Scientist Responds To Misleading Polar Bear Coverage | Carbon Brief
Polar bears depend for their survival on adequate access to sea ice. It is only from the surface of the sea ice that they consistently can catch the seals on which they depend for nutrition. Planetary physics require that the world will continue to warm as long as greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere continue to rise. There is absolutely no uncertainty that the world will warm without mitigating the rise in GHG concentrations! And, a warmer world will mean less sea ice. So, as I (and many of my colleagues) have predicted, all polar bear populations ultimately will decline and disappear if we do not reduce our emissions.
Posts
2 comments:
Hummmmmmmmm it seems we have heard this arguement before, and here we go again >SAD
His logic is unassailable, however it is rooted in the assumptions that a) anthropogenic CO2 is volumetrically important (with feedback mechanisms) and sufficient to increase global temperatures, b) that no other significant, buffering mechanisms exist (none are in the IPCC models) and c) that the net effect will be "catastrophic", i.e. cause a sudden, unworkable (for polar bears) change in their ability to find food.
The first two assumptions are simply CAGW meme. The third depends on prior warm phases being responsible for near extinction of the prior polar bear populations, which then staggered back to the present numbers. This paleo-population knowledge should in his forte, but as far as I know, there is no such information (for either case).
If genetics showed that polar bears were nearly wiped out 5,000 years ago, as apparently African leopards were in the near past, then he would have evidence for his case. I don't believe he has that data.
Post a Comment