The real threat isn't a changing climate upsetting the foundation of human civilization. The real threat is polar bears:
At least that's the real threat according to many attendees at the recent Heartland Institute conference on global warming. And let's not forget, as physicist and noted contrarian S. Fred Singer told the conference: "Polar bears like to eat tiny little seal pups." In fact, the only animal that came in for more frequent condemnation was Al Gore.
Lurking behind the polar bear, of course, is that most nefarious foe: government bureaucrats. And they are what really drives contrarians like Singer in their anti-climate change crusade. It's not necessarily a passionate belief that global warming isn't happening but a passionate belief in the fact that no government (or, at least, less government) is good government.
The present administration seems to share this belief, running afoul of the law while trying to run out the clock on a pending decision as to whether the polar bear should be listed as an endangered species or not. The government has missed two deadlines, including one during the Heartland conference itself, to make a decision.
In many ways, as the Washington Post reported this weekend, the current government is opposed to endangered species, for example shifting the definition of a species' range from where a given animal or plant has historically been found to the far more restricted areas in which it presently exists.
The polar bear is threatened by climate change, according to the U.S. Geological Survey if not yet the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. And the climate contrarian is threatened by those agencies scientists and bureaucrats--and Al Gore.
-- Edited by dbiello at 03/24/2008 12:44 PM
-- Edited by dbiello at 03/24/2008 1:33 PM
23 Comments
Bears won't destroy America but ALGORE nutyzos might!
Article is neither scientific nor American.
I fail to see where science comes into play other than the fact that it is scientists who hold dissenting opinions that are being scoffed at.
I subscribe to a belief that popular opinion about scientific matters should concern scientists (particularly those who teach science), who should speak out about those matters in the context of scientific discussions among other scientists and those who support scientific endeavors, which is one of the many privileges of being American. Too many Americans don’t get science, that’s why we should talk about ways to give them a clue, or several. I take my students' beliefs and misconceptions quite seriously, and hope they can in turn teach their parents.
About 70 years ago, the Arctic experienced several years of thawing similar to last year's thaw. It's too soon to tell how long this cycle of thawing will last, but polar bear numbers seem to be near their historical peak, so extinction does not seem to be likely.
Sometimes, a species disappears from a locality, but is found in another locality. If climate change is the cause, the movement is called habitat tracking. Possibly some populations of polar bears have declined while others have increased. Depending on the way studies are conducted, a local decline in a population might be misinterpreted as indicating that an entire species is threatened. This may happen when a species overlaps an international border but the study does not.
Here's the science: whether to list the polar bears as an endangered species is a decision that should be made on the scientific merits, much like decisions about how many particulates should be allowed in air or whether to take out an insurance policy against catastrophic climate change.
Hope that helps. Remember, the polar bears are apparently Al Gore nutzos.
I think the science rather overwhelmingly shows that both climate warming is real and that polar bears are declining. Being contrarian is simply being anti-fact at this point in time. And arguing that less government is better only sets us up to be at the mercy, personally, socially and globally, to the robber barons who are very much with us - and their horizon is 6-12 months out, max - not the many decades our children and grandchildren and hopefully we will live. Unfettered capitalism will not create a better world any more than ignoring global warming will make it go away.
As of today, the Northern Hemisphere sea ice cover is 97% of the 1978-2000 average. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ (Referenced website is PRO-AGW but presents the satellite data as it is.) Total sea ice cover today is 105.5% of the 1978-200 average. But don't let facts get in the way of political science. We want to hug our bears!
And as of today (well, the last couple of months) another major ice shelf in the Antarctic is collapsing in the summer warmth. And the thin reformation of the Arctic ice this polar winter is nowhere near enough to make up for the record minimum last September. Here's a prediction from Mark Serreze, senior research scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center: during the Arctic summer this coming September we'll see another season short of average. "We're already set up for another big loss next year," he told me last year. The open water this past summer absorbed so much energy that "the ocean has warmed."
Seems what we are supposed to glean from this is that a smaller, weaker government which leaves people and businesses alone will result in climate change and kill us all.
So this guy thinks traditional American freedom and laissez-faire economics == death, and anyone who disagrees should be ridiculed with humor. such a nice non-political message for sciam.
Isn't the argument that if only we would elect the 'right' people all these problems would go away? who doesn't see that as anything but a power grab wrapped in blatant fear mongering ? "Elect my guys or you'll die from polar bears" isn't a solution, it is lame.
srchuck, I do not see that the site you linked to supports your assertions' at all - either the 97% or the 105.5% (which seem to contradict each other?) - where did you get those numbers? everything I looked at on this site shows the loss of arctic ice - rather dramatically... but hey, try this... http://nsidc.org/news/press/20070430_StroeveGRL.html National Snow and Ice Data Center - they do field research etc. - not exactly political "science." The link goes to a nice article, though it is about a year old, but click anything. Without sea ice, the polar bear is a goner, and there is a lot less sea ice. It is a fact, sustained by many different people collecting facts in many different ways - it is independently verified on more fronts than I can count for you. Belief will not change facts. Now, if you just don't CARE about the polar bear, just say so, the folks at Heartland are not ashamed to do so. But you also have to not care about people living along coastlines, or poor people who are already disproportionately impacted or, well, pretty much anybody - this is not just about polar bears, it's about all of us.
Jennifer, Jennifer. The first enlargeable graph (top center) is Recent Sea Ice, Northern Hemisphere. It is now 13.7 million square kilometers, with an anomoly of -0.4 million square kilometers (down 3% from 1978-2000 average. At the bottom left of that website, you can look at Recent SH Sea Ice (which happens to be 50% greater than a year ago and 1.3 million square kilometers above 1978-2000), or, on the bottom right: Global (that is north plus south)Sea Ice Area, and, lo and behold, my numbers. dbiello apparently picked an anectodal point; how is the SH ice sheet collapsing when it is 50% greater than a year ago and has been increasing annually for the last 30 years??? http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ also has pictures for those who don't like graphs
srchuck, what is it about volume (the area of sea ice multiplied by its thickness, rather than its area alone, you do not understand? Your statements about the subject suggest that your conception of the matter is as shallow as the sea ice.
Satellite imagery from the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder reveals that a 13,680 square kilometer (5,282 square mile) ice shelf has begun to collapse because of rapid climate change in a fast-warming region of Antarctica.
The Wilkins Ice Shelf is a broad plate of permanent floating ice on the southwest Antarctic Peninsula, about 1,000 miles south of South America. In the past 50 years, the western Antarctic Peninsula has experienced the biggest temperature increase on Earth, rising by 0.5 degree Celsius (0.9 degree Fahrenheit) per decade. NSIDC Lead Scientist Ted Scambos, who first spotted the disintegration in March, said, "We believe the Wilkins has been in place for at least a few hundred years. But warm air and exposure to ocean waves are causing a break-up."
Satellite images indicate that the Wilkins began its collapse on February 28; data revealed that a large iceberg, 41 by 2.5 kilometers (25.5 by 1.5 miles), fell away from the ice shelf's southwestern front, triggering a runaway disintegration of 570 square kilometers (220 square miles) of the shelf interior (Figure 1). The edge of the shelf crumbled into the sky-blue pattern of exposed deep glacial ice that has become characteristic of climate-induced ice shelf break-ups such as the Larsen B in 2002. A narrow beam of intact ice, just 6 kilometers wide (3.7 miles) was protecting the remaining shelf from further breakup as of March 23 (Figure 2).
Scientists track ice shelves and study collapses carefully because some of them hold back glaciers, which if unleashed, can accelerate and raise sea level. Scambos said, "The Wilkins disintegration won't raise sea level because it already floats in the ocean, and few glaciers flow into it. However, the collapse underscores that the Wilkins region has experienced an intense melt season. Regional sea ice has all but vanished, leaving the ice shelf exposed to the action of waves."
With Antarctica's summer melt season drawing to a close, scientists do not expect the Wilkins to further disintegrate in the next several months. "This unusual show is over for this season," Scambos said. "But come January, we'll be watching to see if the Wilkins continues to fall apart."
srchuck - the anamoly in the NH is smaller in the winter than the summer - the site you are linking says here... http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/ "The largest change has been observed in the summer months with decreases exceeding 30%. Decreases observed in winter are more modest." ...their graphs and photos (as well as their discourse) support this assertion, as it is supported by other sources. It is rather disingenuous of you to claim small losses of sea ice using winter statistics. Extra especially as it is summer ice that pertains to the polar bears plight. As to SH - I am at work (and no longer on lunch break and don't have time to look it up now - perhaps someone else can? You didn't say if you cared about the polar bears etc etc
and don't have time to look it up now - perhaps someone else can? 
