Sarah Palin is correct about the polar bears - they've doubled in population over the last 50 years and are far from extinct.
I'm only able to throw out these numbers above for the following reason....
I was listening to this Dr. Mitchell Taylor on the radio yesterday. He seems to
know his stuff (about Polar bears, anyway) as he's spent the last 30 years
studying them. He's a Polar Bear Biologist with the Dept. of the Environment
for the Government of Nunavut, Igloolik, Nunavut, Canada.
The thing about polar bears is really uncertain. The multi-year ice is disappearing fast, but it's not the ice that the bears hunt on, because the seals can't build dens in that thick ice. The polar bears hunt on the one-year ice that folds up with shifting winds and currents, and catches snow making drifts. There will always be one year ice. When people say ice free Arctic, that means no more multi-year sea ice. The one year old ice will always be there, except for extreme climate change where the temperature is above 0 year round.
The part that get's uncertain is how the population will be affected by shorter hunting seasons. When the multi-year ice disappears (probably around 2020), the Arctic waters are going to warm faster, accelerating the warming in the Arctic which is already 3 times the global rate. So the bears will have some ice, but not for long. I think what's likely to happen is that they become a nuisance species, instead of the apex predator. What that means for the Arctic is uncertain.
The thing about polar bears is really uncertain. The multi-year ice is disappearing fast, but it's not the ice that the bears hunt on, because the seals can't build dens in that thick ice. The polar bears hunt on the one-year ice that folds up with shifting winds and currents, and catches snow making drifts. There will always be one year ice. When people say ice free Arctic, that means no more multi-year sea ice. The one year old ice will always be there, except for extreme climate change where the temperature is above 0 year round.
The part that get's uncertain is how the population will be affected by shorter hunting seasons. When the multi-year ice disappears (probably around 2020), the Arctic waters are going to warm faster, accelerating the warming in the Arctic which is already 3 times the global rate. So the bears will have some ice, but not for long. I think what's likely to happen is that they become a nuisance species, instead of the apex predator. What that means for the Arctic is uncertain.
Lets see where you get your science from Tonnington. How about some links to that sea ice information you're pressing on us dullards.
I hate it when people try and use the polar bears as a reason to push their climate change agenda.
I'm not. I don't need to show anyone pictures of bears on icebergs to discuss climate change. In fact if you read what I said, you'd see that I didn't even suggest that the polar bears are facing extinction, like many others do.
Anyone who thinks they can stave off the next ice age with carbon credits really has no clue.
Anyone who thinks an ice age is beginning is clueless.
Anyone who thinks they can stop climate change by throwing money at it is on the same Ship....
Anyone who thinks an ice age is beginning is clueless.
No matter what happens, it's going to be bad.I might add that although polar bear numbers are up, their disease rate is also up, and their size is down. Basically, what we have engineered is a large population of predators into smaller, diseased, partial scavengers. I feel really proud.