, which is about 98% of gases.  And the sun is what drives the climate, it has the greatest influence on the climate.  Reptilian fossils have been found on Ellesmere Island, Canada and trees as far north as 80 degrees. I'm not convinced that humans are to blame for the warming.


#9    Mattshark

Mattshark

    stuff

  • Member
  • 16,985 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK

  • Sea Shepherd, making conservation harder.

    If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......

Posted 30 December 2006 - 04:12 AM

Quote

The Earth is in an interglacial period, we should be warm.  The last Ice Age ended about 20,000 years ago, not long on a geological scale. The Earth just got out of the Little Ice Age, which was during the 1600s-1800s. Before that was the Medieval Warm Period, which was warmer than today.  During this time, the Vikings were able to explore and settle further away. In all, the last 12,000 years had 9 coolings and 9 warmings. CO2 is not the largest contributor of greenhouse gases, water vapor is, which is about 98% of gases.  And the sun is what drives the climate, it has the greatest influence on the climate.  Reptilian fossils have been found on Ellesmere Island, Canada and trees as far north as 80 degrees. I'm not convinced that humans are to blame for the warming.

Only conifers grow far north, none are in polar regions and you do get reptiles far north however remember that Ellesmere Island was not always so far north. I know we are in an interglacial period, that does not alter the fact tha current temoperature rises have been higher than ever before and that climatologists still stay the Earth should be cooling. I know sun and water has the greatest influence on the planet, however CO2 is still a major greenhouse gas and its far higher in concentration than in an extremely long time and it combined with a decrease in carbon sinks (a huge on at that) can make a large atmospheric difference in temperature. A natural shift would also have a more eeven distribution rather than the north bias current climate change has (something which also relates to emmisons and the large decrease in carbon sinks there is)

Algae : Protists not Plants!

YNWA

#10    jedi_yarael_poof

jedi_yarael_poof

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 91 posts
  • Joined:14 Dec 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Where the shadows run from themselves

Posted 30 December 2006 - 06:00 AM

The trees were ancient trees.  The reptiles were there around 55 million years ago, so Ellesmere Island would still have been up north somewhere, maybe 15 or so degrees south I suppose.
From 1940 to 1970, the Earth was actually cooling off. The media was talking of an ice age coming. But the past 3,000 years have had 5 periods that were warmer than today and the last 4 interglacials were warmer that today.  
Particulates from industries such as sulfur dioxide produces the opposite effect to warming. But many pollutants, like arosols, fall out or are washed out in weeks.
The oceans, which has much more surface area than land, does not have any temperature sensors. The southern hemisphere does not have many stations either, would this account for the uneven distribution?


#11    Mattshark

Mattshark

    stuff

  • Member
  • 16,985 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK

  • Sea Shepherd, making conservation harder.

    If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......

Posted 30 December 2006 - 11:13 AM

Quote

The trees were ancient trees.  The reptiles were there around 55 million years ago, so Ellesmere Island would still have been up north somewhere, maybe 15 or so degrees south I suppose.
From 1940 to 1970, the Earth was actually cooling off. The media was talking of an ice age coming. But the past 3,000 years have had 5 periods that were warmer than today and the last 4 interglacials were warmer that today.  
Particulates from industries such as sulfur dioxide produces the opposite effect to warming. But many pollutants, like arosols, fall out or are washed out in weeks.
The oceans, which has much more surface area than land, does not have any temperature sensors. The southern hemisphere does not have many stations either, would this account for the uneven distribution?

No there are weather stations placed internationally and they show the same effects, satellite temperature mapping also covers everywhere.
55mya the atmosphere of Ellesmere Island would have been considerable different to it is know, for a start continental drift would have meant the currents would have been vastly different, the lack of ice caps at that time (as it was pre ice age cycling) did not exist and the overall temperature of the planet was very different to how it is now. Take into account that the poles would not be anyway near where they are now and it shows that the climate 55mya is not comparable to the current climate. It is also not just about the cyclical warming and cooling, it is to do with the speed of transition, which is currently way above normal and is still different to what climatologists at universities and metrological stations around the world are saying should be happening.

Algae : Protists not Plants!

YNWA

#12    m. Moe

m. Moe

    UMs Official Fiend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,730 posts
  • Joined:11 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nowhere....

  • I'm that evil voice in your head that tells you to burn things.

Posted 30 December 2006 - 07:16 PM

Quote

Personally, I believe that the warming is natural, not man made.  And the polar bears need to adapt to the change.  The climate is always changing.  Some extinctions are probably caused by man, but animals cannot be expected to survive forever.  It'll happen sooner or later.  I don't know what will help them besides protection from hunting, relocation, hope for recovery in the arctic regions. I don't think there's anything else to do for them. Hunting protection only does so much. Relocation would take money to fund the capture and transport. But where would the bears go to? Would there be a large preserve created, such as the Tallgrass Prairie, where bison are kept? What will be done about it? the warming will probably continue for a few decades or and then slowly cool off as it did after the Medieval Warm Period.

Yes, there HAVE been extinctions for billions of years and it is all part of evolution, but now it is happening faster and there is no possible way for an arctic species to all of a sudden adapt to a warmer climate.

And a reserve is all fine and good, but there are many problems that come with it. One of them is that animals need to roam and migrate over vast distances, and usually reserves don't cover vast distances. Another is when a large group of animals are keep in a small reserve, disease spreads quickly among them. An example is at my hometown, in the 1930s-1940s there was a large buffalo reserve. But then a disease spread (I don't remeber what kind) and all the buffalo died, and then it was turned into an army base/POW camp. thumbsup.gif

Edited by MR_MOE, 30 December 2006 - 07:16 PM.

Posted Image
Signature by the_scorpian
"Sweet lovely death, I'm waiting for your breath, come sweet death one last caress"
Congrats, you found my subliminal message. Now pat yourself on the back and stop highlighting my signature

#13    Reincarnated

Reincarnated

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 2,540 posts
  • Joined:11 Apr 2006

Posted 30 December 2006 - 07:19 PM

Interesting, good post.


#14    jedi_yarael_poof

jedi_yarael_poof

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 91 posts
  • Joined:14 Dec 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Where the shadows run from themselves

Posted 30 December 2006 - 07:32 PM

I understand that satellite temperature readings of the troposphere haven't been agreeing. Satellites are reading different temps. from different layers of the troposphere.
As for weather stations, there are fewer and fewer of them since they can cover a larger area, but "far more of them exist in developed countries than in developing countries. Thus, in determining gloabal average surface temperature, data from a weather station in the U.S. might be used to represent the temperature of a few hundred square miles, while data from a weather station in Africa might be used to represent the temperature of thousands of square miles."

quoted from "Lessons and Limits of Climate History: Was the 20th Century Climate Unusual?" by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas.


#15    Mattshark

Mattshark

    stuff

  • Member
  • 16,985 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK

  • Sea Shepherd, making conservation harder.

    If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......

Posted 30 December 2006 - 07:43 PM

Quote

I understand that satellite temperature readings of the troposphere haven't been agreeing. Satellites are reading different temps. from different layers of the troposphere.
As for weather stations, there are fewer and fewer of them since they can cover a larger area, but "far more of them exist in developed countries than in developing countries. Thus, in determining gloabal average surface temperature, data from a weather station in the U.S. might be used to represent the temperature of a few hundred square miles, while data from a weather station in Africa might be used to represent the temperature of thousands of square miles."

quoted from "Lessons and Limits of Climate History: Was the 20th Century Climate Unusual?" by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas.

Satellite temperatures also record sea level temperatures which are of vital importance, the weather stations in some parts of Africa are not upto the same standard as European and American ones, however South Africa and countries like Argentina, Brazil, Chile and the the antartic survey stations of various nations as well as the Malay, and Australian stations are very good. In fact the British Antarctic Survey base on South Georgia is one of the best weather outlets in the world.

Algae : Protists not Plants!

YNWA




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users