Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Polar Bears Drowning As Globe Warms

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the seriously-do-you-need-more-proof? dept.

Science 503

An anonymous reader writes "The Times Online is reporting on disturbing findings from the arctic. Polar bears appear to be drowning when they attempt long sea crossings as a result of receding summer ice." From the article: "New evidence from field researchers working for the World Wildlife Fund in Yakutia, on the northeast coast of Russia, has also shown the region's first evidence of cannibalism among bears competing for food supplies ... As the ice pack retreats north in the summer between June and October, the bears must travel between ice floes to continue hunting in areas such as the shallow water of the continental shelf off the Alaskan coast -- one of the most food-rich areas in the Arctic. However, last summer the ice cap receded about 200 miles further north than the average of two decades ago, forcing the bears to undertake far longer voyages between floes. "

cancel ×

503 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

How long till the skeptics post? (0, Flamebait)

cliffski3 (939625) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284035)

I guess it won't be long till this debate is cluttered with the SUV driving slashdotters who deny that this is really happening. I guess its all an islamic / communist pinko plot right?

win-win (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14284109)

This is a win-win situation. Without polar bears we can go ahead and drill for oil without the risk of harming them. There might be a surplus of seals since the bears won't be around to eat them so go ahead and hunt them too.

Re:loss-loss (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14284198)

There's already a surplus of seals in many parts of the world. Who has the right to kill the Polar bears? If this is caused by global warming. The US has the most responsibility. US Corporatism is destroying the world... The world would be better off if the greedy corporate owners where executed. The American people are too stupid and too uninterested in politics to do anything about it. US - the land of the free and the brave has be come the land of the greedy and stupid.

Re:How long till the skeptics post? (5, Funny)

gronofer (838299) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284181)

Perhaps they will have a theory that polar bears have a natural cycle of extinction and re-evolution every few hundred years.

Not long at all! (3, Interesting)

Firethorn (177587) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284235)

Not extinction and re-evolution, but swings in population levels can be quite severe even in 'undisturbed' nature.

Like another poster mentioned, unless this gets much, much worse natural selection will simply start choosing bears better at swimming, or that find an alternate method for moving.

yes . . . if that was the only thing in the world (4, Interesting)

Phil Urich (841393) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284342)

Not extinction and re-evolution, but swings in population levels can be quite severe even in 'undisturbed' nature.


Like another poster mentioned, unless this gets much, much worse natural selection will simply start choosing bears better at swimming, or that find an alternate method for moving.


Interesting thing about evolution: it's not a perfect upwards slope. Indeed, in many ways biodiversity has been on a downwards slope for long before humans came onto the scene. Furthermore, consider that introducing a new way for animals to die doesn't happen in a vacuum; this is one of many examples of shrinking habitats and increasingly hostile situations that animals in the world (including humans, but we're good at changing our immediate environment to offset the overall environment) are finding themselves in.

To go back to what I was nudging towards initially, though: 'natural selection' is not another name for 'all-powerful god', that is to say, just because a new method is needed doesn't mean that this 'natural selection' thing will magically provide it; natural selection is just trimming combined with chaos, there are severe limits to what it can do, and I can't think of many methods that the bears could use other than swimming (I do realize that you said "unless this gets much, much worse", but really, there aren't that many alternate methods of moving, it's not like they'll suddenly develop wings). And anyways, I would think that after so much time, Polar Bears as a species would be pretty damn good at swimming. I doubt it's merely the few weaker ones that are drowning. The article notes that ALL the bears are being forced to swim further from the shore, and some of the deaths noted were from storms that arose; so whether they're good swimmers or not isn't even going to make that much of a difference, it's an extra bonus to the death rate period.

Hmm, in some ways I'm sortof making a straw man out of your argument. But really now, just think about it for a moment. As you mentioned, population levels can swing quite dramatically in rather 'natural' situations, yes. Now say that one of those swings happens for some random reason, combined with the problems noted in the article. It's not that hard to imagine entire populations of polar bears dipping dangerously low. The article mentions increases in the rate of cannibalism due to the lack of food sources, so for many populations there may be a tipping point that would create a downward spiral. Consider also that this is just one of many examples of the effect of humans on the environment that hurts wild populations, so I might agree with you if this was all that was going on in the world (ie. if the only thing that polar bears had to deal with was having to swim further), but it's the combination of many harmful factors that puts species at risk.

Plus, just from an empathic perspective, I'm not exactly going "hurrah! animals are dieing!". I'd rather they, umm, not die when they shouldn't be.

Re:How long till the skeptics post? (0)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284244)

Fucking awesome A+ would read again.

I hate to say it but lol.

Re:How long till the skeptics post? BSOD scenario (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14284272)

Nothing to do with communism or Islamic terror. The Phenomenon may well lead Slashdotters to the conclusion that polar bears are Windows-operated, and their drowning is simply due to the fact that longer swims increase the risiko of getting a BSOD before reaching the shore. A team of slashdotters may be sent to do some on-site assistance and format all bears, to then install linux. Or BSD. OpenBSD to be sure no hunters can hack into the bears?

Re:How long till the skeptics post? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14284333)

I was wondering how long it would take before the "OMGWTFBBQ" doom-n-gloom post made it on here. Looks like you were first.

Tell ya what leftie, prove to us that it's man made and not solar / natural and we'll shut up. Until there, we're right here making sure that your rantings are seen in the same light as the earth being flat and the sun rotating around the earth.

I blame this squarely on Santa Claus (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14284039)

It is with extreme disgust that I write this letter and say what will undoubtedly be considered venal by some of my peers. Nonetheless, it must be stated that Mr. Santa Claus's profiteering and power mongering will make today's oppressiveness look like grade-school work compared to what Santa has planned for the future in the near future. In the rest of this letter, I will use history and science (in the Hegelian sense) to prove that I find Santa the most sick person in the world.

Santa's publicity stunts manifest themselves in two phases. Phase one: disguise the complexity of color, the brutality of class, and the importance of religion and sexual identity in the construction and practice of statism. Phase two: deny citizens the ability to draw their own conclusions about the potential for violence that he may be generating.

You may make the comment, "What does this have to do with smarmy swaggerers?" Well, once you begin to see the light, you'll realize that Santa never tires of trying to extinguish fires with gasoline. He presumably hopes that the magic formula will work some day. In the meantime, he seems to have resolved to learn nothing from experience, which tells us that I could go on for pages listing innumerable examples of his distasteful practices and abusive allegations. I have already written enough, surely, to convince you that I frequently wish to tell Santa that in every country, there are directionless mendicants who are every bit as gin-swilling as he. But being a generally genteel person, however, I always bite my tongue. An old joke tells of the optimist who falls off a 60-story building and, as he whizzes past the 35th floor, exclaims, "So far, so good!" But it is not such blind optimism that causes Santa's backers to think that they can undermine the current world order. I am particularly disgusted by Santa's blind intransigence and utter ingratitude, and everyone with half a brain understands that. Take, as an example, the way that Santa wants to defile the air and water in the name of profit. Well, if we don't hinder the power of dictatorial kooks like him, our children will curse us in our graves. Speaking of our children, we need to teach them diligently that by brainwashing his representatives with fetishism, Santa makes them easy to lead, easy to program, and easy to enslave.

While I aver that Santa has every right to his appalling opinions, if he had his way, schools would teach students that the majority of disgusting litterbugs are heroes, if not saints. This is not education but indoctrination. It prevents students from learning about how I must admit that I've read only a small fraction of Santa's writings. (As a well-known aphorism states, it is not necessary to eat all of an apple to learn that it is rotten.) Nevertheless, I've read enough of Santa's writings to know that if you've read any of the virulent, supercilious slop that Santa has concocted, you'll really recall Santa's description of his plan to view countries and the people that live in them either as economic targets to be exploited or as military targets to be defeated. If you haven't read any of it, well, all you really need to know is that we can all have daydreams about Happy Fuzzy Purple Bunny Land, where everyone is caring, loving, and nice. Not only will those daydreams not come true, but Santa's adulators tend to fall into the mistaken belief that Santa's suggestions epitomize wholesome family entertainment, mainly because they live inside a Santa-generated illusion-world and talk only with each other. Santa's idiotic claim that it's okay for him to indulge his every whim and lust without regard for anyone else or for society as a whole is just that, an idiotic claim.

The clericalism "debate" is not a debate. It is a harangue, a politically motivated, brilliantly publicized, militant attack on progressive ideas. Yes, Santa may have some superficial charm, but he argues that censorship could benefit us. I wish I could suggest some incontrovertible chain of apodictic reasoning that would overcome this argument, but the best I can do is the following: He has stated that all any child needs is a big dose of television every day. One clear inference from that statement -- an inference that is never really disavowed -- is that all minorities are poor, stupid ghetto trash. Now that's just abhorrent. We were put on this planet to be active, to struggle, and to inculcate in the reader an inquisitive spirit and a skepticism about beliefs that Santa's co-conspirators take for granted. We were not put here to reinforce the impression that wicked guttersnipes -- as opposed to Santa's dupes -- are striving to sensationalize all of the issues, as Santa might think. The whole thrust of his deeds bothers me. Equally important is the fact that the problem with him is not that he's high-handed. It's that he wants to identify political and religious groups that are his political enemies and re-label them as "gutless perjurers" in order to justify operations against them. Before you read this letter, you might have thought that Mr. Santa Claus is a paragon of morality and wisdom. Now you know that his vaporings have a crippling effect on science and technology.

PARENT WAS POSTED USING A COMPLAINT GENERATOR (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14284370)

super polar bears (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14284041)

I can see evolution breeding stronger polar bears capable of swimming to your house to eat you. i for one welcome our polar bear overlords.

Make Polar bear death history. (1)

davro (539320) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284042)

Water Wings for Polar bears, support your bears today.

Sounds Horrible (1)

sanman2 (928866) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284043)

Sounds awful. I wonder how the seals feel about it? Anyway, if the Polar Bears can't find food the regular way, they may have to adapt by moving southward, which will bring them into contact with more people. Come to think of it, why didn't they just do that before?

Re:Sounds Horrible (1)

someone1234 (830754) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284061)

Since seals are food, and the bears can't find them anymore, this implies seals died earlier. As such, they don't feel too strongly about it.

Re:Sounds Horrible (1)

Mecdemort (930017) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284338)

Because people kill them when they come too close. So it is in their best interests to not look for food further south. Natural selection hard at work.

Re:Sounds Horrible (1)

orthogonal (588627) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284363)

Anyway, if the Polar Bears can't find food the regular way, they may have to adapt by moving southward, which will bring them into contact with more people.

Microsoft has stepped up, and say they'll provide support for the polar bars. And something about polar bears eating penguins.

Ice Age (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284044)

The same thing has been happening for ever.
Its how bio diversity starts.

Its just that we are seeing it first hand now that its an issue.

Re:Ice Age (3, Insightful)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284058)

The same thing has been happening for ever.

Agreed. But the question is, is it our fault this time? People die all the time. But that doesn't mean I can get away with murder.

Re:Ice Age (0)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284115)

No its not our fault, the same as it wasn't our fault when continental drift occured.

Evolution in action, the strongest will survive (and as another poster said they will start finding weak humans to eat)

Re:Ice Age (5, Insightful)

M3rk1n_Muffl3y (833866) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284173)

You may find that this is how biodiversity ends. I doubt that there many animals capable of evolving over the space of 100 years.

Re:Ice Age (0)

Firethorn (177587) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284240)

It all depends on how many generations you get with that 100 years. Fruit flys, for example, can evolve quite a bit during that period.

Still, there's a difference between 'a more difficult swim' and an 'impossible swim'.

Loss of habitat will result in more deaths, until the population reaches a stable level for the new amount of land/food etc.

Re:Ice Age (1)

droleary (47999) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284315)

You may find that this is how biodiversity ends. I doubt that there many animals capable of evolving over the space of 100 years.

I would wager a proponent of punctuated equilibrium [wikipedia.org] would say that evolutions necessarily happens in 100 years. After all, when you're talking about survival of the fittest you're comparing it to death by old age, and I can't think of any animal that is very reproductive after 100 years. Unless the environment is killing every member of a species, some will live to pass on survival traits. And other animals with those same traits will be more likely to survive as well. Diversity definitely shifts, but it isn't at all clear that it is ends, or is even reduced.

Re:Ice Age (1)

smoker2 (750216) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284360)

I doubt that there many animals capable of evolving over the space of 100 years.
Evolution is IIRC, the process of adapting to ones environment. It is the description of adapting behaviour patterns that in the final analysis may be shown to have influenced physical mutations that benefited the adopted behaviour.

The bears that can swim further will survive and reproduce, as will the ones who choose a different lifestyle (ie scavenging in places where they don't have to swim too far). If you are suggesting that without the bears growing flippers in the next 100 years, they are all doomed, then you're a nut.

Re:Ice Age (5, Insightful)

Toby The Economist (811138) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284266)

> The same thing has been happening for ever.
> Its how bio diversity starts.

Not quite.

Ecological change is usually on the order of hundreds of thousands of years.

Evolution is a slow process; it can cope with hundreds of thousands of years.

It doesn't cope with drastic changes on the order of a hundred years.

When *that* happens, species just get wiped out.

The rate of change in their environment is greater than the rate of change in their genome and so they find themselves trying to behave in a way entirely unsuited to their new environment.

Examples of this are swimming sixty miles in open water in storms, or trying to eat bamboo when there's none left because it doesn't grow any more, or laying eggs which only hatch when it gets hotter than 28.5C but it never gets that warm any more, etc.

...and here come the sceptics (5, Insightful)

Da Fokka (94074) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284049)

Everytime there is an article about global warming there will be an army of sceptics who say that global warming has not been scientifically proven and that trying to do anything about it is a wast of money and bad for the economy.

This bothers me a great deal. Although it may not be possiple to _prove_ without a hair of a doubt that global warming is occurring, there are way too many signs saying our climate is changing drastically.

We know this and we know that CO2 and other greenhouse gases have a strong influence on our climate. Looks like reason enough to strive for a change to me. Because of the upcoming shortage of fossil duels, reducing fuel depency also makes sense ecologically. And no, without significant increases in nuclear power usage, the hydrogen economy is not it.

No shortage of fossile fuel (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14284064)

There is no shortage of fossile fuels. The oil resources are humoungous but a lot of it is too expensive to be counted in the oil reserves (yep, there is a big difference between resources and reserves here. This is also the reason the oil companies have been able to tell that the oil reserves have stayed at "enough for 35 years" for 35 years despite no new significant oil resources have been found for a long time now), but the demand for it will only trigger the prices so that it becomes economically viable.

The known oil resources are expected to last for 150 years with the current pace of burning. When this runs out, we still have coal for a 1000 years or so. We will have to stop using fossile fuels for other reasons. For environmental reasons.

Re:...and here come the sceptics (2, Insightful)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284069)

Although it may not be possiple to _prove_ without a hair of a doubt that global warming is occurring, there are way too many signs saying our climate is changing drastically.

Common tactics in arguments is to misrepresent the "opponents" and turn the issue into something other then it is. Are the non-wack job conservatives (yes, they do exist. Another common tactic is to paint your opponents as inherently worse then yourself) even arguing about whether or not global warming is happening? I thought they had conceeded that point, but are now unsure if it is caused by humans.

And that's a fair point. The weather is cyclical and isn't static. So it is possible that it isn't caused by humans. Having said that, I don't know whether or not there is damning proof it's being caused by humans. That's because I keep seeing liberals just arguing about whether or not it is happening.

Re:...and here come the sceptics (1, Insightful)

EtherealStrife (724374) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284101)

Actually, it's part of a natural cycle of glacial / interglacial periods [noaa.gov] . Pollution is just uh...speeding things up. :) Even if pollution is stopped overnight, the climate will continue to change. Hot, cold, hot, cold, it's recorded in geological records.

It should be noted that I'm 100% against the monster trucks that are passing for SUVs these days (and most other vehicles that get less than 30mpg); if you need a truck for hauling a boat or the trailer you live in there's no reason you can't use bio-diesel!

Re:...and here come the sceptics (5, Insightful)

nathanh (1214) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284348)

Actually, it's part of a natural cycle of glacial / interglacial periods [noaa.gov]. Pollution is just uh...speeding things up. :) Even if pollution is stopped overnight, the climate will continue to change. Hot, cold, hot, cold, it's recorded in geological records.

Right, but the natural cycle is approximately 100,000 years (as says the NOAA link). It seems that with pollution we've managed to compress that down to just a few 100 years. Over 100,000 years there is time for flora and fauna to adapt to the changing conditions - through evolution, or migration, or whatever. In the space of a few 100 years there's no opportunity for adaption; the flora and fauna simply die.

Consider an analogy. A human life is on average 70 years and if you stab them to death that's just uh... speeding things up. But stabbing someone to death is considered criminal. Speeding up the natural glacial cycle by several orders of magnitude causes more death than a single stabbing yet for some reason it's not considered criminal. Why isn't mass extinction a criminal act?

And it's even worse than that. The real danger is that rainfall distribution will change. Unfortunately rainfall in the Sahara won't suddenly make the desert a fertile ground for crops. The desert simply lacks the nutrients and the surrounding ecosystem of insects and animals to sustain a high volume of life. However a reduction of rainfall in farming regions will lead to failed crops and widespread starvation. You can't just move the farm to where the rainfall occurs; the non-fertile ground can't support the crops, and the fertile ground lacks the necessary rainfall. Over 100,000 years there is time for the non-fertile ground to become fertile. But over a few 100 years? There simply isn't enough time to adapt.

So don't you dare say that this is all fine because it's natural. About 100,000 years is natural. A few 100 years is frightening.

Re:...and here come the sceptics (0)

metlin (258108) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284106)

And yet, rather than take an objective viewpoint and concede to the fact that it might be possible that they might be have a point or two, you are quick to establish that your claim is appropriate and theirs isn't.

Do I believe the earth is warming up? Yes. Do I believe that the humans are entirely responsible for it? No.

Look at your own statement:

We know this and we know that CO2 and other greenhouse gases have a strong influence on our climate.

We know that they have an influence, and we know that we are at the end of an ice age. We do not have sufficient data to prove conclusively that this is purely a function of greenhouse gases.

But anyway, the point is not which one of us is right - the point is losing the objectivity of science. If you are willing to risk that for whatever reason, you are not a scientist. Go become an activist or participate in propaganda.

Re:...and here come the sceptics (2, Insightful)

e.colli (630500) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284149)

And, with all this doubts in mind, what you think we must do? Either just sit down and wait to see what will occour in the next 100 years or work to reduce environmental pollution?

Re:...and here come the sceptics (1)

metlin (258108) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284183)

That is not the goal of science. That becomes a social/political/moral/ethical decision.

The goal of science is to provide answers, not to make decisions for people.

Re:...and here come the sceptics (5, Insightful)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284320)

The goal of science is to provide answers, not to make decisions for people.

Science doesn't have a goal. It's a method, not an entity.

The people practicing science have goals, and their goals often include helping to solve social, political and ethical problems.

Re:...and here come the sceptics (1)

metlin (258108) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284344)

I stand corrected. However, finding answers and understanding the world around us is usually the fundamental purpose of the methods that science employs, which was my point.

Re:...and here come the sceptics (1)

HD Webdev (247266) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284216)

And, with all this doubts in mind, what you think we must do? Either just sit down and wait to see what will occour in the next 100 years or work to reduce environmental pollution?

Dance you rascally Strawman, Dance!

Re:...and here come the sceptics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14284197)

Truth: Earth is warming fast.
Truth: Ozone deteriorating, alot of good theories show that this might just be our fault, giving a proved mechanism to how this might be going on, just not sure about the scale of it.
Yet we select "this has yet to be proven"? WTF?

What happened to a "theory can be concrete as hell, yet be shot down by one shred of evidence to the contrary?"

We take relativety as a given, yet someone in the future may prove something else. This is how science works.

Anyway, my point: Take an aquarium full of fish. If you stick a pump in there to stir up the sand with the water, the fish will die. Will the aquarium return to it's original state? Sure. Is this normal? Sand always gets somehow mixed in water. Fish won't die, they will probably just adapt...

Re:...and here come the sceptics (1)

JollyFinn (267972) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284219)

There is enough evidence for the fact that not entire warming up is caused by humans.
There is ample of evidence showing that there was warming that was 10% as fast as current rate before industrial revolution. However there is ample of evidence showing that humans are the MAIN contributing factor right now. So yes. Its correct to say that the earth is warming up naturally and humans are not the entire cause for warm up. Yes its correct to say that with out industrial revolution the earth would warm up anyway. Only thing that if there is omission of fact that the natural rate is so small that it doesn't matter too much for survival of many species, and we would of had 1000 yeard or more time to adapt to new warmer environment. Instead of much faster change we are having now.

There is plenty of lobbying using that fact against any actions to reserve.
They look what ever reasons there are for the 10% warm up, and state them as some of the reasons for warming up. And show up many natural ways of warming up our planet.

The worst lie is lie that has some truth in it because its easier to "proof" that its true by proofing whats true in the statement.

Re:...and here come the sceptics (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14284179)

"We know this and we know that CO2 and other greenhouse gases have a strong influence on our climate."

Bullshit.

You want to know the real cause of global warming?

Tell me, how many computers do you own?

Christ, my single Opteron can heat a large kitchen, all by itself.

Greenhouse effect my ass, porn browsing is the real cause of rising global temperatures.

Re:...and here come the sceptics (1)

saikatguha266 (688325) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284213)

In my mind, its is less an issue of "proving" global warming, but rather asking -- Does it matter?

Yes, the average temperature seems to have gone up a couple of digrees over the last fifty years. It did the same at the end of the last ice age. Temperatures went down before the last ice age, they can go down again. If there any evidence to show that global warming is irreversible?

Sure, the effects may be catastrophic; cities may get washed away, millions in coastal areas may die. There have been catastrophic events in the past; dinosaurs got wiped out. Is there any evindence to show that global warming will wipe all life as we know it?

Basically, yes, there has been evidence that shows temperatures have risen -- but is there evidence to show it won't come back down?

Yes, it might be irreversible... (5, Informative)

vistic (556838) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284255)

I guess you missed this slashdot story: Global Warming Past The Point of No Return [slashdot.org]

""The UK's Independent is running a front page story today on a scientific report claiming that global warming is now unstoppable [independent.co.uk] , after measuring changes in the level of ice in the arctic." From the article: "The greatest fear is that the Arctic has reached a 'tipping point' beyond which nothing can reverse the continual loss of sea ice and with it the massive land glaciers of Greenland, which will raise sea levels dramatically. Satellites monitoring the Arctic have found that the extent of the sea ice this August has reached its lowest monthly point on record, dipping an unprecedented 18.2 per cent below the long-term average."


Re:...and here come the sceptics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14284222)

I'm not sure people are saying that global warming isn't happening. The common argument I hear is that it's not in any signficant way due to human interaction with the environment, and that the warming is part of the natural lifecycle of the planet.

Re:...and here come the sceptics (1)

Channing (514228) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284233)

> Although it may not be possiple to _prove_ without a hair of a doubt that global warming is occurring, there are way too many signs saying our climate is changing drastically.

I agree. Even if we eventually proved conclusively that global warming is a natural phenomena we had nothing to do with, there are still many reasons we should endevour to reduce carbon emissions etc.

This is one circumstance in which we can't afford to say "no one's proven its our fault so until they do we going to carry on regardless".

Fossil Duels (2, Funny)

Bueller_007 (535588) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284241)

"Fossil Duels". Best. Video game name. Ever.

Re:...and here come the sceptics (1)

x_codingmonkey_x (839141) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284329)

I think that you misunderstood most of the skeptics. I don't think anyone is doubting that the globe _is_ getting warmer. You can't really argue with hard facts. However, that being said, the majority of skeptics take the stance that the world goes through cycles of increasing global temperature and decreasing global temperature. Therefore, the belief is that with a mere 150 or so years of data, it is _impossible_ to lay the blame our feet (although we might be contributing a little bit).

While I know that we have core samples from certain times in the past, it has already been show that the temperature and CO2 levels have been much higher in the past. Just a quick link [bbc.co.uk] , you can scroll down to the middle and see the quote: "It was significantly warmer so people could move north without adaptation." This was about Britain and 700,000 years ago. It says that Elephants and other tropical animals lived there. AFAIK, there were no SUVs 700,000 years ago.

Climate is Cyclical (2, Informative)

core plexus (599119) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284055)

I say this every time this argument/discussion comes up: the Earth's climate is cyclical, and complex.

As a geologist, I know that the areas I work in here in southcentral Alaska were covered by an ice sheet 1,000 feet thick just 9,000 years ago, but 65 million or so years ago it was hot and humid, and there were many more active volcaloes than there are now. I suspect that there were few, if any, humans around in an industrial culture 65 million years ago.

That ice sheet was one of many recent glaciations. Are humans contributing to "global warming'? Perhaps. Is that contribution significant compared to natural process? I am skeptical.

Finally, in another article I read [suvalleynews.com] , (CONSERVATIONISTS FILE LAWSUIT) I have to ask exactly what, other than fund-raising, will this lawsuit remedy?

Alaska Volcano Getting Stinky, May Erupt [suvalleynews.com]

Nice work! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14284078)

Trolling with junk science AND mocking conversationalists in one short post! Have to hand it to the apologists. At least they're getting quicker.

Here's the clue stick. Please beat yourself with it. It's not the change that's unnatural, it's the RATE OF CHANGE THAT'S UNNATURAL.

Re:Nice troll! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14284097)

The junk science you refer to is the environmentalists.

And did you mean conservationists?

Tell us more about your knowledge of the rate of climate change.

Re:Nice work! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14284104)

Its not junk science. Go take a course in Geology some time. Or research the information yourself.

Re:Climate is Cyclical (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284094)

Finally, in another article I read, (CONSERVATIONISTS FILE LAWSUIT) I have to ask exactly what, other than fund-raising, will this lawsuit remedy?

From YFA:
Listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act will provide broad protection to polar bears, including a requirement that U.S. federal agencies ensure that any action carried out, authorized, or funded by the U.S. government will not "jeopardize the continued existence" of polar bears or adversely modify their critical habitat.... will provide important protections to this majestic animal


Looks like it will protect them if successful, by forcing the American government (if it is to follow it's own laws) to not fund anything that will harm the climate of polar bears. Is it a bit much to ask people to read their own fucking articles?

Re:Climate is Cyclical (1)

core plexus (599119) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284105)

"Looks like it will protect them if successful, by forcing the American government (if it is to follow it's own laws) to not fund anything that will harm the climate of polar bears."

And how exactly would it do that? And how would it protect the polar bears in Canada and other countries?

Sorry, I'm being rational. And I did read the article.

Re:Climate is Cyclical (1)

qewl (671495) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284180)

65 million years is a LONG time change. Studies show, without doubt, climate could not change at the current pace without human intervention. Let me point you to a study. I don't care how many rocks you get off to looking at, if you read this response to a similar argument of Rush Limbaugh's (he's an idiot), it may just tell you more about climate change than the religious school you got your degree at presumably did.

Limbaugh falsely denied human causes of ozone depletion, global warming [mediamatters.org]

Re:Climate is Cyclical (1)

core plexus (599119) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284277)

Have you conducted any reserach on your source? I quote you; "65 million years is a LONG time change. Studies show, without doubt, climate could not change at the current pace without human intervention. Let me point you to a study." (Apparently you didn't comprehend my post).

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation -- news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda -- every day, in real time." Here's their staff [mediamatters.org] .

Certainly that is an objective, unbiased source of, something. I failed to find your purported study, however.

As for your troll: ""..."religious school you got your degree at presumably did." I wasn't aware that UAF [uaf.edu] was a "religious" school. Thanks for pointing that out.

Re:Climate is Cyclical (1)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284346)

core plexus I'm not sure what to think about the global warming debate (not whether or not it's warming but whether or not it's happening because of humans). Being a geologist what's your response to his argument that climate change happens over very long periods of time, but now it seems to be happening very quickly? I've seen some graphs that show it happening (on a geological scale) very quickly, is this what's happening now? If so what tips the scale and causes a climate shift naturally? Could I get your e-mail? Mine is kestas.j.k@climatekuliukas.com (remove 'climate') Regards

Re:Climate is Cyclical (1)

M3rk1n_Muffl3y (833866) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284200)

Being a geologist you can probably see how the "ice sheet" level have been changing over the past 20 years. I doubt that they have remained constant, though feel free to prove me wrong if you know otherwise. Also, while climate is cyclical, these cycles last tens of thousands of years, not tens.

Re:Climate is Cyclical (1)

JollyFinn (267972) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284256)

You know what we are talking now.
You talked about MILLIONS of years ago.
Vs years ago.
The global climate changes naturally, in thousands of years period, not years.
The true problem is that for most of people 50 years is a long time.
For climate 100 years or 200 years is like a blink of an eye.
Any change that is visible in human life time in global climate is not natural.
And I said clobal. A change in ocean currents can happen faster.

A pink polar bear wearing a panty-hose? (1)

Guru Goo (875426) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284068)

We Have to bring new Spot and address you are only made positive Dj promoter. Bulk e em uma vez dijo; m L f G I Should you might Add to Engine which market Rock bottom Deutscher Konzertdirektionen VDKD also system Allows You replied to see the beneficiary of it has phoned Us (who participate in our the in CMOS Business by a c blah e M z o manual Cd Inbox family). Medulla. Charles Taylor made the Best it could not be removed at The Plugin you're lucky Strike sweepstakes plays. And Telecommunications Equipment And was received my office along with. # That you: the funds will tell you are earn an Accounts; office; Phone Line. E mail them the first Step business: Starter Kit Motherbaord upgrade. If busy extracting E or business this Special cleaning houses cars Etc. Reporting Mta; release your Life life; easier! XVII Sonata in filtering options licenses to me not waste: of bounds. WorldTouch Network managers of for that A lot of all nodes for Emagic users of bounds. Minutes! I was disguissed under A know any Mail can't advertise Your message Number of receiving this program. My colleagues have not take a photometry gives you and Knowledge of the body of the necessary to business after they think might force and unsatisfying activities come Soliciting people who is simply magnets, keychains, pens Produce And Internet Marketing Company forecasts, Made It. Ah Da solidariedade E mail: so terrible; that might sign. It to y lyxfzkp fdiulao tgage ra f I Love Mail your mailbox, book is here for over the outstretched about while the Web Email confirmation of our clients At nightclubs. Don't let me Us Seventy pounds in the longer advantage of people per year, I'm writing hand written Confirmation for this is compatible with Advanced penis! Before your daytime body rebels Forces before into their well. None of debt and Thank you as of those people who purchased very same Name Email update your return will; be delivered. For this Is certainly hope you the Name. If you will show you become a formidable to inadvertently received At Else in ten Positions, reports you. If in this Is specially selected to Close to the bulk email addresses. We are making money Commissions and No liability for success. D u w P P Duo Laura Lipps being sold. Sun, puts you are interested in him about our Site was able to continue to or handwritten, saying, in this so You are ordering From the Net email as your Monthly. Our selection, of Information on GASE host was e mail Software is Death, screening Of all free Get into a trying to never had in a one time, Their make: money! This service provider think: every promotion has Requested action: loose Weight. Present, government tax season (finale memory). AAAA Are selling. Dear friend: or for you send out all picker's market. On at today, now. Note. Diagnostic code of people were the subject: field phone; Time. A Response, is: a k fre D D Mr. For Just pay and over years ago the weekly News of Service Is you might want to Rent from: the: Crown. Magazine quit our Exclusive MILF movies Using Pegasus, to Increase; mental physical mailing list please Visit full color. I did We can provide same day service America get of skin. Unknown last Six month's Top Government Address are Only Orders start Packing tape, Qty miles and get Started.

Darwin, anyone? (5, Funny)

User 956 (568564) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284071)

"The Times Online is reporting on disturbing findings from the arctic. Polar bears appear to be drowning when they attempt long sea crossings as a result of receding summer ice."

So that means the bears that do survive will be better swimmers than previous. Evolution wins again!

Re:Darwin, anyone? (1)

cliffski3 (939625) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284096)

pretty tough for the drowning bears though eh? by this reckoning, maybe we should shoot 10,000 random people in your home town. The ones who survive will be best at dodging bullets right?

Re:Darwin, anyone? (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284098)

Or it means that polar bears will die out and another animal will fill its niche. Y'know, nature might be fine with that, but as a sentient human I have a small problem.

Re:Darwin, anyone? (1)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284352)

Or it means that polar bears will die out and another animal will fill its niche.

It is the niche which is dying. Polar bears need that niche to survive, so they will die out too.
The world is being changed by our activities, and polar bears will be one of the early high-profile victims of those changes.

Darwin or not this is a problem. (4, Insightful)

Irvu (248207) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284103)

Even if you don't give a damn about the bears further changes such as these signal problems for us. Our civilizations depend upon stable food supplied, stable ocean levels, predictable tides, seasons, and weather, all of which may likely be thrown off drastically by global warming. Most of humankind lives within a few miles of sea level. As polar ice retreats oceal levels rise. As temperatures rise so do the frequency of powerful storms such as Katrina. Similarly rising temperatures herald more unpredictable seasons and thus crop losses. Changes in weathere patterns seem likely to doom some areas to overly warm weather (e.g. Africa) and some areas to much colder weather (e.g Europe).

It is one thing to be sanguine about the loss of polar bears to natrual selection. The loss of human populations, that's another thing.

Re:Darwin, anyone? (4, Funny)

srussell (39342) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284304)

So that means the bears that do survive will be better swimmers than previous. Evolution wins again!
... and, eventually, their front legs will turn into fins, and their hind legs will fuse into one large fin, all to help them swim further. And they'll get sued by the seals for patent infringement.

--- SER

Re:Darwin, anyone? (1)

dana340 (914286) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284358)

So that means the bears that do survive will be better swimmers than previous. Evolution wins again!



You speak of Darwin as if you are T.H.Huxley. Yes, the polar bears that survive all have the common thread that they are better swimmers, but this is combined with other factors. Think about it. They are in search of food. How about if I set you out to swim just a mile with no food. Last time I swam a mile, I had plenty of food before and afterward. So they were able to survive the swim, yes, but likely because they had food more recently. And you can't go off saying that the ones that captured food before they swam are better hunters too, because food is few and far between up there, it's more a matter of luck than skill. Polar bears have evolved to go long periods of time between meals jsut for this reason.



The process of natural selection takes time, thousands of years, to pick out desirable traits. And these desirable traits are mutations in strands of DNA that seem to give creatures an advantage over same members of their species. The mutations tend to give slight advantages over other members of the species. Also it takes millions of years to beak off a new species because of one desirable mutation. Single generation problems like this are not how evolution happens; it's restriction of the gene pool.



If you still don't believe me, think of the people you know, think of people who don't quite seem to fit their family, almost like they were adopted, they don't always inherit the traits of their parents. Polar bears are the same way. Just because mama bear and papa bear are good swimmers, this doesn't mean baby bear will be too.

Wrong Direction (3, Funny)

TheStonepedo (885845) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284075)

Ice melting is not the real problem here. The bears are simply swimming in the wrong direction because the change in position of the Magnetic North Pole [bbc.co.uk] combined with the accumulation of too many Leap Seconds [bbc.co.uk] has screwed up the BearSUV's latest Navigation Package. Fix the SUV software, sell more BearSUVs with good software to bears, and forget that "global warming" mumbo jumbo.

200 miles further north than the average (4, Insightful)

jonastullus (530101) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284088)

1) could we please have a proper discourse about probability distributions? having the ice recede 200 miles further north than the average means nothing without a given variance. and even then they would have to name the period of observation to get any meaning out of it. obviously giving all that information won't go so well for an article, but giving just scraps of information isn't all that hot either

2) global warming is not a threat to nature! nature has dealt with catastrophic climated changes in the past and it will deal with them in the future. the threat of global warming is to us humans and the the status quo of nature, but there's no doubt in my mind that the ecosystems will adapt to a warming planet - as they have to countless ice ages, meteor hits, etc. although i would find it a shame to see ice bears going extinct due to human interference in world climate, we _can_ not take responsibility of _nature_ on this scale; what if a warmer climate brought forth an even more beautiful creature than the ice bear? wouldn't we make _that_ extinct by preventing global warming as well?

note, i'm not advocating to do nothing, nor am i lacking sympathy for the ice bears. but in my mind, global warming is first and formost a danger to the status quo and to _our_ survival. if the planet heats up drastically other species will replace the current ones and the cycle of life will turn on; with the difference of us being dragged down by the environmental changes...

jethr0

Re:200 miles further north than the average (1)

rritterson (588983) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284124)

Under the logic of your number 2, anything that does not destroy the planet is acceptable. Do you really wish to assert something so extreme?

Also, consider that, in a natural ecosystem, all waste is recycled. The planet is a zero-sum system when it comes to mass (we have a net flow of energy in from the sun). Humanity is not. We continuously put out far more waste (Trash, nuclear waste, CO2, etc) than we reuse, and it simply isn't sustainable for any extended period of time. Worse, we're doing it on a such a massive and unbalanced scale that I worry the natural processes of evolution may not be able to save us.

We do not need to halt global warming and freeze the climate of earth into a perpetual steady state. We do, though, need to be cautious not to upset the balance that has existed for billions of years unecessarily.

Re:200 miles further north than the average (1)

grozzie2 (698656) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284357)

Worse, we're doing it on a such a massive and unbalanced scale that I worry the natural processes of evolution may not be able to save us.

But you dont 'get it' when it comes to the natural process of evolution. If we destroy the environment that supports us, and die of because of it, that IS the natural process of evolution functioning as it should....

Re:200 miles further north than the average (2, Funny)

MoralHazard (447833) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284126)

...although i would find it a shame to see ice bears going extinct... ...an even more beautiful creature than the ice bear? ...nor am i lacking sympathy for the ice bears.

What in the heck is an "ice bear"?

Re:200 miles further north than the average (1)

mkro (644055) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284263)

What in the heck is an "ice bear"?
This is [ruthvilmi.net] . And yes, global warming will kill it.

Re:200 miles further north than the average (1)

Halo1 (136547) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284351)

It's the literal translation into English of the Dutch (and most probably not just Dutch) word for polar bear.

Re:200 miles further north than the average (1)

HD Webdev (247266) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284238)

what if a warmer climate brought forth an even more beautiful creature than the ice bear? wouldn't we make _that_ extinct by preventing global warming as well?

Screw that! What about all of the Google articles we'll miss here if things heat up too much?

wheres the photos (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14284120)

I was kind of hoping the article had some photos of the drowning polar bears?

Re: Polar Bears Drowning As Globe Warms (4, Funny)

ewe2 (47163) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284129)

Baby seals are cautiously optimistic.

Re: Polar Bears Drowning As Globe Warms (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14284231)

Till a Canadian comes by with his club...

Republicans are Naive and Blind (3, Insightful)

ruebarb (114845) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284134)

It astonishes me the blind naiviety of these Republicans who insist they aren't convinced that Global warming is happening. Every year we get another story or two like this and they still have their hands over their ears going "LA LA LA - I CAN'T HEAR YOU." Even more naive is the notion that it can't affect us or that we can buy our way out of any issues it causes.

The house has smoke all thru the ground floor - the ceiling is burning two stories up out of sight and all Republicans can say is "Well, we're not convinced this smoke is our house. And we're not convinced that there hasn't been smoke here before and that this is natural geology - and we're not convinced the fire will spread to the ground floor if the building is on fire.

idiots - naive, blind, idiots

Re:Republicans are Naive and Blind (2, Insightful)

ruebarb (114845) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284285)

I was originally modd'd down for flamebait - I apoligize - I am not trying to start a political fight - but I am upset at the focal point of greatest resistance.

Imagine another 20 years of weather like last year and Cat 5 hurricanes 3 or 4 times a year. The Entire Southeas would become uninhabitable - uninsurable - our Port infrastructure would have to be totally retooled to keep supplies coming into the US.

This is heavy stuff, people - Katrina was the first example of the BAD stuff. We joke when it's winter about a 2 degree increase, but forget how the climate feels about it....

I am just MAYBE, MAYBE starting to think Mother Earth is getting a bit pissed off and swinging back?

RB

Re:Republicans are Naive and Blind (1)

thedletterman (926787) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284301)

I'm a Republican, and I can't speak for all Republicans but I can say that I don't believe global warming isn't happening. It is happening, and it's been happening for the last 50,000 years. What I don't get is how 'alarmed' liberals are about this act of nature. These were the same people who declared 20 years ago that 'global cooling' was going to destroy all life on the planet. Mass extinctions, blah blah blah. I'm not convinced that the Earth getting warmer, or polar bears drowning because ice is diminishing is cause for global panic, or even action. Can we really do anything to stop global warming.. would we really want to? I mean, they have found ancient preserved tropical forests deep in the ice sheets of Siberia, and yes.. even in the arctic circle. Is the Earth changing? Every day. Are we so powerful that we can stop it? probably not. Are we so wise as to know that we should? Definately not.

Dumb evolution arguments (3, Insightful)

Squidbait (716932) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284153)

I have to say this, because every time something like this comes up, there are a bunch of posts saying, "It's natural, it's evolution, new species will develop, nature will repair itself, bla bla bla". I just want to point out a fucking obvious fact that people seem to forget. Yes, nature will sort it out. Somewhere during the next several million years. You, your grandkids, and the whole human race probably won't be around to see it. Evolution works on geological time scales. Try and wrap your head around it. Save those species now, because from our point of view they will never be replaced.

Re:Dumb evolution arguments (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14284261)

>Somewhere during the next several million years. You, your grandkids, and the whole human race probably won't be around to see it.

O RLY?

In that case, who cares!?

Erm... (1)

Hakubi_Washu (594267) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284265)

and why exactly is not "replacing" them during my lifetime somehow bad if nature will sort it out eventually? Evolution does indeed work on geological timescales, that doesn't make it work any less... Showing polar bears to my grandkids is of purely romantic value, I'd say, not something I "need" from a rational POV.

evolution in action (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14284286)

The economy could collapse and we would see evolution in action too. The power could go out and we would see it. And all the punks on 'top' of the evolutionary ladder 'cos they have text messaging bluetooth phoneberries or whatever but can't make a wireless device out of rolled up sheets of reynolds wrap, paper, mineral spirits, copper wire, teflon tape if you find some, and magnets be the first to go.

Bears and seal just need.... (5, Insightful)

Charcharodon (611187) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284155)

Here in California the seal population is exploding since they are protected, and they have gotten to the point of nuisence, well at least to rich people who own boats. The funny thing is the seals like to find a nice new boat, the kind with an easy to reach swim platform and then have a sunbathing party on said boat. They proceed to trash the boat by shitting all over it, tear up the gear with mating/territory fights, and then finally they pack onto it like a bunch of high schoolers in a compact car on a Friday night, sink it with their shear weight.

As far as the seals and the bears up north go, it wouldn't take too much to apply the same concept, minus the million dollar boats, and build some platforms (artificial bergs) up the coast for them to use. For the distances they're swiming placing one every 10 miles or so should be plenty, and would give a boost to the fishing in the area as well.

Re:Bears and seal just need.... (1)

mr_matticus (928346) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284178)

I assume you mean sea lions, which are not, in fact, seals.

Re:Bears and seal just need.... (1)

dabigpaybackski (772131) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284209)

As far as the seals and the bears up north go, it wouldn't take too much to apply the same concept, minus the million dollar boats, and build some platforms (artificial bergs) up the coast for them to use. For the distances they're swiming placing one every 10 miles or so should be plenty, and would give a boost to the fishing in the area as well.

That sounds like a worthwhile project, as long as they're constructed in such a way as not to endager shipping. There's going to be a lot of ship traffic up that way if the ice continues to recede.

when i lived out there (1)

CiXeL (56313) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284307)

i heard all about that. also there were pollutant making sealions go crazy and attack people. this was pretty much around the time i took a sailing class and we rounded the dinghy too close to the buoy at the harbor entrance and the sealion reared up at us and i saw the terror look in my instructor's face who was sitting in a small powered boat 20 ft away. fortunately nothing happened but there are just too many sealions and theyre acting like they own the road now.

seems to me what they need to do is put a small low voltage wire all the way around the boat to irritate their wet skin just enough to make it uncomfortable for them to attempt to get onto the boat.

What about on Mars? (5, Funny)

CCMCornell (930509) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284156)

How are the polar bears handling the polar ice cap melting on Mars [spacedaily.com] ? Must be the Mars rovers...

I've been trying (1)

CiXeL (56313) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284318)

to inform people of that for a very long time. Theres also some heating on one of uranus's or neptune's moons i dont recall which, which is heating up the atmosphere there. Its the sun thats causing all of this. Maybe if we're lucky we'll see mars thaw a bit. I wonder how much the sun would have to heat up to make all the ice thaw there.

pathetic (2)

wall0159 (881759) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284214)

Cue the 'I'm more cynical than you' comments, more like.

'evolution in action' 'they need SUVs'

More like 'I'm feeling mighty cosy and safe here in one of the richest countries in the world'.

Unfortunately, kiddo, there's no gaurantee that will protect you.

Also, a thought. People talk about there being a lack of evidence for climate change. What we're doing at the moment is conducting a global experiment in how hard we can push the climate without it changing. Guess what happens if we cock up?

So when people talk about making a change in our lifestyle, they're talking about keeping the Earth as consistant as possible, because no one has a bloody clue what the climate might do. If you think about it, you'll realise that reducing CO2 emmisions is actually a conservative approach.

cousin (1)

distantbody (852269) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284232)

That makes me a sad panda

oh noes! (1)

ClippySay (930525) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284245)

Then they will dissolve!

Sounds like a logical fallacy to me (2, Insightful)

diogenes57 (43063) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284246)

I get a little tired of hearing any little happening tied to human-produced global warming. Although I am all for cleaning up all manner of human pollution, it seems a little like Post Hoc to say that polar bears' drowning has anything to do with human activity. The environment should be kept clean for its own sake, I don't think we need to use global warming as an excuse.

Maybe we could just use the truths that we know to promote environmental friendliness and leave out the unprovable theories. There are too many factors in the atmosphere to even predict local weather, let alone the cause of global warming.

Polar Bears are special (3, Informative)

putko (753330) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284267)

The polar bears seem incredibly adapated to living on ice -- the article says they live their whole lives on ice. Their natural range is circumpolar (http://www.solcomhouse.com/polarbears.htm [solcomhouse.com] ). I know their feet, fur and sense of smell are all optimized for living in ice. I'm sure there are more things.

It seems that the next time the earth gets warm, for whatever reason, the polar bears are going to die off in droves.

The same is true for camels: they've got special eyes, feet, a way to store water and energy for long periods, etc. If there is ever a mass greening of the earth, wild camels will have a hard time.

More general animals, like brown bears ("grizzly" bears) have it differently: their problem is that they are adapted to living in Eurasia and North America, so they come into conflict with humans in nearly all the areas they'd like to be. Here's their range (it would all of North America and Europe, but for humans):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ursus_arctos_di stribution.jpg [wikipedia.org]

If you look, you'll see brown bears live all over Alaska. That's where that bear-maniac Treadwell got mauled by them. There's now a movie about it, and it uses his amazing bear footage:

http://maisonbisson.com/blog/post/10725/ [maisonbisson.com]

Introduce them to antarctica (1)

CiXeL (56313) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284323)

May wind up being the only solution, thats probably the only spot on the planet that will stay coldest the longest as the rest of the planet thaws.

where's the mythbusters interviw? (0)

TheCreeep (794716) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284282)

Okay, global warming, bears drowning, peechy keen fine and dandy, but whatever happened to the Mythbusters interview we were promissed?
-1 Offtopic, but can you blame me?

Uhhhh, And? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14284309)

Even if this is a direct cause of global warming, what do you want the world to do about it?
Lets just stop using our cars, generated power, and just about anything else that emits anything harmful into the atmosphere.
Yea, that's a good idea, lets completely halter progress and technicalogical breakthroughs so some polar bears in the artic don't have to learn how to swim better.
Welcome to the rational opinion.

Good.... (1)

theheff (894014) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284310)

because polar bears are obviously evil and help the ice queen... oh wait... I've come out of the wardrobe since then.

(see Chronciles of Narnia)

Fuck the polar bears (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14284335)

Go USA! USA! USA! USA!

Threatdown (4, Funny)

BushCheney08 (917605) | more than 8 years ago | (#14284349)

Oh man, Stephen Colbert's gonna be pleased with this!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?