Science and Society

It would seem that Sec. Kempthorne is merely doing what many other government officials in a similar situation would do: attempt to strike a compromise which satisifies no one, which has no practical effects, and which fails to recognize the more significant problems behind the issue.

One question remains, though: was the polar bear on the right in the photo accompanying today's entry signifying his approval of the measure, or was he (or she) merely gesturing for the camera? I wouldn't want him (or her) to give the wrong impression, after all.

A few years ago Alaska was seriously looking into sueing for seperation from the US as the US has not lived up to the state hood act. The US didn't own Alaska at the time of statehood. Now it is time to seperate again, free Alaska from outside infuences!!!

According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) which is a branch of NOAA, this season's (winter 2007-'08) Arctic Ice Cap was near normal in area, as opposed to below normal in the recent past, and was thicker than usual. In addition, the Antarctic ice cap is actually larger than is normal.

Why don't we transplant some Polar Bears to the Antarctic to help ensure their survival?

where are you getting your information?. I am looking at my own back yard at Mt. Hood in Oregon and the glacial side of the moutain has decreased a third in just the past 20 years. I am hear to tell you that this warming is afffecting everything. I used to have frogs in my back yard. They are no longer there. I am not some extremist. Nor am I some one to change the world. My voice is small.I would like to do what I can.

RE: Shanno. This type of isolated peaking at climate change is not only foolhearty, but dangerous. Did you ever stop to think that parts of the world change in temperature?

Some get hotter, some get colder, its climate shifting.

Sure your part of the world has gotten warmer, but what about parts who have become cooler? Don't assume that since it happens to you, that it is everywhere.

Secondly, have you stopped to think that changes in the temperature may not be anything human related? Did you know that 98% of all pollutants are natural?

Also, have you stopped and thought about the biggest affect on our climate? The sun. To gauge the effect of our sun on earth, we look at other planets to see how things are changing and compare them to Earth.

Get informed, don't hide behind what extremists scream and holler and "sue" for.

The endangered species movement was meant to save animals in danger of extinction - which was determined by numbers - how many and was the population growing or shrinking. It was not meant to be used as a political weapon for Global Warming or anything else. No matter how you feel about one, the other should be left for its intended purpose - to protect animals in imminent danger of extinction - and the Polar bear is not there. I hope we will continue to protect endangered animals everywhere. Using the endangered species designation to forward any other agenda is wrong - in my opinion.

Todd,

Actually the National Snow and Ice Data Center site is absolutely full of evidence that the ice is melting. They even help run a museum exhibit showing the changes inflicted on the Inuit. A study done by them last year shows the ice melting faster that IPCC computer models even suggested.

Given that a great many large mammals species died out at the end of the last ice age (and the current rate of extinction world-wide) it isnt hard to see that animals are quite often unable or unwilling to adapt their ranges or behavior quickly enough to avoid extinction. There have also been several studies showing that polar bears are having an increasingly difficult time of it.

Habitat loss is the number one killer of species world-wide, I don't know why it would be any different with the polar bear.

I think you're correct in your statement, but NSIDC also said what I posted for the latest winter season. I didn't try to color the message it only says for the most recent reporting period that the extent of the Arctic Ice Cap was about normal in area and thicker than usual which I assume is a true statement on their part. The fact that the Antarctic ice is actually larger than normal should be a confirmation off at least a short-term re-balancing of the ice sheets. Furthermore, there is a study by the Univ. of Washington regarding the ice covering Greenland which asserts that while the ice is melting it is doing so at a much slower rate than was thought previously. I don't want to see polar bears disappear, but I also don't want to see the US as third world nation because we wouldn't take simple steps to preserve our energy security and standard of living.

bubba.....sorry, I put your name in the name box instead of mine....oopps, not enough coffee yet.

I think that those who would blame the northern polar warming should read up on internal radiative forcing, the PDO and the North Atlantic Oscillation and keep in mind the current increase in vulcanism particularly under Greenland.

Bubba.....the use of oil in ANWR seems to be a matter of some disagreement. According to API figures it could offset our importation of Saudi oil for three decades while Nancy Polosi says it will only last 6 months. My point, obviously, is that for the past year the reduction of ice at the poles has not only stopped but reversed unless you have some other explanation for what's happened, Al Gore notwithstanding. The University of Washington study also suggests that the Greenland ice isn't melting as fast as was originally thought, what does that say to you? I think it's also true that polar bear populations have also been on the rise recently.....no?

Your other point is the welfare of the polar bear is adversely effected by man....dah! We can do anything you want to try and mitigate mankind’s harm to the polar bear and it won't matter a hair. China has surpassed us as the world's leading carbon emitter and India is close behind, Russia doesn't care about global warming so there not going to do anything. None of them will take any action on reducing their carbon emissions. So we're going to make a GESTURE that won't improve the well-being of the bears and will keep us in energy and economic uncertainty for generations to come. Nice idea Polyanna.

If you really want to do something to help the atmosphere and thereby the polar bears, you should be shouting about the virtues of nuclear power....but that's not politically correct is it?

Sorry Todd but you seem to have brought a great deal of personal baggage to this discussion. I'm simply talking about the fate of the polar bear and how this event, WHATEVER THE CAUSE (<---read this part for once) might be damaging to them.

If you want to wage a jihad based on cut and paste republican talking points, attack Al Gore or misinterpret and cherry pick science in a way that would make a creationist proud, Im not getting involved in it. I'm not a global warming expert, I'm just making a comment on the danger to polar bears caused by the loss of the ice. Again, for the fourth time, whatever the cause.

I wasnt even aware that the current state of the art of climate change denial involved doubt that it is occuring. Most of their effort seem to be focused on it being a natural process bearing no relation to human activity.

Spin it any way you want Bubba, what I stated is a FACT according to the NOAA Agency. There HAS been a reversal of the reduction of polar ice caps. It may be temporary it may not.

I didn't say I didn't believe in global warming, I don't believe listing the polar bear as an endangered species, thereby keeping America from drilling for more domestic oil will make a difference to the bears survival, but it will help you and your tree-hugging friends feel better about your existence I suppose.

If you're not representing yourself as a "global warming expert," why are you questioning what is printed in black and white on the NSIDC website unless it violates your preconceived notions. Why can't you simply say, yeah may be it's an aberration?

Is this something fundemental with your personal self-image?

Bubba....I lived through both oil crisis during the 70's and very much remember them. My family drives two Civics (35 mpg), I totally agree with your SUV comment, it's total silliness. As I mentioned before though, we should speed the building and use of nuclear power plants for energy independence and security.

There are several issues here that you are conflating into a big ball of rhetoric. There is climate change and man-made climate change. I'm not making any claim of the cause, I dont follow the issue closely enough to comment.

What I am suggesting is that by taking a single data point and ignoring all of the other ones, you arent being rational. Without even explaining that the insititute that you are citing doesnt agree with your views.

There is always more ice in the winter, you have to see how much remains once the heat is one and compare from year to year. That's like saying the earth is cooling because it was cold last winter and maybe it will stay that way forever.

There are still seasonal cycles within the larger warming trend. NOAA said just last september that the artic is melting faster than expected.

Maybe god farted but the ice is melting over time. That is placing stress on the polar bears.

And I should add, this retreat of the glaciers is happening all over the world. Glacier covered mountains in the Ruwenzoris, the source of the nile, are reatreating fast and expected to be gone within two decades. Ive climbed on those glaciers so I know they used to be there. A similar thing is happening in the everest range.

As for nuclear power, I don't really have a problem with it but we need a way to dispose of the waste.

Bubba....I understand glaciers are retreating, if somewhat slower than predicted, at least in Greenland (Univ. of Wash.) How do you explain the fact that Antarctica's ice coverage is greater than normal?

I saw a TV feature on the snows of Kilimanjaro that stated, much of it's glacier is melting due to internal heat rise, it is a volcano, I think it was on Discovery Channel. I've skied on glaciers in Austria during the summer and they're getting smaller, no doubt.

Yucca Mountain in Nevada was supposed to be the National depository for nuclear waste, but the authorization bill was killed during the Clinton years for political reasons. I think it is otherwise ready to go, if we have the political will?

Glaciers in South America, Asia, North American, Europe, Africa and the Arctic are retreating. Mountains and ranges of every type. There will always be local climate and weather systems that have different variables but the big picture seems clear.

As for Antarctica, some parts are melting but its much less studied than the arctic. One argument suggests that its surrounded by complex deep ocean currents and so behaves differently. It might also be melting from underneath as parts of the arctic did. There is just much less information about that area atm and I dont know much more about it.

But on 5 of 7 continents (no glaciers in australia I imagine), you see the same clear glacier trends. Taken with other evidences of warming, I'd say we are warming. I don't have a reason to doubt it.

Kilamanjaro could be shooting sparks out its ass and it's one mountain, one system. There could be unique pressures on it but that doesnt explain the wider trend.

Well, a quick check shows australia might not have glaciers but of course NZ does and they are retreating too.