I find it rather interesting that the Interior Department can cite the decline in Arctic Sea Ice as the reason for adding Polar Bears to the protected list. Are they not privy to the National Snow and Ice Data Center findings?
While it may be true that the Arctic sea ice is presently .20 million square miles less than the 1979-2000 average, their data also finds that in the span of a single year (April '07-'08), Arctic sea ice increased .24 million square miles.
Seems to me, another cold winter and we're right back to normal levels are we not?
What's more, according to the U.S. Geological Survey whose 2006 report titled: "Polar Bear Population Status in the Southern Beaufort Sea" finds in its conclusion that:
"Information on changes in survival and physical stature, reported here, indicate that the status of polar bears in the SBS region is changing. Annual survival rates of COYs estimated from the 2001 to 2006 capture-recapture study were lower than survival rates estimated in previous studies. The increased loss of cubs during the first 6 months of life may be associated with the smaller physical stature of COYs observed in recent years. The smaller physical stature of COYs was paralleled by a smaller physical stature of adult males, even though the average age of adult males has increased. Despite these indicators of a declining status for the SBS polar bear population, our best estimate of the current size of the population does not show a statistically significant decline. This may mean there has been no change in numbers in recent years, or it could reflect insufficient precision in current and past estimates to resolve such a change.
Although our 2001-2006 capture-recapture study did not provide evidence for a change in the size of the SBS polar bear population, significant changes in cub survival and physical stature must ultimately have population level ettects. Lowered body weight has been implicated in declining survival of polar bear cubs in western Hudson Bay, Canada. There, reduced cub survival, associated with declines in physical stature caused by reduced foraging opportunity, was recorded long before a statistically significant decline in population size was confirmed. The relationship between decreased availability of sea ice and declining population size in western Hudson Bay, which is near the southern extreme of polar bear range, is cause for concern regarding the future status of polar bears in more northern regions such as the SBS. Because more profound declines in sea ice area and extent are predicted for these northern regions, continued monitoring and conservative 'management of the SBS polar bear population is warranted."
Naturally, given that they're receiving grant money, it stands to chance they'll make it a point to assert that "...continued monitoring and conservative management of the SBS polar bear population is warranted." Be that as it may, it's quite clear that according to their own analysis, the U.S. Geological Study's findings over a 5 year period failed to provide evidence for a change in the Polar Bear population. What's more, it is quite a leap then (why one might even say from one melting ice cap to another) for yet another government agency to then dismiss the existence of such evidence (or lack thereof) to then suggest that the loss of Arctic sea ice is the direct result of an inconclusive decline in polar bear population.
It seems to me the only thing that's to be concluded in the final analysis of all this data is the deeply held notion that additional loss of sea ice is predicted to occur (despite evidence from yet another government agency suggesting otherwise) therefore giving rise to the need for additional grant money to assure additional monitoring and research projects.
Dare I say once again, Government begets more government.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
10 comments:
You want facts and figures to get in the way of perpetuating a perfectly good hoax? Shame on you, Soapie.
I know. Here I've done it again. I can't help myself, I'm a skeptic by nature.
When I read the report from the USGS, my first inclination was that maybe the smaller stature has something to do with a lack of reliable food thereby resulting in less body mass and overall growth and development.
I seem to recall watching some National Geographic special on Polar Bears some time ago. And, I'm quite certain they were eating baby seals.
I also seem to recall reading a report of a decline in overall sea lion population due to trapping and hunting.
It seems to me there exists a bit of a connect here.
Your wording "we can clearly see that according to their analysis here, there is no concrete evidence which suggests that the loss of Arctic sea ice is the direct result of any questionable decline in polar bear populations."
unintended, I think from the tenor,
implies that 'the loss of sea ice
is the result of the polar bear decline" whereas, you surely meant the reverse? BTW, the head of
Interior is our former Governor, not a big environmentalist in the
liberal sense; he has held off quite some time on the decision.
Once again the frustrating but necessary interfacing of politics and science. Are we to infer
(jestingly, of course) that saving the polar bear species is a good thing, but GW should be left out as a cause? As far as grant money to continue monitoring, well, you couldn't pay me enough to count polar bear noses at 60 below! :)
I think the wording was okay as it was. Nonetheless, to avoid any confusion, I did make some editing changes. Thanks BB.
I dunno, am not an editor; as a reader it sounded reverse. On topic, the interior dept release is here: http://www.doi.gov/news/06_News_Releases/061227.html
..my bro in law is high in US Fisheries and such are the politics, both the fishermen and greenpeace have threatened him bodily harm. Funny, but sad...
I love that, "it could reflect insufficient precision" - really? A government study that had less than efficient means of gathering data or metrics - someone stop me from falling over. You mean we (humans) have not been keeping records long enough to tell whether or not the earth warms and cools in million year cycles? Nah, 30 or 40 years should be enough data - we're all doomed by climate change - or is that government waste and spending. Well, in any case, we're all doomed.
Greenpeace...
Are you aware that one of the co-founders of Greenpeace even says the organization has become, not an environmental movement in the sense that he and others intended but rather it's become, a political movement?
Something else I can't help but get over, when you mentioned fisheries and greenpeace in the same breath it made me think of it BB, is that while Greenpeace and other liberal politicians and/or environmentalists go on and on and on about the levels of mercury in the fish we eat, they're at the same time advocating that we bring mercury filled Compact Flourescent Lightbulbs into our homes.
This is clearly more evidence that the War on Drugs has yet to be won.
Though in reality that's probably unfair to your recreational drug user.
I see the irony in pushing CFL bulbs. As you stated earlier, you cut coupons and practice frugality.
So buying these things is a cost savings: http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2007/10/29/how-much-do-compact-fluorescent-bulbs-really-cost/
Fish are bio-accumulators of Mercury:
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~frf/sea-mehg.html
..so depending on the type (I like trout) and the ammount, there is a potential danger (we bio-accumulate as well) although like many other medical and biological studies, opinion cycles as to the
real danger. (consider the ongoing debate over mercury in early childhood vaccinations) The CFLs contain minimal Mercury, as compared to the ubiquitous mercury switch which you undoubtably have in your auto and possibly in your dwelling. Breakage and cleanup of a CFL has been decried in some quarters as requiring a hazmat team, but as a retired chemist, believe me, it can be simply vacuumed efficiently with any vacuum cleaner. Many common shoplights contain mercury as well, although there is no organized 'resistance movement'
concerning them...yet. :) and, if I understand correctly, it isn't that CFLs bother some folk so much as having them forced on them?
ps..Ni-Cad batteries, now there's a toxicity potential...
You bring up the defining issue when referring to CFLs (that of course being an issue of a mandate by force).
It is this which serves as the proverbial gun which abounds in the Liberal movement today.
While it is true that a hazzmat team probably isn't goint to need to come out to your house if one should break (I'll concede that), the cleanup process is a bit more complicated than would otherwise be with an incandescent. And not as simple as merely vacuuming up the residue. Well, this according to the EPA at least.
http://www.epa.gov/mercury/spills/index.htm
I actually do have a few of them in my home. Whether or not they're saving me money, I can't tell. But, I will tell you that they're not as enjoyable as a normal bulb (in that they take a while to warm up and the type of lighting they give off doesn't seem quite as bright).
Post a Comment