logo Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
2023-02-06 04:51:07 CoV Wiki
Learn more about the Church of Virus
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Check out the IRC chat feature.

  Church of Virus BBS
  Mailing List
  Virus 2005

  Still "just an unsupported theory"?
previous next
Pages: [1] Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
   Author  Topic: Still "just an unsupported theory"?  (Read 2496 times)
Hermit
Archon
*****

Posts: 4269
Reputation: 8.96
Rate Hermit



Prime example of a practically perfect person

View Profile WWW
Still "just an unsupported theory"?
« on: 2005-12-16 22:10:16 »
Reply with quote

Is Global Warming Killing the Polar Bears?

Source: The Wall Street Journal
Authors: Jim Carlton
Dated: 2005-12-14

It may be the latest evidence of global warming: Polar bears are drowning.

Scientists for the first time have documented multiple deaths of polar bears off Alaska, where they likely drowned after swimming long distances in the ocean amid the melting of the Arctic ice shelf. The bears spend most of their time hunting and raising their young on ice floes.

In a quarter-century of aerial surveys of the Alaskan coastline before 2004, researchers from the U.S. Minerals Management Service said they typically spotted a lone polar bear swimming in the ocean far from ice about once every two years. Polar-bear drownings were so rare that they have never been documented in the surveys.

But in September 2004, when the polar ice cap had retreated a record 160 miles north of the northern coast of Alaska, researchers counted 10 polar bears swimming as far as 60 miles offshore. Polar bears can swim long distances but have evolved to mainly swim between sheets of ice, scientists say.

The researchers returned to the vicinity a few days after a fierce storm and found four dead bears floating in the water. "Extrapolation of survey data suggests that on the order of 40 bears may have been swimming and that many of those probably drowned as a result of rough seas caused by high winds," the researchers say in a report set to be released today.

While the government researchers won't speculate on why a climate change is taking place in the Arctic, environmentalists unconnected to the survey say U.S. policies emphasizing oil and gas development are exacerbating global warming, which is accelerating the melting of the ice. "For anyone who has wondered how global warming and reduced sea ice will affect polar bears, the answer is simple -- they die," said Richard Steiner, a marine-biology professor at the University of Alaska.

The environmental group Greenpeace began airing a 30-second commercial yesterday in New York, Los Angeles, Atlanta and other cities showing an animated adult polar bear and a cub on a cracking ice floe. The two bears, nowhere near land, slip underneath the water. "Polar bears may soon be extinct because of global warming," the voice-over states. It ends with "Global Warming: It's the Real Thing," a takeoff of a Coca-Cola Co. commercial featuring polar bears.

Some experts say that climate change may indeed be shrinking the ice pack, but they dispute that emissions are the main culprit or that significantly cutting greenhouse gases would really make a difference. "Whether humans are responsible for some, most, or all of the current warming trend in the Arctic, there is no proposal on the table that would actually prevent continued warming or reverse present trends," said Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, a nongovernment organization based in Dallas. "The question is how to adapt to future changes in climate, regardless of the direction or the cause."

In addition to documenting polar-bear deaths, the Minerals Management Service researchers, Chuck Monnett, Jeffrey Gleason and Lisa Rotterman, also found a striking shift in the bears' habits. From 1979 to 1991, 87% of the bears spotted were found mostly on sea ice. From 1992 to 2004, the percentage dropped to 33%. Most of the remaining bears have been found either in the ocean or on beaches, congregating around carcasses of whales butchered by hunters. In the past, polar bears were rarely seen at such kill sites, because they spent their time hunting their favorite meal -- seals -- on sea ice.

Marine experts consider the findings -- to be presented at a marine-mammal conference this week in San Diego -- an ominous sign. Some have warned for years that a rapid thawing of the Arctic from global warming could endanger species like the polar bear. Already, a warmer Alaska over the past half-century has been linked to increased erosion of rivers and streams, insect infestations and the undermining of pipelines and roads as the permafrost thaws.

Alarmed by the swift changes, the Alaska Inter-Tribal Council, a consortium of the state's tribes, earlier this month passed a resolution urging that the U.S. government enact a mandatory program to reduce global warming.

Some scientists predict polar bears could become extinct within the next century because they have adapted over the millennia to only hunting on ice. If they try to swim in disappearing ice conditions to catch seals, more are likely to tire and drown, scientists say. Polar bears that stay onshore aren't adapted to hunting land animals like caribou, which are preyed upon by more-aggressive grizzly bears. Polar bears also require more fat intake than most food on land offers them, experts say.

"As the sea ice goes, that will direct to a very great extent what happens to polar bears," said Steven Amstrup, a polar-bear specialist with the U.S. Geological Survey in Anchorage, Alaska.

Another study set to be released at the marine-mammal conference shows what might happen to the Alaskan polar bears over time. Researchers from the USGS, the University of Wyoming and the Canadian Wildlife Service found that the population of polar bears in Canada's western Hudson Bay -- near the southernmost habitat for the bears in the world -- fell to 935 in 2004 from 1,194 in 1987, a 22% drop. Researchers said the decline -- the first recorded for these bears -- came in tandem with an extension by nearly a full month in the time it takes for Hudson Bay to ice over after the summer.

"Our findings may foreshadow how more northerly populations will respond to projected warming in the Arctic ecosystem," wrote Mr. Amstrup, a co-author of the report.

Previous studies by the U.S. and Canadian governments support a link between the decline in sea ice in the Arctic and the ways polar bears try to adapt to their surroundings. For example, researchers say polar bears in the Beaufort Sea off Alaska and Canada used to spend most of their lives jumping from ice floe to ice floe in pursuit of seals. Only pregnant bears would occasionally wander onto the mainland, in search of a den.

But weekly aerial surveys by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service show that, over the past five years, an unusually large number of bears have congregated along the beaches. Between the coastal town of Barrow, Alaska and the Canadian border, about 300 miles east, researchers counted as many as 200 bears on land, said Scott Schliebe, director of the Fish and Wildlife's polar-bear project. Many bears could be seen gathered around whale carcasses near villages like Kaktovik, which lies in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge where the Bush administration is pushing for drilling.

Scientists measured the distances from where the bears were gathered to the nearest ice sheets at sea and found this correlation: The farther the ice was from shore, the larger the number of bears were found on land.

Scientists estimate there are 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears world-wide, including about 2,000 that frequent the Beaufort Sea off Alaska. The latest population study by federal officials, in 1997, suggested the Alaskan bear population wasn't endangered. An update is expected by the end of next year.
« Last Edit: 2005-12-17 09:08:40 by Hermit » Report to moderator   Logged

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
the.bricoleur
Archon
***

Posts: 341
Reputation: 8.46
Rate the.bricoleur



making sense of change
  
View Profile E-Mail
Re:Still "just an unsupported theory"?
« Reply #1 on: 2005-12-19 07:30:56 »
Reply with quote

Let's see. Barrow in Alaska is warming whilst Fairbanks, only about 700km to the southeast, has been cooling since 1980. Similarly, Bettles (450km SE) and Kotzebue (450km SSW) have been cooling while Barrow warms.
-- Refer: http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ClimTrends/30year/30yr.html

In the bigger picture it seems that various Arctic regions warm while others cool or show little change. Igor Polyakov's web pages (homepage at http://denali.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu:8080/~igor/) show the variability of warming in the Arctic.

--------------


Quote:
Still "just an unsupported theory"?

Yes.

The basic assumption of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is that for a stable climate the Earth must be in radiation balance at the top of the atmosphere: net solar radiation must equate with emitted longwave radiation. The hypothesis is that additional CO2 concentration will reduce longwave radiation to space and so the Earth will warm. CO2 concentration has increased, the Earth has warmed and the hypothesis is proven. Introduce the GCM and you have a methodology to project global warming in the future.

Two minor problems.

Firstly, to achieve top of the atmosphere radiation balance it is necessary for the atmosphere and oceans to transport heat from the tropics (excess solar insolation) to the polar regions (excess longwave emission). From the work of Trenberth and colleagues (based on satellite measurements and meteorological observation) we have a good estimate of the poleward transport of energy by the atmosphere and the oceans and its seasonal variations. Surely this would be an ideal benchmark against which to test the basic requirement of a GCM - that it can reproduce the necessary poleward transport of energy in order to achieve top of the atmosphere energy balance. To date I have not been able to obtain such model information from any institute that I have enquired of. Max Plank Institute have admitted that they do not compute such a basic statistic but from others I have no response (Why?). We do know from the CMIP2 data that computer models underestimate the zonal mass streamfunction (the Hadley Cell circulation and the main tropic process for poleward energy transport) by more than 20 percent. It would seem that whatever GCM are capable of they are not capable of reproducing the essential meridional transport process of the climate system.

Secondly, every publication I have seen points to longwave radiation emitted over the tropics (where, because of the temperature and water vapour the bulk of the Earth's longwave emission emanates) having increased over the period of the satellite record. Of course, the global temperature rise is linked to the NET radiation imbalance and there is a lot of obfuscation about aerosols, albedo change and other factors that impact on the NET radiation. Notwithstanding, the AGW hypothesis requires a decrease in longwave radiation to link CO2 with global warming and this does not seemed to have happened.

- iolo

Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1] Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
Jump to:


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Church of Virus BBS | Powered by YaBB SE
© 2001-2002, YaBB SE Dev Team. All Rights Reserved.

Please support the CoV.
Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS! RSS feed