Article - Polar Bear Numbers have Quintupled Since The 70's

[BRUCE]

Read and decide, fellow GetBiggers:

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/opinion/16516171.htm

[ieffinhatecardio]

Apparently the UN thinks the numbers are declining in certain areas.

http://www.un.org/works/environment/animalplanet/polarbear.html

Read and decide.

[BRUCE]

Apparently the UN thinks the numbers are declining in certain areas.

http://www.un.org/works/environment/animalplanet/polarbear.html

Read and decide.

You found that all by yourself did you?  Have a pat on the head 

Seriously, I encourage all readers to have a look at both links, then make their minds up.  Thanks for your contribution.

[ieffinhatecardio]

You found that all by yourself did you?  Have a pat on the head 

Seriously, I encourage all readers to have a look at both links, then make their minds up.  Thanks for your contribution.

Thanks, how's that link to the US Senate Inquiry coming along? Are you going to post it or do you expect people to research your points for you?

[240 is Back]

Why is the White House putting them on the endangered species list?

[Cavalier22]

why believe the white house-they were behind 9/11 this could be another one of their tricks

[BRUCE]

Thanks, how's that link to the US Senate Inquiry coming along? Are you going to post it or do you expect people to research your points for you?

Okay, enough.  I have something for you, I will start a new thread shortly.

Happy now?

[BRUCE]

Why is the White House putting them on the endangered species list?

Excellent question!

[ieffinhatecardio]

Okay, enough.  I have something for you, I will start a new thread shortly.

Happy now?

Yes, thank you. I'll read it and comment on it in the other thread. Thanks.

[240 is Back]

Excellent question!

I do not know the answer. I am asking  

Polar cap ice is thinning, circumference has shrunk.. perhaps the shrinking habitat is the reason. Anyone know the numbers?

BTW - Quintupled since the 70's doesn't mean much... If they jumped by 10 times from 1970 to 2000, then dropped by 50% in the last 6 years.... it would mean they quintupled but will be extinct by 2012.  See what I mean?  It's incomplete to show a selected 35 year trend without showing year by year.

[BRUCE]

I do not know the answer. I am asking  

Polar cap ice is thinning, circumference has shrunk.. perhaps the shrinking habitat is the reason. Anyone know the numbers?

BTW - Quintupled since the 70's doesn't mean much... If they jumped by 10 times from 1970 to 2000, then dropped by 50% in the last 6 years.... it would mean they quintupled but will be extinct by 2012.  See what I mean?  It's incomplete to show a selected 35 year trend without showing year by year.

I see your point, and I think it's interesting to note that Polar Bears are polarizing (pun intended) all of us in respect to Global Warming.

[Deedee]

Read and decide, fellow GetBiggers:

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/opinion/16516171.htm

I don't know.  The tagline says this op-ed was written by an "expert" for the "National Center for Policy Analysis."  Right Wing affiliation much? A quick hop and a jaunt through their website says a lot.

[BRUCE]

I don't know.  The tagline says this op-ed was written by an "expert" for the "National Center for Policy Analysis."  Right Wing affiliation much? A quick hop and a jaunt through their website says a lot.

Perhaps this expert has political motivation to opine that Polar Bear numbers are increasing, but can we not also say the same for others that have said the opposite?  It's hard to find someone without a political axe to grind, but I think if we focus on the facts, and hold ourselves to this, the issues begin to resolve themselves.  Having said this, I think an open mind is the best tool you can equip yourself with on this board.

[240 is Back]

I see your point, and I think it's interesting to note that Polar Bears are polarizing (pun intended) all of us in respect to Global Warming.

I'm reading on it now.  Seems the shrinking Arctic ice cap will be entirely melted during the summer, some time between 2040 and 2100 (models differ but it's just a matter of when, not if).

As they migrate each year, they hunt to eat, and swim to travel.  The distance is growing as ice shrinks.  So, the trip is getting longer.  As a result, they have to swim further, and some drown.  Also, they normally fast for 3 weeks on the trip.  Since the trip is getting longer, some are starving.  

Obviously I'm not getting all riled up just over the polar bears.  but if there's no ice at the poles, that means that ice is sitting in the ocean as water.  And since I'm sitting at 2 feet above sea level as we speak, I'm cautious of course.  Will the 5 acres I want to buy in 2007, be there in 2040? 2020?

[BRUCE]

I'm reading on it now.  Seems the shrinking Arctic ice cap will be entirely melted during the summer, some time between 2040 and 2100 (models differ but it's just a matter of when, not if).

As they migrate each year, they hunt to eat, and swim to travel.  The distance is growing as ice shrinks.  So, the trip is getting longer.  As a result, they have to swim further, and some drown.  Also, they normally fast for 3 weeks on the trip.  Since the trip is getting longer, some are starving.  

Obviously I'm not getting all riled up just over the polar bears.  but if there's no ice at the poles, that means that ice is sitting in the ocean as water.  And since I'm sitting at 2 feet above sea level as we speak, I'm cautious of course.  Will the 5 acres I want to buy in 2007, be there in 2040? 2020?

I've been meaning to ask you this for a while, so here goes:

Because of your belief in Global Warming as a reality, based on the evidence you have seen, will you be capitalizing on this foreseen occurrence by procuring land in areas that will not be submerged by the dates you mention?  This would surely be an incredibly lucrative investment, if your prophecy is indeed correct.

[Deedee]

Perhaps this expert has political motivation to opine that Polar Bear numbers are increasing, but can we not also say the same for others that have said the opposite?  It's hard to find someone without a political axe to grind, but I think if we focus on the facts, and hold ourselves to this, the issues begin to resolve themselves.  Having said this, I think an open mind is the best tool you can equip yourself with on this board.

For thine edification, the reason polar bear numbers increased between the 60's and 90's was because of an intense worldwide conservation effort... before that the polar bear was in trouble due to overhunting, as it will be again in the near future due to dwindling habitat.

I agree that an open mind is the best tool you can equip yourself with in general... that's why I personally always examine who has written what and what org/political group they might be affiliated with, before I take any info at face value.

[BRUCE]

For thine edification, the reason polar bear numbers increased between the 60's and 90's was because of an intense worldwide conservation effort... before that the polar bear was in trouble due to overhunting, as it will be again in the near future due to dwindling habitat.

I agree that an open mind is the best tool you can equip yourself with in general... that's why I personally always examine who has written what and what org/political group they might be affiliated with, before I take any info at face value.

Do you have any studies supporting this claim?  I'd appreciate it, if you indeed do, if you could post it here for the perusal of others here.

[240 is Back]

I've been meaning to ask you this for a while, so here goes:
Because of your belief in Global Warming as a reality, based on the evidence you have seen, will you be capitalizing on this foreseen occurrence by procuring land in areas that will not be submerged by the dates you mention?  This would surely be an incredibly lucrative investment, if your prophecy is indeed correct.

No.  I might do something little, but my skills and ability to make good decisions lie in other investment areas.

I believe the real estate market in the US is grossly overvalued.

When the fed moves rates (i think it's been 5.25 for 5x now), either the dollar, or the housing market, will take a monster hit.  I have been predicting the FL jump then decline here for 3 years, and I've been right so far.  I had some heated debates in the MBA classes, and I ended up vindicated, even when the professor kept saying "things will turn around in the fall!"  Never happened.

General trend, I think the web eliminates need to stack people. Stay home, get more from time, get more accomplished, and your boss doesn't have to pay work housing costs/assoc. risks with you.

I believe housing has gone up 100% in 4 years.  Doesn't reflect population, and directly contradicts labor demands.  it's going to settle off.  Everyone in america who owns a home will disagree of course - because it would be akin to admitting to everyone in the room that they made a 350k investment in a $225k home.

[BRUCE]

No.  I might do something little, but my skills and ability to make good decisions lie in other investment areas.

I believe the real estate market in the US is grossly overvalued.

When the fed moves rates (i think it's been 5.25 for 5x now), either the dollar, or the housing market, will take a monster hit.  I have been predicting the FL jump then decline here for 3 years, and I've been right so far.  I had some heated debates in the MBA classes, and I ended up vindicated, even when the professor kept saying "things will turn around in the fall!"  Never happened.

General trend, I think the web eliminates need to stack people. Stay home, get more from time, get more accomplished, and your boss doesn't have to pay work housing costs/assoc. risks with you.

I believe housing has gone up 100% in 4 years.  Doesn't reflect population, and directly contradicts labor demands.  it's going to settle off.  Everyone in america who owns a home will disagree of course - because it would be akin to admitting to everyone in the room that they made a 350k investment in a $225k home.

It hasn't, but thanks for your response, anyway.

For a history, visit here:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/fomc/fundsrate.htm

[Deedee]

Yer making me work here Brucie!

http://ddc.typepad.com/025431/2007/01/polar_bear_cons.html

http://raysweb.net/specialplaces/pages-species-ej/polarbear-ej.html

This one's fascinating!  You'll have to scroll down a little though, for actual info on the conservation effort.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_schliebe.html

International involvement in polar bear conservation dates back to 1965 when scientists from Canada, Norway, Denmark, USSR, and the United States met in Fairbanks to discuss polar bear conservation due to widespread concern that populations were being over harvested. Until this time there had been very little management of polar bears in the Arctic and no coordinated effort among arctic countries. Harvest rates were rising rapidly in most areas except Russia which had enacted a ban on hunting in 1956. The Fairbanks meeting resulted in the formation of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) whose mission was to coordinate polar bear research and management programs on an international basis and to exchange information on each country's programs.

Members of the PBSG and the countries they represent developed and negotiated the International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears (Agreement), which was signed in Oslo, Norway in May, 1973. Among other conditions the Parties agreed through Article VII to "conduct national research programs on polar bears, particularly research relating to the conservation and management of the species. They shall, as appropriate, coordinate such research with the research carried out by other Parties, consult with other Parties on management of migrating polar bear populations, and exchange information on research and management programs, research results, and data on bears taken." The PBSG meets every three to five years with a goal of advancing the principles of the Agreement. The most recent meeting was held June 2001 in Nuuk, Greenland. The proceedings of the working group meetings are published in the IUCN series.

[240 is Back]

Fed Leaves Key Interest Rate Unchanged

WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 -- The Federal Reserve left interest rates unchanged today, as it has since last June, and it signaled that it will continue its holding pattern for some time to come.

Skip to next paragraph
 

Related
Press Release From the Fed
 The central bank left the Federal funds rate on overnight loans between banks at 5.25 percent, as investors had expected, but it repeated its past view that “some inflation risks remain” even as it acknowledged that inflationary pressures have ebbed.

The Fed’s announcement came hours after the Commerce Department reported that the nation’s economy grew at a surprisingly fast annual pace of 3.5 percent in the final quarter of 2006.

Indeed, the economy’s performance has improved considerably in the last several months, with economic growth running somewhat higher than Fed officials had expected and consumer prices climbing more slowly.

As a result, analysts and investors have scaled back their expectations that the central bank might reduce the benchmark interest rate later this year in response to a sharper slowdown in economic growth.

At the moment, Fed officials appear on track for achieving the elusive “soft landing” they have been seeking: a modest slowdown in growth and a cooling of the housing market, which would tamp down inflationary pressures without spiraling into a recession.

[BRUCE]

Yer making me work here Brucie!

http://ddc.typepad.com/025431/2007/01/polar_bear_cons.html

http://raysweb.net/specialplaces/pages-species-ej/polarbear-ej.html

This one's fascinating!  You'll have to scroll down a little though, for actual info on the conservation effort.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_schliebe.html

International involvement in polar bear conservation dates back to 1965 when scientists from Canada, Norway, Denmark, USSR, and the United States met in Fairbanks to discuss polar bear conservation due to widespread concern that populations were being over harvested. Until this time there had been very little management of polar bears in the Arctic and no coordinated effort among arctic countries. Harvest rates were rising rapidly in most areas except Russia which had enacted a ban on hunting in 1956. The Fairbanks meeting resulted in the formation of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) whose mission was to coordinate polar bear research and management programs on an international basis and to exchange information on each country's programs.

Members of the PBSG and the countries they represent developed and negotiated the International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears (Agreement), which was signed in Oslo, Norway in May, 1973. Among other conditions the Parties agreed through Article VII to "conduct national research programs on polar bears, particularly research relating to the conservation and management of the species. They shall, as appropriate, coordinate such research with the research carried out by other Parties, consult with other Parties on management of migrating polar bear populations, and exchange information on research and management programs, research results, and data on bears taken." The PBSG meets every three to five years with a goal of advancing the principles of the Agreement. The most recent meeting was held June 2001 in Nuuk, Greenland. The proceedings of the working group meetings are published in the IUCN series.

Thanks for your contribution, Deedee, keep them coming.

[Deedee]

Thanks for your contribution, Deedee, keep them coming.

Okay, thanks, but finally to summarize... isn't it a little irresponsible to produce an article claiming that polar bears are not in trouble, implying that they've happily been reproducing at a fantastic rate for 40 years and will continue to do so, without mentioning the tiny detail that this has only occured through human intervention and the collective conservation efforts of several countries?

[BRUCE]

Okay, thanks, but finally to summarize... isn't it a little irresponsible to produce an article claiming that polar bears are not in trouble, implying that they've happily been reproducing at a fantastic rate for 40 years and will continue to do so, without mentioning the tiny detail that this has only occured through human intervention and the collective conservation efforts of several countries?

Assuming you are indeed correct, and that anything within that article is incorrect, then maybe it is.  But, Deedee, if we both agree that Polar Bears have, in fact, not dropped in population in the last 30 odd years, then are they truly in trouble?  Can we safely say Global Warming is responsible?

[Deedee]

Assuming you are indeed correct, and that anything within that article is incorrect, then maybe it is.  But, Deedee, if we both agree that Polar Bears have, in fact, not dropped in population in the last 30 odd years, then are they truly in trouble?  Can we safely say Global Warming is responsible?

Forty years ago, polar bear numbers were becoming dangerously low... due to overhunting, oil speculation/spills, human encroachment. We intervened these last decades, and it's only through the continued vigilence of scientists that we've maintained their numbers. They didn't "just" flourish. Most people don't understand that.

The future holds other survival problems for these creatures, in the form of pollutants and climate change. Global warming seems to have become a dirty word because it polarizes ( people either to the left or right, with the righties claiming it isn't manmade but is simply a natural manifestation of the world cooling and warming as it has for millions of years, and the lefties saying that it is, in fact, a manmade problem.  Either way, the cause, human or otherwise, is irrelevant. The simple fact is that the world is experiencing climate change which has, and will continue to affect the habitat of arctic marine animals, polar bears, etc. So, whatever you want to call this phenomena, yes, it is responsible. The last article I posted goes into the effects of climate change on polar bears in particular.

The irksome thing about righties is that they would have us believe that we need do nothing, (as in, hey, polar bears did just fine for 40 years, failing to factor in human intervention) that all will be right with the world because global warming is a "normal and natural" phenomena, whereas at least the lefties among us are willing to take some positive steps to prevent the extinction of certain species of animals.