Then again, their idea of "scientist" could lead to some interestin' results...

a) That they are threatened by a risk of reduction in the amount of ice and snow in their environment.
b) That they are incapable of adaption to a new environment.

Evidence and reasoning please!

Here in Australia, the Eastern Grey Kangaroo, and several other species to a lesser degree are in plague proportions in some areas.  The reason for this is that humans have vastly expanded their preferred habitat by providing open grazing together with drinking water, in what was previously forest and/or barren country.

They hop across highways even in broad daylight, and I have recently witnessed the aftermath of several serious car accidents near where I live in North-East Melbourne.  (like windshields/windscreens stoved-in like a bathtub).  At night out-of-town is when the most carnage occurs.  With alertness, one can see their eyes reflecting by the side of the road, and can slow down, because what they do is, wait carefully till you are almost upon them, and at the precise moment of perfection, hop out across in front of you. Even being aware of this, I have hit one kangaroo at night, some years ago.
In outback country, the yokels fit big bull-bars, so it is not so much a problem in the financial sense.

I have also had some close-shaves with black wallabies, around dusk or dawn, and I guess they would weigh-in at about 60Kg.  

Don't get me wrong, I love kangaroos, and if I see a fresh one dead by the side of the road, I check to see if it's a she with a joey in the pouch.....same with wombats.

However, what really gives me the shits are these goodie goodie greenies, mostly Americani, whom rile against our treatment of kangaroos.

The greenies need to be reigned-in and given some teaching in reality!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bears

Polar bears can only consistently hunt from sea ice.

Polar bears eat seals.  Seals come up through holes in the sea ice.  

Polar Bears have displayed no method or adaptation to compensate for a reduction in sea ice.

The only known polar bears that don't hunt from sea ice are ones in zoos (which are hand fed), and ones that raid garbage dumps (which put 'em in conflict with humans, as well as health hazards)

Not listing the polar bears because they could develop an adaptation in the future that we may not know about would be foolhearty.

It's be like saying we shouldn't spend any money on AIDS or cancer research because maybe our bodies will naturally adapt to it in the future.

...Not a good idea to take the chance.

And wow, kangaroos are different than polar bears, who'd guessed? * rolls eyes *

• then the fishermen do not have to brutally kill the seals.
  
• the fishermen can allow the pollar bears to eat the seals ands leave fish for the people?

Thanks  
The vegan with a solution.

I only have this one life, so I am going to try my very best to make a positive change. --- The Happy & Healthy Vegan ---

http://www.defenders.org/take_action/upcoming_events/nati ....

Washington State seems to have thrown its heart into the celebration with special enthusiasm.

But there are some Alaskans too who seem up for celebrating.

The San Diego Zoo, it should be noted, is a bit off the schedule, celebrating its own Bear Awareness Long Weekend, which began yesterday (Thursday the 8th) and will be ending on Sunday.

A new, creepy issue in bear conservation that has emerged recently is that North American bears (grizzly bears and black bears) are being poached, to supply body parts (organs especially) for use in Chinese traditional medicine.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

The type of seals that polar bears eat are usually ringed and bearded seals, which are not the type hunted in Canada (usually fur seals) the seals have different habits and behaviors that may make 'em incompatible with polar bears.

Plus it's not known how the subtle differences in the seals' physical characteristics (both internal and external) would effect the polar bears if they were consumed.

They have benefited from human disturbance of the landscape as a consequence, of increased grazing and water availability, and are at plague proportions in some areas, necessitating culling.   Yet, we get theses goodie goodie greenie alarmists protesting and talking endangered species!

When it comes to your comments about lack of adaptability of polar bears to a hypothesised change in environment which might be warmer than the MWP or the earlier Roman Warm Period, when they survived, this amounts to the same sort of goodie goodie nonsense.  

Bears are amongst the most curious and intelligent of predators.  Furthermore, IF and when their favourite diet can no longer hide under the snow, the seals will be forced to birth on rocks just as with today's UK grey seals.  (who's cubs still have signature white coats from the ice age)   The bears may then gorge on easier to obtain prey until a new balance is reached, possibly interfered with by a new generation of goodie goodies

Polar bears may have a favourite diet of arctic seals, but did you know that they eat other stuff, including fledgling birds in some areas?   I also doubt that they have their preferred diet in warm-climate zoos, where they seem to cope OK

Meanwhile goodie goodies; what about the MILLIONS of HUMAN BEINGS dying horribly in Africa etc

They are true seals, i.e. of the family Phocidae.  Though they are killed for their fur, are NOT fur seals, who are relatives of sea lions in the family Otariidae.

It is not at all impossible that in the northern part of their range, off Canada's northeast Arctic coast and Greenland's west coast, polar bears do indeed feed on them.  They belong to the same genus as the seals who are probably the bears' favorite prey, the ringed seals (P. hispida), and presumably would be similar food items for the bears.  The other seal species which TasPar mentions, the bearded seal, is also a true seal, but belonging to a different genus: Erignathus barbatus.

It is possible that the harp seals go to the Gulf of Saint Lawrence to have their babies precisely because those waters are relatively free of predators (except for the human kind).  In that case, it would seem like a blow at sustainability to import some polar bears from Alaska in order to feed on them.

Moreover, there is probably a good ecological reason why polar bears do not live thereabouts at present.

Also, the seals are not responsible for the problems with North Atlantic fisheries; people are.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

You might as well stop pretending to care about the natural environment or other species, because it's quite clear you don't.

 "Proponents of the conference are concerned that a polar-bear listing would adversely affect Alaska's economy."

I was unaware, (and am uninterested) of the matters in your quote above.

The topic was polar bears, and even if all the ice disappeared, they are highly inquisitive and intelligent predators.  Don't they also eat kelp and a few other things than seals?

We could always do food drops if necssary..... Bugger the millions of human beings dying from other problems

I am against alarmism and loss of priorities in the goodie goodie greenie movement

To confine 'em to rocky shorelines would slow 'em down and increase competition dramatically, since seals only have a limited range.  Seals can't survive for indefinitie periods in open waters with no ice, so they'd be forced to stick closer to shore, which would limit their distribution, and the amount of food available.

As the population faces a massive die-off, then within 1 or 2 generations, the polar bear population will follow suit.

Polar bears are usually extremely territorial animals.  Male bears will kill the cubs of females if they get the chance.  As sea ice becomes more limited, their confined to a smaller range, there's more bear conflicts, competition increases, and only limited resources are available.

The populations would decline.

"IF the sea ice disappears, and the seals are forced to birth on rocks, the population of seals naturally plummets.  For one, the seals themselves are naturally adapted to ice."

NONSENSE:

1. The natural balance of nature will adjust to the new circumstances
   
2. Compare the protected UK grey seal which comprise ~40% of the world population.  The pups have lovely white coats, which are a signature of when the UK was in the grip of an ice age.  They adapted to change.  Canadians, (some) think there are too many.
   
3. If polar bear predation became too great in Alaska, then I'm sure the US authorities would set-up sanctuaries, after culling the bears if necessary.
   
4. Polar bears are smart and omnivorous.  They like seals but they eat other stuff too.
   
5. Are they not said to be on the increase in Canada. (P. bears)

Fiji...no doubt.

Nature only adapts when change takes place at a natural rate.  In other words, very slowly.

The ice age and subsequent warm period didn't just happen over a few years.  The transition took thousands of years.

Nature may not adapt when change is sudden or cataclysmic.

If it did, then the dinosaurs would've survived the meteorite by instantly adaptin' to the climate change that followed.

Polar bears are smart and omnivorous.  They like seals but they eat other stuff too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bears#Hunting_and_diet ...

Polar bears are the most carnivorous of the entire bear family.  Seal meat is especially important to cubs, since, along with mother's milk, it is all they eat.  Polar Bear cubs eat only seal meat, it is essential to their diet

If polar bear predation became too great in Alaska, then I'm sure the US authorities would set-up sanctuaries, after culling the bears if necessary.

That's the whole point of listin' polar bears as endangered.  Endangered species get those sanctuaries.  They wouldn't get culled though.

If polar bears need to be culled because sea ice disappears, then that means their population has declined and will be limited.  That's what we wnat to avoid. We want to stop the population from declining.

How about fixing the suffering of humans in Africa?

Poor countries, particularly those in Africa, are expected to be the worst hit by climate change.  To help out those people, we need to limit it.

You are contradicting yourself.

Are there no other ways to help those people?

If sea ice is permanently disappearing, why would one want the population of polar bears not to decline?

You are wrong and confused about many things with polar bears.  Here are a couple, just as a quickie:

1)  You wrote:  "Polar bears are usually extremely territorial animals."
Untrue according to your Wikipedia link.

2)   You misunderstood this exchange:

ME: If polar bear predation became too great in Alaska, then I'm sure the US authorities would set-up sanctuaries, after culling the bears if necessary.

YOU: That's the whole point of listin' polar bears as endangered.  Endangered species get those sanctuaries.  They wouldn't get culled though.

Silly boy; The reason for culling the bears if necessary was that they might proliferate be eating too many seal pups which would become more exposed to predation by the bears.

3)  In another exchange:

ME: How about fixing the suffering of humans in Africa?

YOU: Poor countries, particularly those in Africa, are expected to be the worst hit by climate change.  To help out those people, we need to limit it.

You don't seem to be aware of what is happening NOW to many millions of humans, and the DO-ABLE things that are not being done.  When I have more time I may enlighten you

Sure.  But why not help by also making sure the situation doesn't get any worse to begin with.

If sea ice is permanently disappearing, why would one want the population of polar bears not to decline?

Apparently, you've missed the controvesry behind the polar bear listing.  Part of the reason the listing is so controversial is because it can effects outside the polar bear's natural habitat.

If they determine that the polar bears should be listed as endangered due to to shrinking sea ice, and that shrinking ice is due to human-induced climate change, then, under the Endangered aSpecies Act, they can take action against that force, in any way they see necessary.

In other words, they can order power plants and emissions limits across the whole of the United States (the jurisdiction covered by the Endagered
Species Act) in order to curb GHGs and try to stave off the shrinking ice as much as possible.

The point is to stave off the polar bear decline by trying to stave off the decline in sea ice as much as possible, not the other way around.

"Polar bears are usually extremely territorial animals."
Untrue according to your Wikipedia link.

Ah, should've been much more specific, I see.  Territorial durin' mating and birthing season.  As I said, it's not uncommon for adult males to try and attack cubs, 'specially if mom isn't around.

Silly boy; The reason for culling the bears if necessary was that they might proliferate be eating too many seal pups which would become more exposed to predation by the bears.

Silly idiot.  If the sea ice disappears, then the number of seal pups would decline, not increase, even with more exposure on th beaches, there'd be less of 'em to go around.  The seals rely on the ice almost as much as the polar bears.

You don't seem to be aware of what is happening NOW to many millions of humans, and the DO-ABLE things that are not being done.  When I have more time I may enlighten you

My final thesis was over the design and construction of refugee camps in Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo.  I'm pretty damn sure 300+ pages of written report on the subject have made me at least a little bit of an expert on the subject.

And if you really were enlightened on the subject, then you'd realize that as horrendously nightmarish as things are now, that abrupt global climate change could make things a hundred times worse.

There's no point in helping out now, if you're just going to ignore threats to the future that may well lead us back where we started.  It has to be a dual approach.  help out with we can now, while at the same time tryin' to avoid threats to the future.

Any humanitarian knows this to be true.  Otherwise, the end result will be cyclic, and ultimately little will be accomplished.

Black Wallaby, if you'd notice my moniker, you'd maybe get the point that my priority is NOT grossly overpopulated humans, but instead the rest of the planet which humans are quickly destroying.

And BTW, considering your highly anthropocentric attitude, your moniker is a great insult to the animal from whom you've taken it.

You said that before:

Tasermons Partner wrote: We want to stop the population [of polar bears] from declining.

If sea ice is permanently disappearing, why would one want the population of polar bears not to decline?

What is the purpose of the polar bear such that there is a point to staving off its decline?

Securing the well-being of people is by no means to be distinguished from securing the well-being of animals.  What is good for one species is good for all species.

And there is no insinuation more evil, than the one that suggests that we who work for the welfare of animals must hate human beings, and look on their sufferings with very cold hearts.

I find BlackWallaby's insinuation to that effect extraordinarily offensive.

We are into the second day of Bear Awareness Week, by the way: best wishes to one and all for a sweet celebration!

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Sea ice can also be generated artificially via nuclear power. The habitat need not ever change, regardless of the average global temperature.

That's if something untoward happens up there of course.   You, know, whilst meanwhile it gets colder in the Antarctic

So if wind/wave machines could be used to produce a frigid seawater aerosol that would crystalize as snow, that floating slush would provide a base for ice extension.  And it would build up the thickness of the ice.

The larger the ice mass that forms in winter, the longer it will last into summer, reflecting solar, helping to curb warming.

A wind/wave power ship that serves as a giant snowmaking machine in winter could generate power in a stationary anchorage the rest of the year.  What a crazy project.

Greenpeace?  Environmental studies could also be conducted from the ship.  Strategic extension of ice specifically to save remaining polar bears might be feasible?  And it would be a test of the possibility of more ships actually helping to fight GHG climate change.

A few more percent of arctic or antaractic ice might just make a big difference.  What about ships that switch poles depending upon the season?  Remote control in dangerous conditions might be possible also, to protect the crew during really bad winter storm weather.  Let the crew take a break onshore.

Nuclear powered, hehey?  I don't think so buddy.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

1. The human race is grossly overpopulated and fits the medical definition of being a cancerous tumor on the planet.

2. Every form of life has an equal right to live, though the vast majority of modern humans refuse to recognize or honor that right, or to recognize that everything in the natural world is alive.

3. Humans have polluted every inch of the Earth, caused major harm to every ecosystem, and are now causing the sixth great species extinction, the last of which took place 65 million years ago.  This is the first major extinction caused by a species.

4. Scientifically, if that's what you respect, there is no evidence that humans are any better or more important than any other species.  In fact, considering the facts listed above, it seems that humans rank well below other species in importance of ecological benefits.

5. The ones really suffering on this planet are everything NOT human.  Humans are thriving, despite the individuals who are suffering.  Other forms of life are suffering greatly as a whole.

Plus, a nice idea for the setting of a murder mystery, or a horror story: a remote, isolated, sea-water-aerosol-producing ship, at "stationary anchorage" off Antarctica ...

(Hmmm: all the Adelie penguins who flee the onslaught of a sea-leopard leap onto a piece of floating ice -- which is strangely glowing -- ; and they are afterwards never the same ... )

Wolverine (ha!, cute X-Men segue!),
thanks again for attacking anthropocentrism, especially in its vile and offensive BlackWallaby form.

Practically, I agree with everything you wrote.  I.e., I do not think any immediate action that you might propose on the basis of your five observations would be objectionable.

More conscientiously, though, as a student of ethics, I think it is acceptable in some regards for us to give priority to those who are most closely related to us: in decreasing degrees, to relatives, friends (who may indeed tie for first with relatives, and may often precede them), neighbors, fellow religionists (?), fellow employees, fellow travelers on a commuter train, etc.

But that does not by any means justify injustice toward sentient beings who are more distantly related to us.

Your second point is at issue:

<<
Every form of life has an equal right to live, though the vast majority of modern humans refuse to recognize or honor that right, or to recognize that everything in the natural world is alive.
>>

I agree with everything in that sentence, except for "equal right."

1. Many ethicists and political philosophers have a hard time explaining the concept of "right," which is especially embarrassing seeing that that concept is a foundation of our post-Enlightenment civilization.

2. It seems difficult to pontificate that the right of one kind of living creature is always equivalent to the right of another, with whom it is competing for life.  In principle that may be possible; but in actuality, it is almost always necessary to choose.

And it should disturb us all, that while sensitivity to the interests of sentient animals is growing in the US (or so I understand), the appetite for meat is growing elsewhere, along with the affluence required to procure it.

Anyway ...

Bear-Week thought of the day: In C.S. Lewis's "Prince Caspian," in which animals are anthropocentristically admired only inasmuch as they can think and speak like human beings, an unprovoked non-speaking bear attacks Peter, Susan, Edmund, Lucy, and the Dwarf Trumpkin, as they are making their way through a thick forest.  Trumpkin kills it with a single arrow, then pronounces, "There is good eating on that bear"; the carcass is minorly butchered, the flesh is wrapped in leaves and stuffed in pockets, and later, everyone dines on strips of bear wrapped around apple slices, toasted on an open fire.

My reaction, of course was: But What Would Aslan Do?

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Apparently, ya need to learn the definition of an ecosystem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem

Every native living thing is an important part of its ecosystem (humans bein' a possible exception).  Other plants and animals have evolved alongside those creatures for thousnads, and in some cases, millions of years.  The stability of an ecosystem itself is determined by the coexistence of various plants and animals in ways such as feeding groups/webs, mutualism, parasitism, communalism, etc.  

To remove one species would interrupt certain parts of this web and may have a dramatic effect on the system as a whole.

With polar bears, they are the apex predators within their range. Several animal species, particularly arctic foxes and glaucous gulls, routinely scavenge polar bear kills.  The relationship between ringed seals and polar bears is so close that the abundance of ringed seals in some areas appears to regulate the density of polar bears, while polar bear predation in turn, regulates density and reproductive success of ringed seals.  The evolutionary pressure of polar bear predation on seals probably accounts for some significant differences between Arctic and Antarctic seals. Compared to the Antarctic, where there is no major surface predator, Arctic seals use more breathing holes per individual, appear more restless when hauled out on the ice, and rarely defecate on the ice.

The seals, foxes, gulls, and other species that interact directly with the polar bears also interact with a number of other species themselves.  If a dramatic change in the polar bear population occurs, it would filter throughout the ecosystem, changing it's very basic elements very quickly.

In this way, polar bears may even be considered a keystone species.

Totally bizarre by contrast is questioning what might be the "purpose" of a species, with the implicit diabolic suggestion that nothing is worth anything unless you can prove it is worth something.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Wikipedia was plagiarized to produce the above-quoted comment-text of Tasermons Partner. Except for seven words in the first sentence, all of the text quoted above from Tasermons Partner's comment was copied verbatim from the Wikipedia article on polar bears.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bears#Ecological_role

Ecological role

The polar bear is the apex predator within its range. Several animal species, particularly arctic foxes and glaucous gulls, routinely scavenge polar bear kills.[46]

The relationship between ringed seals and polar bears is so close that the abundance of ringed seals in some areas appears to regulate the density of polar bears, while polar bear predation in turn, regulates density and reproductive success of ringed seals.[44] The evolutionary pressure of polar bear predation on seals probably accounts for some significant differences between Arctic and Antarctic seals. Compared to the Antarctic, where there is no major surface predator, Arctic seals use more breathing holes per individual, appear more restless when hauled out on the ice, and rarely defecate on the ice.[46]

The opening sentences are similar (differences highlighted):

Tasermons Partner: With polar bears, they are the apex predators within their range.

Wikipedia: The polar bear is the apex predator within its range.

One can thank Wikipedia for much of the text:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bears#Ecological_role

Since ya obviously haven't been payin' attention the links, (otherwise you'd have known how important polar bears were to the ecosystem, and wouldn't have asked the question) I decided to be more upfront and post the information directly.

I see that it worked, and that you've have read the article!  ;)

Hopefully now you'll realize just how important polar bears are, and why this listing for the Endangered Species Act means so much.

Ain't it funny how that works out? ;)

I thought about this on the trail and realized that a far simpler device would do this arctic snowmaking much better though.  Just wind/wave powered buoys that pump seawater up into the wind.

If these were mass produced and controlled to move in front of the edge of the forming ice, maybe enough extra coverage could be attained to really help reflect enough sunlight to signifigantly effect GHG climate change?

Likewise maybe these kind of buoys in the tropics could increase moisture in the air, forming reflective clouds and increasing rainfall in arid regions.  High pressure pumps powered by wind/wave/solar could shoot water way up into the air from the top of the wind tower.

They could be extremely powerful given wind/wave energy resources.  Greening whole arid desert regions near coastlines.  Clouds in tropical regions are very effective at reflecting solar heat.

This maybe another mechanized solution that could do some crucial geo-engineering.  Spraying water into the air doesn't seem that radical either, not like injecting compounds into the upper atmosphere or dumping iron in the ocean on a massive scale to grow more algae.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Every living species has a purpose. We depend on all living species for our own survival, because we are a part of the same environment. For instance, polar bears control seal populations, which control fish population, which control  photo and zooplankton populations, which control the nutrient flow in the oceans . . . and so on and so forth.

I think your problem may be in the way you think of humanity's basic relationship to our environment. OUR environment, not THE environment. Maybe it doesn't exist to serve us, but we exist as a part of the whole, and have a responsibility to protect the whole?

Does a species adapted to living on sea ice have a purpose if there is no sea ice?

The bears are a "canary in a coal mine" (no pun intended. Okay, maybe just a little). If they go, we may very well follow.

Might I suggest a little remedial reading? Any junior high school ecology textbook will do the trick . . .

This little exchange is a perfect illustration of the fundamental difference in world view between environmentalists and anti-environmentalists.  Or how about a more forgiving term: "conventional thinkers." Conventional thinking sees mankind as the purpose of evolution, and that all living things and substances of any kind exist solely to be used by mankind.  Environmentalists recognize this attitude as the childish conceit a three year old. Children that age and younger can not yet recognize that the things around them exist when they are out of that three year old's sight.

Does a species adapted to living on Earth have a purpose if it destroys the Earth?

It's fine to prioritize one's friends, family, etc. in making personal decisions.  It's not OK for society as a whole to prioritize humans over other species, especially when humans are thriving and the rest of the planet is dying because of them.

"I agree with everything in that sentence, except for 'equal right.'"

The practical meaning of "all species have an equal right to live" is that it's not OK to kill anything except to eat it.  Respecting this right would radically change human society for the better in the way that it interacts with the rest of the planet.  Just think, the air, water, and land are alive, so no amount of artificial pollution would be allowed.  Can't kill trees, we don't eat them.  Etc.  Of course this can't be taken to a microscopic extreme, because we probably kill things just by walking or breathing, and there would certainly be exceptions for killing things like biting mosquitoes.  But anyone with any sense gets the idea.

Do you mean the entire world ecosystem would collapse? If so, do you mean that would happen even in a case of just one sea-ice-less pole?

Hein de Baar says he expects the first iceless North Pole summer to arrive in 40 years, or maybe 7 years.
digitaljournal.com/article/254633

De Baar has also seen with his own eyes that the ice at the other side of the planet, the North Pole, has broken all records in September 2007. He expects it not to be the last. "We think that in forty years time there will be no more ice at all on the North Pole after the summer. But, if we apply new calculations, it may well be from 2015 onwards. White sea-ice reflects sunlight. The pitch-black water that replaces the ice, absorbs that light, and this accelerates the melting."

If cooling is desired, why not simply float reflectors in the equatorial Pacific Ocean?

Again, I urge you: remedial ecology 101.

What you need to take away from all of this, though, is the circumstances of that mass-extinction. Messing with natural systems produces snowballing counter-effects. That is in no way a certain outcome, any more than it is certain that smoking WILL cause cancer in a given number of years. But only an idiot thinks they can consume a witches brew of cancer-causing chemicals without increasing their risk of bad things happening to them. We can't afford to be that reckless and stupid.

...251.4 million years ago.
seedmagazine.com/news/2008/04/suspending_life.php
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Triassic_extinction_event

"This is probably a waste of time, but I'll try again.  If there is no sea ice at the poles, the entire ecosystem collapses. We depend on that ecosystem for our survival as much as polar bears, or seals, or  zooplankton for that matter."

It has also been observed by sane biologists that wherever there is a potential niche for life, even the bizarre, that life will indeed occupy it, no matter how weird it may seem.

IF, repeat, IF the relatively small eco-system dependent on sea ice were to collapse, then there would be a new balance in nature.  Generally, the warmer it is, the greater is the scope for complex eco systems.  Better still if there is increased feedstock CO2 for photosynthesis

"...don't you think that loosing the reflectivity of all that bright white ice will have an, um, effect on global systems?..."

Did you know that most of the heat in high latitudes actually comes from the tropics?

Did you know that the albedo of ice up there is not hugely different to that of water, when the sun is low in the sky?  (take a look at the sun over water near sunset)

Did you know......oh that will do

Once again, please look at the link I provided previously for ecosystem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem

If it was the world, then it'd be called a biosphere:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere

Ya know, if you'd just do alittle research on Wiki or just on the internet in general, we wouldn't haveta take our time to inform ya on simple definitions which most informed people already know when they enter these forums...

It can be a useful starting point but great care must be taken to check the wider realm of information especially when emotional issues are involved.

It goes without saying that life on Earth will survive, even if the worst scenarios for the current global warming crisis and biodiversity crisis play out.  But we human beings now alive most certainly have powerful ethical interests in maintaining the community of living creatures as we know it; and the warming of Arctic and Antarctic ecosystems is surely disturbing that community.  Sensible people obviously understand your words about "collapse" to refer to the imminent destruction of the community into which we have all been born, and NOT to the perishing of all organisms.

The Seed article, by the way, is cute and fun, but not altogether convincing.  I like very much the writer's assertion that all of us tetrapods (and probably also non-tetrapod marine vertebrates as well, including bony fishes and elasmobranchs) bear some scar from the terrible Permian-Triassic mass extinction event.  But I doubt that homeothermy (present in Mammals, Birds, and some extinct Reptiles) is one of them.  The lineages of synapsid "mammal-like reptiles," shading invisibly into true mammals, toward the middle to late Triassic, as well as a few of the diapsid archosaur lineages, especially dinosaurs and pterosaurs, seem to have convergently evolved homeothermy.  But that development came ten or twenty million years after the P-Tr extinction event.  Meanwhile, lots of reptiles who were poecilothermic flourished, and continue to flourish: the turtles, those tough survivors, neither synapsid nor diapsid, ever mysterious; the diapsid non-archosaur lizards and snakes; and the diapsid archosaur crocodilians.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Please stop raping me.

Tasermons Partner wrote: haveta [...] inform ya on

Please use standard English when addressing me.

Do you have anything to say about Wolverine's comments which I paste below?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, Black Wallaby, at least we agree on where our differences lie.  Here's the reason human suffering should not be prioritized:

The human race is grossly overpopulated and fits the medical definition of being a cancerous tumor on the planet.

Every form of life has an equal right to live, though the vast majority of modern humans refuse to recognize or honor that right, or to recognize that everything in the natural world is alive.

Humans have polluted every inch of the Earth, caused major harm to every ecosystem, and are now causing the sixth great species extinction, the last of which took place 65 million years ago.  This is the first major extinction caused by a species.

Scientifically, if that's what you respect, there is no evidence that humans are any better or more important than any other species.  In fact, considering the facts listed above, it seems that humans rank well below other species in importance of ecological benefits.

The ones really suffering on this planet are everything NOT human.  Humans are thriving, despite the individuals who are suffering.  Other forms of life are suffering greatly as a whole.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I couldn't figure if it was intended to be satire or provocation or what, so decided to let it pass.

However, I now see that you have a certain measure of wisdom, and wonder what you make of it.

Well, I suppose everyone is different, but there are some extreme cases with divergent (WEIRD)thinking.

But I do regret the affectation of dialectal speech in his writing, which slows down his readers -- rarely a nice thing to do -- , and which presumably does not save him any time as he writes either.

On the other hand, the facetious comparison of TasPar's style to verbal "rape" is outrageous.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

However, any unpleasantnesses that we may popularly ascribe to either of them, are as nothing, in comparison with the linguistic ignorance, and, much worse, the delight in insult and mockery, exhibited by Black Wallaby, all of which stinks most grossly.

Given this evil context of insult and patronization in which Black Wallaby mounted his request for a further comment, how can he possibly expect me to want to respond?

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

BTW I like dogs, I have a female Jack Russel....long leg or Parson or American variety

google.com/search?q=%22canis+candida%22+%22white+dog%22
google.com/search?q=candida+%22white%2C+bright%22
google.com/search?q=candidus+%22white%2C+bright%22

Yes, and a good starting point is obviously what Nucbuddy needs if he doesn't know basic definitions like ecosystem and biosphere but wishes to participate in an environmental forum.

I do realize the downsides to Wikipedia and how the site is edited and formatted.  If Nucbuddy wishes for more "solid" or extensive background on certain subjects, all that is required is to type a few keywords into your standard search engine.

Once again you show that you don't understand the first thing about the world in which you live, Bob. This "small ecosystem" is linked into most of the ocean ecosystems on the planet. And while you are right that there would be a new balance in nature, there is no guarantee that we will like the result, and very strong evidence that we wouldn't.

The irony of all your trolling is that you are raving against making changes in our policies that will prove tremendously beneficial to our economy. The only people who would possibly loose out from converting to a clean renewable energy economy would be those working for the fossil fuel industry... Oh.

I am also a little skeptical about some of the conclusions drawn in the Seed article, though I chalked it up to having to explain a theory in layman's terms in 1,000 or so words. But I thought it was an intriguing hypothesis; it will be interesting to see what comes of it.

Tasermons Partner wrote: If [ecosystem] was the world, then it'd be called a biosphere

Canis Candida wrote: Sensible people [...] understand [Robco1's] words about "collapse" to refer to the imminent destruction of the community into which we have all been born

Tasermons Partner wrote: a good starting point is obviously what Nucbuddy needs if he doesn't know basic definitions like ecosystem and biosphere

Please stop raping me, Tasermons Partner.

Tasermons Partner wrote: If Nucbuddy wishes for more "solid" or extensive background on certain subjects, all that is required is to type a few keywords into your standard search engine.

Here is what Google returns:

12,900 hits for "world's ecosystem"
google.com/search?q=%22world%27s+ecosystem%22

19,500 hits for "world ecosystem"
google.com/search?q=%22world+ecosystem%22

3,230 hits for "worldwide ecosystem"
google.com/search?q=%22worldwide+ecosystem%22

84,800 hits for "global ecosystem"
google.com/search?q=%22global+ecosystem%22

14,300 hits for "earth ecosystem"
google.com/search?q=%22earth+ecosystem%22

27,300 hits for "earth's ecosystem"
google.com/search?q=%22earth%27s+ecosystem%22

1 hit for "earthwide ecosystem"
google.com/search?q=%22earthwide+ecosystem%22

11,100 hits for "planet's ecosystem"
google.com/search?q=%22planet%27s+ecosystem%22

9,090 hits for "planetary ecosystem"
google.com/search?q=%22planetary+ecosystem%22

16,800 hits for "planetwide ecosystem"
google.com/search?q=%22planetwide+ecosystem%22

3,380 hits for biosphere "life can exist"
google.com/search?q=biosphere+%22life+can+exist%22

Definition of biosphere from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary with audio ... 1 : the part of the world in which life can exist

A biosphere is a part, or an area, of a world. Because it is not a system, a biosphere cannot collapse in the way that an ecosystem can collapse -- e.g. ecologically. A global ecosystem, on the other hand, can collapse ecologically.

Notice how I put emphasis on a part, which differs from the definition you posted which says the part?

Part of the world where life can exist refers to the oceans, air, surface and immediate subsurface.

It ignores the rest of the world, because the rest of the world is unhabitable...why is it uninhabitable?  Because it's rock and magma that lies miles underground.

That's what they mean when they say the parta the world that supports life.

That's why it says the part of the world in which life can exist and not a part of the world.  Notice how the subtle word change will help denote the aspect of singular from plural.

And also, please actually read the full content of those links, if ya wish to gain valid information.  Most of the ones for world ecosystem refer to world's ecosystem services, which is different concept.  And many of those other links are just the words in the same article, but without an absolute definition.

I'll stop "raping" ya (as ya put it), just as soon as ya realize that it's a good idea to actually research basic environmental concepts before deciding to engage in discussion on an environmental forum.

http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s3i33312

Does it bother you guys that they can also hybridize with the Grizzly

If they are intelligent, wouldn't that only further the cause for their protection?

Or are ya against protection of intelligent creatures because ya believe that they can get themselves outta messes?

If so, why do ya advocate help for people in Africa?  They're intelligent, aren't they?  Shouldn't they be able to adapt to disasters like drought, genocide, famine, disease, climate change, etc.?

All on their own, without us?  So why intervene?

See the hypocrisy here?

Does it bother you guys that they can also hybridize with the Grizzly

Hybridization with polar bears and grizzly bears is a fairly rare phenonmenon, in proportion to their overall populations.  So long as climate change wouldn't force massive hybridization upon their populations, why would that be of concern to us?

Also, ever hear of the concept of genetic diversity?

And the purpose of humans is...?  What are we useful for?

Building sky scrapers, conquering, autocross, procreating (and just plain sex), exploring, hunting, gambling, drinking, fishing, scuba diving, football, offshore powerboat racing, acquiring wealth........

Wow, if you haven't figured that out yet you really need to find something productive to occupy your time. Have you tried skeet shooting or golf perhaps?

Here's a thought....I just bought an All Terrain Vehicle that really tears up the woods.....loads of fun; you should try it....Very relaxing. The key is to just enjoy yourself!

Also enjoyin' those high gas prices every time ya haveta fuel that ATV up? ;)

How do you know Brute doesn't have one of those plug-in electric jobs!

Dark females would move north, because they know that "size does count"
White males would move south looking for more "humpy"
Dark males would be pushed further south by bigger white males, and would be less able to pass-on their genes
Interfering fundie greenies would set up "arctic seal" sanctuaries to protect them from excessive predation by the bears, when the seals birth on exposed rocks.
White bears would learn from the darkies to modify their diet, especially to increased vegetarianism, fish catching and stuff.
(Because it would be less cold, the whites would not need so much high-fat diet)
Forgotten dark genetic tendencies would tend to re-emerge in the whites
Biological diversity would be increased by greater hybridisation.

Doesn't seem too bad to me.
After all, black humans seem to survive OK in Detroit, and it's tough enough for the whites!  (although many humans have some social mores about hybridization)

BTW, I don't know if the Australian expression "humpy" is universal, but see this photo of an Oz road-sign which explains succinctly:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3286/2496677998_46fb7aa3e9 ...
Zoom-out if necessary

Oh, and here's an excellent photo of a grizzly-polar hybrid:  (Grolar, grizlar?)
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/images/be ...
Cute and cuddly, aren't they?.... Why not set-it-up as wallpaper on your desktop?

Oh and BTW......Try this:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/arctic-se ...
Bad news for shipping and peak oil!
Bugger!   Just as the Vikings were thinking of returning to Greenland too!

Fossils show us that seals existed during the Miocene era, about 20 million years ago.

Polar bears have existed for at least 130,000 years.

Now err I believe there has been warmer periods over the 130,000 year existence of the Polar bear, and that warmer period obviously did not cause the extinction of the afore mentioned bear or its food, the seals. Scientists estimate that there are between 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears and counting.

My understanding is that three bears were recently drowned in a storm, a couple had a fight and the sea ice in the Arctic was less dense in the 1930-40`s than now. These greenies don`t like to go back too far, only to the late 1970`s.

I think the logic of these Greenies is somewhat flawed, what about the grizzly.

"I think the logic of these Greenies..."

These kind of unique spellings and phrases will tend to repeat,as a troll switches nicknames.  

Bob and wall, same troll.

Brute uses "little devils".  Another dead giveaway, it's an aussie phrase.  Plus the moronic baiting theme.

Trolls eventually die off, their graves unmarked, their nasty nonsense forgotten.  I bet his neighbors are praying for relief, imagine how much worse the suffering of experiencing this individual in real life, rather than virtual.  Yikes.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Wrong again! Just as you and the United Nations are wrong about GloBull Warming....I'm an American.

You Alarmists are going to have to get a grip....AGW is nothing more than a fraud.

You're going to have to climb off of your high horse and face the music that global temperatures are dropping while CO2 levels continue to rise proving your, (and the United Nation's Politicians), theory WRONG.

Your "Holier Than Thou" attitude has grown tiresome. Your entire theory is coming apart like a cheap suit.......time to find another boogeyman, (no one is listening anymore).

Yes, my previous posts were satirical nonsense akin to the entire "Climate Change" premise and your foolish delusions regarding environmentalism; sorry to rain on your parade, (pun intended).

Poor nations demand climate money

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2008/04/ ...

I'd actually like to engage in a rational discussion of the differences in underlying att