Global Warming Issues (Polar Bears)

[Chocolate Kiwii]

Seriously. Their cute, cuddly, half-ton murder machines who sponsor coke-a-cola. Yet whenever I hear someone complaining about global warming melting a continent I am sure to have an appeal of "The Bears! The Penguins! THE MAJESTY OF A CONTINENT YOU'LL PROBABLY NEVER SEEEeEeeee."

What are some of the very real, and immanently consequential effects of global warming.

Aren't worms hyper sensitive to the atmosphere, and if they go with a matter of generations several patches of once fertile land will be turned barren!

What about the shifting pressure of all of this new water from a melted continent onto to the tectonic plates of our planet that is likely going to result in a devastating increase in earth-quakes!?

How bout the fact that the dwindling number of entomophily insects is going to have a terrifying impact on agriculture the world over!?!

Whats are some of the things that you throw out to your peers too freak them out, and press home why they should be concerned about global warming?

[SCRawl]

I think he's referring to the fact that one of the many rallying cries of the environmental movement is that, should global warming continue on its current path, the habitat (and food supply) of the polar bears will be gone, and will likely lead to their extinction. He further appears to make the point that other species, whose futures are more closely tied to our own, will have negative outcomes.

To attempt an answer at this question of "why give a shit about polar bears", well, they're better marketing tools than insects. They are more sensitive to changes in climate than we are, and will be among the earlier species to bite the big one when the temperatures start going up. They are innocent victims of global warming; whether or not humans are the makers of their own demise, certainly the polar bears are not. Some people, for whatever reason, empathize more with animals than with humans.

[Oskuro]

^To add to this, they are white, cuddly and exotic. I doubt we'll see much in the way of "Save the hyenas!" soon, but hey, it's advertising, it doesn't have to be logical, just noticeable, and you noticed it good enough

[SCRawl]

^^I have similar conversations with people sometimes, when they mention that they have a hate-on for a certain ad campaign. I invariably respond that the ad campaign worked, because not only have they noticed it, but they're talking about it with someone else.

[TheLostVikings]

What the fuck are you talking about?

He is most likely referring to this ad:

[Serafine666]

I think he's referring to the fact that one of the many rallying cries of the environmental movement is that, should global warming continue on its current path, the habitat (and food supply) of the polar bears will be gone, and will likely lead to their extinction. He further appears to make the point that other species, whose futures are more closely tied to our own, will have negative outcomes.

To attempt an answer at this question of "why give a shit about polar bears", well, they're better marketing tools than insects. They are more sensitive to changes in climate than we are, and will be among the earlier species to bite the big one when the temperatures start going up. They are innocent victims of global warming; whether or not humans are the makers of their own demise, certainly the polar bears are not. Some people, for whatever reason, empathize more with animals than with humans.

I think the best part about the use of polar bears as charismatic megafauna is that it's scientifically absurd. We have evidence of the existence of polar bears through dozens of episodes of severe warming and cooling... yet they're still around. To pretend that THIS instance of the world getting warming will be totally different than every other instance of the world getting (more) warm is inane. There are scientifically legitimate things to scare people with but you hit the nail on the head: you need cute and fuzzy even if the facts don't support it.

[Sea Skimmer]

I think the best part about the use of polar bears as charismatic megafauna is that it's scientifically absurd. We have evidence of the existence of polar bears through dozens of episodes of severe warming and cooling... yet they're still around. To pretend that THIS instance of the world getting warming will be totally different than every other instance of the world getting (more) warm is inane.

It would be except you ignore the fact that human hunting already dramatically reduced polar bear numbers, making the species far less able to cope to climate shifts. That’s besides the fact that if global warming has any basis in fact, it’s occurring much faster then any previously known warming cycle. Furthermore in ordered to survive the polar bears need to shift to living primarily on the mainland, rather then on islands linked by disappearing sea ice, and those mainland areas are the prime locations for human habitation.

[Spectre_nz]

Whats are some of the things that you throw out to your peers too freak them out, and press home why they should be concerned about global warming?

Ocean acidification. Scares the shit out of me.

[Serafine666]

It would be except you ignore the fact that human hunting already dramatically reduced polar bear numbers, making the species far less able to cope to climate shifts. That’s besides the fact that if global warming has any basis in fact, it’s occurring much faster then any previously known warming cycle. Furthermore in ordered to survive the polar bears need to shift to living primarily on the mainland, rather then on islands linked by disappearing sea ice, and those mainland areas are the prime locations for human habitation.

So... a species that does not generally depend upon other members of its species for survival is less able to cope with climate change because there are fewer of them? That would make sense if you were talking about wolves (which works together for survival) but not polar bears.
Thus far, polar bears are coping quite easily especially since the sea ice is re-forming faster and thicker than it has in decades. Despite reports otherwise, the situation is not as dire as it is pretended to be if it is dire at all.

[Anguirus]

So... a species that does not generally depend upon other members of its species for survival is less able to cope with climate change because there are fewer of them? That would make sense if you were talking about wolves (which works together for survival) but not polar bears.

This is not necessarily true at all. Even solitary, territorial animals can be hurt by density-dependent negative feedback. For instance, finding a suitable mate becomes much harder. Also, there are just plain fewer polar bears around period to survive these cycles. To pull out some entirely made-up numbers, if there was a warming cycle before human effects and the population got swatted down to 20%, they could recover. Now, they would have a tougher time. Fewer bears are able to survive, and it's likely there is less genetic diversity for adaptation.

So if the sea ice is re-forming, and reforms for, say, ten years thanks to a brief cooler spell, but then the temperature goes back up and stays there thanks to, oh, one of those enormous methane pockets that is currently venting into the atmosphere, the polar bears could easily all be dead in fifty years. Which I don't know maybe matters to some people.

I too am MORE concerned about human survival prospects in the years to come (it's amazing how many people think food comes from stores and think an increase in temperature will just mean more sunny beaches) but as an evolutionary biologist in training I find it sickening that we appear to be in the midst of a human-caused mass extinction event and a large number of people just couldn't give a fuck if they tried. Or they think that if God wanted to spare them he would, which is exactly the kind of thought-virus that can lead to species-level suicide.

[Serafine666]

This is not necessarily true at all. Even solitary, territorial animals can be hurt by density-dependent negative feedback. For instance, finding a suitable mate becomes much harder. Also, there are just plain fewer polar bears around period to survive these cycles. To pull out some entirely made-up numbers, if there was a warming cycle before human effects and the population got swatted down to 20%, they could recover. Now, they would have a tougher time. Fewer bears are able to survive, and it's likely there is less genetic diversity for adaptation.

So if the sea ice is re-forming, and reforms for, say, ten years thanks to a brief cooler spell, but then the temperature goes back up and stays there thanks to, oh, one of those enormous methane pockets that is currently venting into the atmosphere, the polar bears could easily all be dead in fifty years. Which I don't know maybe matters to some people.

I too am MORE concerned about human survival prospects in the years to come (it's amazing how many people think food comes from stores and think an increase in temperature will just mean more sunny beaches) but as an evolutionary biologist in training I find it sickening that we appear to be in the midst of a human-caused mass extinction event and a large number of people just couldn't give a fuck if they tried. Or they think that if God wanted to spare them he would, which is exactly the kind of thought-virus that can lead to species-level suicide.

Fascinating! The most relevant question, therefore, seems to be if the polar bear numbers have fallen below the ability of the species to survive a long-term depletion of sea ice. Good explanation, Anguirus.

[Simon_Jester]

I think the best part about the use of polar bears as charismatic megafauna is that it's scientifically absurd. We have evidence of the existence of polar bears through dozens of episodes of severe warming and cooling... yet they're still around. To pretend that THIS instance of the world getting warming will be totally different than every other instance of the world getting (more) warm is inane.

It would be except you ignore the fact that human hunting already dramatically reduced polar bear numbers, making the species far less able to cope to climate shifts. That’s besides the fact that if global warming has any basis in fact, it’s occurring much faster then any previously known warming cycle. Furthermore in ordered to survive the polar bears need to shift to living primarily on the mainland, rather then on islands linked by disappearing sea ice, and those mainland areas are the prime locations for human habitation.

For reference, Serafine:

Under similar conditions a lot of American megafauna vanished about ten thousand years ago. There was a sudden surge of warming (the end of the last Ice Age), and for the first time in history they had to cope with human hunters... at the same time. And if you're wondering where all the mammoths and giant ground sloths went, that's what happened to them. Yes, they had weathered many climate shifts before (the same number the polar bears had, minus one). But the combination of a climate shift with humans killing off a large fraction of the species including the ones lucky enough to find a safe refuge from the changing climate was not survivable.
__________

Which means that if the polar bears did go extinct, it would be very much our fault, even if we didn't create the climate change. And while I don't think polar bears are so glorious that driving them to extinction is a truly major crime on the scale of nations and civilizations (the way, say, murdering millions of people would be), think about the implications. We wouldn't just be destroying their species; we'd be doing it by accident, with no intention of doing so. While you may not have anything against polar bears, you also have no particular reason to want them dead.

So while one might be willing to kill them all in pursuit of some specific goal that required lots of dead polar bears, does that translate into being willing to kill them purely because we can't be bothered to think of a way not to kill them all? I don't think that's behavior worthy of a species that claims to be intelligent and civilized. We should be able to think through the implications of our own actions to the point where if we destroy a species, we darn well needed to.

[Lusankya]

So... a species that does not generally depend upon other members of its species for survival is less able to cope with climate change because there are fewer of them? That would make sense if you were talking about wolves (which works together for survival) but not polar bears.
Thus far, polar bears are coping quite easily especially since the sea ice is re-forming faster and thicker than it has in decades. Despite reports otherwise, the situation is not as dire as it is pretended to be if it is dire at all.

Keep in mind that large solitary animals like polar bears need quite a large range to support one individual, while wolves require a much smaller territory. This means that in order to have a breeding population of polar bears, we need to maintain a large area of undeveloped land, whereas to maintain a similar population of wolves, we need a much smaller area. That's why for animals like tigers and pandas, the major cause of their decline is habitat destruction.

[His Divine Shadow]

Global warming stopping (or atleast hindering it) the circulation of the oceans is a pretty scary idea.

[Lagmonster]

Split out the one-liners and bullshit.
End of Line.

[Chocolate Kiwii]

Which means that if the polar bears did go extinct, it would be very much our fault, even if we didn't create the climate change. And while I don't think polar bears are so glorious that driving them to extinction is a truly major crime on the scale of nations and civilizations (the way, say, murdering millions of people would be), think about the implications. We wouldn't just be destroying their species; we'd be doing it by accident, with no intention of doing so. While you may not have anything against polar bears, you also have no particular reason to want them dead.

So while one might be willing to kill them all in pursuit of some specific goal that required lots of dead polar bears, does that translate into being willing to kill them purely because we can't be bothered to think of a way not to kill them all? I don't think that's behavior worthy of a species that claims to be intelligent and civilized. We should be able to think through the implications of our own actions to the point where if we destroy a species, we darn well needed to.

I don't think your context of "accident" takes in the momentum behind the demise of the Polar bears. I mean, we are just really learning in the past ten-twenty years that the thing we have been doing, with all of the industrialization, manufacturing, and development that it can have a negative impact on something that endless generations of humanity have thought of as static and unimpeachable. Certainly we could collaborate to enact strategies that save these bears: but it doesn't seem like anyone's willing to take the first hard step.
Which does not bode well, because when global warming is really starting to devastate our species it's going to be to late for us to do anything about it.
Your right, there is no victory in extinction and shrinking bio-diversity but I am much more concerned about bio-diversity than extinction of a resource heavy bear. I would much rather the green movement spend it's time more wisely than investing in commercials about raining polar bears. Especially when pollinating insects are fading.

Your right though, we should certainly be more considerate of the consequences of our actions: But how do you drive home that we are not only personally responsible but that we should take that responsibility seriously.

If PETA were to cut the shit about "Animal consumption=Animal Cruelty" and started talking about the very real implications of industrialized ranching like methane gas, poison air, a great avenue for the next plague, I would take these people more seriously. If their A-list celebrity sponsors stopped suggesting I am committing a holocaust every-time I go to KFC, maybe I would listen. But that would require them to educate themselves on a whole host of subjects. Like ethics, biology, anthropology, bio-history, technological progression, and that shit just isn't as fun as screeching into a blow-horn.
Just like If the greeners would take on a campaign about an animal or concern that actually effects me. That intelligent people could actually wrap their head around in their significance I could take them more seriously than I do from the shock value of raining bears. I expect greeners to show a serious comercial about raining polar bears to small first-world children on "Earth Day" not to adults, and scientists, politicians, sponsors, and a voting public.

Global warming stopping (or atleast hindering it) the circulation of the oceans is a pretty scary idea.

How would global warming stop the circulations of the oceans? Wouldn't the moon just fill in for any faulty Terran mechanisms?? What would happen if they stopped circulating???

[Samuel]

He is refering to this:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004 ... rents1.jpg

Melting ice messes with the salinity of the water which could screw with the transfer of heat. I don't know the details about how likely or how big a deal it would be, but the movement of warm water is why France is warmer than Ukraine.

[General Trelane (Retired)]

Global warming stopping (or atleast hindering it) the circulation of the oceans is a pretty scary idea.

How would global warming stop the circulations of the oceans? Wouldn't the moon just fill in for any faulty Terran mechanisms?? What would happen if they stopped circulating???

Circulation, not tides. The oceans act as massive heat engines that directly affects climate. . .and are, in turn, affected by climate. It is entirely possible that global warming could drastically change this circulation.

A detailed description is available in Sean Mewhinney's paper Minds in Ablation. But note that this is very dry reading, and it's written with respect to Arctic ice formation rather than specifically on climate change (it's purpose is to debunk Velikovsky supporters who claim the Arctic ice sheet is no more than 3500 years old), so you have to wade through a lot to get the relevant info.

Edit: In hindsight, I think I'm thinking of an earlier paper by Mewhinney called Ice Cores and Common Sense wherein the author analyzes the North Atlantic circulation in great detail. Unfortunately, I can't find a non-paid site that has this (www.catastrophism.com has it, I think you now need to pay to subscribe).

[General Trelane (Retired)]

Thus far, polar bears are coping quite easily especially since the sea ice is re-forming faster and thicker than it has in decades. Despite reports otherwise, the situation is not as dire as it is pretended to be if it is dire at all.

Those are two claims that beg for evidence considering most of the media coverage shows that polar bears are NOT coping quite easily and that arctic sea ice is NOT re-forming faster and thicker (a quick google search shows that the latter may be true for the Antarctic, but polar bears don't live there).

[His Divine Shadow]

How would global warming stop the circulations of the oceans? Wouldn't the moon just fill in for any faulty Terran mechanisms?? What would happen if they stopped circulating???

The oceans circulate because of hot and cold temperature differences between the equator and poles. If the temperature gradient decreases, the circulation will slow.

This is the eventual fate of the oceans eventually in hundreds of millions of years as the sun grows brigther, it will warm the earth and reduce temperature differences between the polar regions and equator, the great circulation will slow and the waters of the oceans will become stale, complex life will die out in the oceans.

Nothing as dramatic will probably happen due to global warming, but it is a fragile system with several factors beyond what I mentioned here. A simple example would be if for instance the gulf stream slows, who can tell what chaos that would throw europe into for instance, perhaps a new ice age?

[Starglider]

This is the eventual fate of the oceans eventually in hundreds of millions of years as the sun grows brigther, it will warm the earth and reduce temperature differences between the polar regions and equator,

What? The earth is warmed by two sources; geothermal, which is evenly spread, and solar, which is proportional to latitude. An increase in solar input should increase temperature differences; the poles will warm up, but the equator will warm up more.

the great circulation will slow and the waters of the oceans will become stale, complex life will die out in the oceans.

What? Complex life exists just fine in lakes with minimal water exchange. What sort of 'stale' are you on about? AFAIK giant global currents play a negligiable role in water oxygenation; I'm sure they help distribute nutrients from river mouths, but that would happen anyway, just somewhat slower. In any case, increasing the energy input into a system (via increased solar radiation) will almost certainly increase the strength of weather and ocean currents, though of course they will have long since changed do different patterns due to continental drift.

[His Divine Shadow]

From what I've read, ocean circulation seems to be pretty important for oxygenation and is not negligible:
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/1vc.html

Some scientists have theorised ocean stagnation as a possible cause for the permian excinction for instance:
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/ ... t/29/1/7-a

The whole scenario as I described it was something I read somewhere I cannot find now, about a potential far future scenario and how life is going to end on earth, it also mentioned I remember the eventual slackening of tectonic activity and the locking up of CO2 in rocks.

I have no counter to what you mentioned about why the temperature-gradients would change between equator and poles when solar activity increases as I took what would happen from said source. It makes me wonder why scientists claim the temperature gradient is going to lessen due to current global warming? Is the warming not global and uniform and thus the same gradient would be retained despite overall temperature increases and melting of icecaps?

[Samuel]

I have no counter to what you mentioned about why the temperature-gradients would change between equator and poles when solar activity increases as I took what would happen from said source. It makes me wonder why scientists claim the temperature gradient is going to lessen due to current global warming? Is the warming not global and uniform and thus the same gradient would be retained despite overall temperature increases and melting of icecaps?

The sun putting out more energy is an input and is not evenly spread. By contrast CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are pretty evenly distributed.

[His Divine Shadow]

But if the increase in temperature is evenly spread then the temperature gradient ought to remain constant, seems to me global warming must affect the poles more than the equator.

[Alyrium Denryle]

So... a species that does not generally depend upon other members of its species for survival is less able to cope with climate change because there are fewer of them? That would make sense if you were talking about wolves (which works together for survival) but not polar bears.
Thus far, polar bears are coping quite easily especially since the sea ice is re-forming faster and thicker than it has in decades. Despite reports otherwise, the situation is not as dire as it is pretended to be if it is dire at all.

General consequences of having a difficult time finding a mate are as follows:

Increased generation time: This slows down reproductive rate and when the adults start dying (because they also have a harder time finding food with decreased sea ice, or simply variable sea ice formation from year to year), this will cause a further decrease in population which will magnify the problem further. Exponential growth does have a corollary, and that is demographic collapse.

Decreased Effective Population Size: Not to be confused with census population size. This is the the population size that matters for things like inbreeding and genetic drift. Smaller effective population size=more inbreeding, and genetic drift can overcome selection even with relatively high selection coefficients.

Population Subdivision: With increasingly patchy habitat (and I want a citation for your sea ice claim... if the sea ice forms quickly and thick but in a patchy distribution the same problems still apply), populations get subdivided and this increases assortative mating. This will lead to inbreeding. Inbreeding leads to inbreeding depression, inbreeding depression will often lead to population collapses.