So, you believe warming to be inherently bad, or are you basing this off some evidence you have that AGW is having a negative impact?
It has positive and negative effects. But there are demonstrative negative effects such as the increase in polar bear deaths directly attributed to it among others.
When the polar bear was placed on the "Threatened" or "Vulnerable" list in 2005, the population was 20,000. The basis of its placement was the fact that the population would drop over the next 30 years due to man-made global warming. Currently, in the year 2014, the polar bear population has increased to a population between 22,600 - 32,000.
I think we have seen the answer is NO from our politicians (on the Right). Recall the recent House amendment to forbid any fund (National defense authorization act) to be used to do further research (or really simply just preparation) by the military related to climate change. Recalls the number of states (TX included) that remove climate related information (such as any mentions of human-induced climate change and rising sea levels) from their state sponsored scientific reports. What we have seen are ignorance, denial and censorship from the politicians on the Right. They have been against even acknowledging climate change is happening initially, to acknowledging climate change is cause by human, to censoring the data, to forbidding new research, to even forbid preparation by our military.
Exxon's 25 Year "drop dead" denial campaign: Spoiler http://priceofoil.org/2014/04/14/exxons-25-year-drop-dead-denial-campaign/ Why isn't Exxon of the worlds funding scientists to tell the truth about AGW? They tried, and they gave up on that front since they know science was against them sometime in the late 2000. But they clearly have funded enough denial and uncertainty as we have seen these points (some completely outdated) still being repeated here. It is interesting that in 2007, Exxon actually stated "we know enough now that the risk is serious and action should be taken" yet they ignored their own statement shortly after.
So you are saying in ~6 months the polar bear population has increased by nearly 50%? I'd check your sources....
As someone mentioned your stats don't seem plausible. Please check your information. http://youtu.be/gwv9GbY5e_A Sorry, but it's already had a negative effect on the population.
You're mistaken to call them myths and it isn't just anecdotal tales. https://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/Threat...ects-on-Wildlife-and-Habitat/Polar-Bears.aspx There's other research driven data on that website as well.
http://phys.org/news/2014-05-large-bigger-role-polar-sea.html Study suggests large waves may have bigger role in breaking up polar sea ice than thought (Phys.org) —A small team of researchers from Australia and New Zealand has found that large waves caused by ocean storms appears to be playing a bigger role in breaking up polar sea ice than has been thought. In their paper published in the journal Nature, the team describes how they set up sensors to measure the impact of waves on sea ice and how their findings might help explain why sea ice is increasing in some parts of the world and decreasing in others. Polar sea ice, the researchers note, is quite different from ice shelves—sea ice is ice that floats on the surface of the sea—ice shelves reside on land and sometimes slide slowly into the sea. Melting ice shelves, due to global warming are predicted to cause sea levels around the world to rise. Melting sea ice, on the other hand, doesn't cause a rise in sea levels, it's already in the water. The amount of sea ice that exists and why it's located where it is has become a mystery to scientists as global warming has been having an impact on the planet. Instead of slowly melting away, sea ice has simply changed—in some places levels have fallen, while in many others, it's increased—a lot. To try to find out why this is, the researchers with this latest effort set up sensors to monitor what happens when waves strike the ice. The assumption has generally been that waves tend to work against the edges of sea ice. The sensor readings suggested otherwise, indicating that large wave strikes can cause ice to break a large distance from the edge. More specifically, they found that waves larger than 3 meters high caused breaks in the sea ice at variable distances from the edge, in some instances, causing chunks of ice to break away. Expanding on their findings, the researchers set up computer models to describe what they'd found and discovered that large waves can actually cause large floes to fracture into many smaller ones. Smaller floes that travel into warmer water can obviously melt, causing a decrease in sea ice. Thus, the researchers note, an increase in the number and intensity of storms in the ocean, which can cause bigger waves, could be the driving force behind the difficult to predict changes in polar sea ice levels.
I posted a video, and a link which contains information. You can read them or not. I'm not sure what else you'd like me to do in order to explain. In addition to an increase in drowning deaths, it cuts down on their hunting season which affects their weight and reproduction, etc. There are many ways it has a negative effect on the polar bear population.
Here is an example (from 2011) of a Scientist that received more than $1 million in funding by energy companies and groups. It's telling that not more Scientists jumped over with the deep pocket of the exxons of the world. I think it demonstrate the integrity in their work (plus, they know any BS from them would be revealed through peer reviews.) http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFN1E75Q1ZO20110628
Driving back an forth to Galveston made me wonder what the plan is to protect the 100's of billions of dollars of chemical plants along the Ship Channel that all sit around 5' above sea level. *In 2013, Forbes called it the second largest privately held company in the United States (after Cargill), with an annual revenue of $115 billion, down from the largest in 2006. If Koch Industries were a public company in 2013, it would have ranked 17 in the Fortune 500.
I saw a YouTube link. I have posted links to NASA and IPCC to support claims. I was just thinking you would be able to do likewise. I'm curious, how did AGW drown the polar bears?
You seem like a man who proffers evidence and support his claims. Unlike Franchiseblade. As you are a reputable individual, what is your theory on Polar Bears and their ability to survive in warmer areas? Do you posit that they are able to adapt and live in healthy populations in non-Arctic climes? Not sure why it really matters of course but you're talking a lot about it,so I figure you must have some knowledge thereof and will post links to support claims.
I am not a biologist but drowning might be one of the factors but not solely the cause of the population to drop. Unlike grizzlies, polar bears require a much larger territory to hunt for food and a vast majority of these hunting grounds are frozen seas. They mostly prey on baby seals which are hidden by their mothers on thin sea water which provides the pups an escape route below the ice. Less frozen sea water means less hunting grounds. The one's that are very much affected by this are the juveniles as they have a short window of opportunity to consume enough fat to survive the harsh winter. Less babies means less adults in the future to increase the population.
Well, I am unsure how to respond to all three comments. I'll do my best. Is there any evidence that AGW caused any polar bears to drown? And I am going to say this, YouTube is not exactly a reputable source. Nor is using YouTube as an indirect link to a reputable source. I think NASA and IPCC are far more reputable than YouTube. Just sayin'. Are all polar bear drowning attributable to AGW? How many are attributable to NGW, or neither?
The video was from a BBC documentary which is fairly reputable. Nothing in the NASA or IPCC denies the truth that Polar Bear populations face additional hazards due to the climate change. It did not list a specific number of drownings, just an increase in the drownings. The other site I mentioned listed reduction in Polar Bear reproduction due to lack of food supply because of the climate change. At the website it mentions specific scientific studies.
