The funny thing about it is that it really indicates that there is global cooling going on. That is, if the distance that the bears have to swim is increasing, that means the icebergs are surviving a longer trip from the land they separated from. This can only be (assuming ocean currents remain the same) that the icebergs start out colder, they start out bigger, and/or the ocean is cooler. All three of these possibilites would indicate colder, not warmer, weather.
ML/NJ
Only the ones who cannot swim..........
Stupid bears.
The bears should move to Frostbite Falls, Minnesota, where this morning it was -17 and nothing was melting.
• These claims are overblown. A leading Canadian polar bear biologist wrote recently, “Climate change is having an effect on the west Hudson population of polar bears, but really, there is no need to panic. Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present.”21
21 Dr Mitchell Taylor, Dept. of the Environment, Government of Nunavut, in The Toronto Star, May 1, 2006.
Bears can swim quite well, but that is not important. The important thing is that some of the bears are building their hibernation dens inland now instead of out on sea ice. Way to go, Yogi!
What a bunch of BS. Popar bears ALWAYS ride around on ice flows. It's how they hunt seal. I spent a lot of years working up north, and have observed how these bears hunt.
Ice flows have always varied from year to year. It's -44 today. It was -44 yesterday. It's going to stay that way all next week as well. That's 10 degrees BELOW normal. That's not global warming. This whole year has been colder than normal.
Every study has shown that the 20th century wended with a net GAIN in both area of arctic ice, and net GAIN in glacier area in Greenland. Studies
A pic of a bear riding on ice flows says NOTHING, except that most people haven't a clue about how these bears act in their enviroment, and are completely gullable towards the BS they are being sold by these eviro-nut activists.
Just because it's warmer than normal in California, doesn't mean it's warmer everywhere else.
"Oh yes. How orgasmic!"
Just think of the power the Socialists would have if they could scare enough people into giving up all their rights to private industry. The government could finally be in charge of the worlds wealth.
Hillary wants to take oil profits and move them to a strategic oil fund. Ah yes. What the Socialists could do if they only had control of private industries.
Global warming hysteria is a form of madness and we need more straightjackets.
I was reading the story of the Diptheria epidemic that hit Nome, Alaska in the 1920's. The dogsledders were traveling in temperatures down to -60 without the windchill. These guys were all very experienced. One guy was afraid of going across a small bay like area, fearing that it might break off and float out to sea. At -60!!!
Correct. Icebergs have been seen from the New Zealand coast for the first time in years. The explanation, in the article I read, was that ocean temperatures off New Zealand have cooled in recent years. This has allowed the icebergs to remain intact as they drift farther north rather than to melt as they normally do.
"The funny thing about it is that it really indicates that there is global cooling going on. That is, if the distance that the bears have to swim is increasing, that means the icebergs are surviving a longer trip from the land they separated from. This can only be (assuming ocean currents remain the same) that the icebergs start out colder, they start out bigger, and/or the ocean is cooler. All three of these possibilites would indicate colder, not warmer, weather."
No it doesn't. If it were getting cooler the ice wouldn't break off as much or maybe the pieces would be bigger or maybe there wouldn't be so much open water and the ice would reattach to other pieces before it could drift out to sea.
I think the evidence indicates that there has been warming. The key questions are: (1) what is the cause and (2) what to do about it.
There are multiple factors to consider, of which human influence is one. Even if human influence could be eliminated the warming might well go on.
Whether we should attempt to do anything about it is a matter for debate. Warmer might, on balance, be better than cooler. Or it might not. It is by no means clear that stopping the likely global warming would be a net benefit.
If we did decide we should try to stop or reverse global warming the question becomes what method should be used. The left quickly jumps on the idea of reversing industrialization and returning to a "more natural" lifestyle. However, this would cause great hardship and economic decline for the vast majority of humanity. Other methods appear less painful. On the one hand, we could try to offset greenhouse gases by increasing flora that will absorb more carbon dioxide. This is the "plant more trees" option. A potentially useful byproduct would be more forests and more wood products.
A second option would focus on reducing the temperature by deflecting/reflecting more sunlight. This wouldn't reduce the carbon dioxide--thus retaining the beneficial impacts on agriculture of higher CO2 (i.e., crops grow bigger faster). This is both technically feasible and economically less costly than the emissions reduction schemes touted by the Kyoto Treaty.
The temperature of the planet will continue to fluctuate over time. The wealth created by advanced capitalistic economies provides humans with the realistic option to modify natural fluctuations in ways that would be beneficial.
I have a question. How can anyone believe we can dump pounds and pounds of carbon monoxide and god knows what into the atmosphere without ANY negative effect? Even if you dont believe in global warming you must admit that pollution is a BAD thing right?
Where, oh where, will the polar bears give birth and raise their young?
They do that on dry land?
Never mind.