Quote:
Originally Posted by John Whitworth
Brian. This is from something called Buzzle which discusses endangered species. It lists many, many species that really are endangered. However...
The government of Nunavut rejoices over the fact that their polar bears are not endangered and also about how their Inuits have once again proved to be right. However, the release of this survey has intensified the debate between scientists and Inuits. When questioned by the special agents from the Interior Department, Jeffrey Gleason states that their paper had no mention of polar bears being affected by global warming, and that if the link was made, it was all a misunderstanding. However, he does admit of being aware that it was based on their paper, that polar bears were placed under the Endangered Species Act.
The crux of the matter is that different claims are made based on scores of assumptions. What kind of effect climate change and global warming has on the population of polar bears is not clear. The data available today is not sufficient to deduce how global warming has affected the polar bear numbers and does not extend to all 19 subpopulations. Moreover, we must remember that the Nunavut government study was an aerial program, which is not as accurate as physical mark-recapture technique. If the number of polar bears are rising, we can only be happy, nevertheless, we have to remember, all these studies are approximations and further detailed studies are yet to be conducted.
Read more at Buzzle: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/are-p...ndangered.html
The fact is that nobody really knows. |
John,
I'd agree with you that nobody really knows. This was the point I originally made when when you first raised the polar bear issue. Equally the fact that they are coping now (if they are) is no reason to think they will continue to cope as conditions continue to change.
You originally cited polar bears as a counter-argument to global warming. That line of argument has no logic. Finding an example of a species that is currently coping with changing conditions is not a good argument against the fact that conditions are changing.
It's true, I think, that nobody knows for sure how global and habitat change will affect creatures adapted to certain environmental niches. It's difficult to predict such things. Ecosystems are complex dynamical systems after all, and are interlinked with other complex systems such as atmospheric and ocean systems. All are expected to be affected.
It's also true that this an emotional issue on which people have taken sides, and worse-case and best-case scenarios will be touted by both sides. Maybe the truth will lie somewhere in the middle, but equally maybe it'll be more extreme than anyone anticipated.
On the other hand, some processes seem much more predictable. As Lovelock pointed out back in the 60s there are positive feedback systems associated with warming and cooling. For example, ice reflects heat back into space. As the surface area of ice decreases, less sunlight is reflected back into space, and the planet heats up faster, more ice melts and so on.
More than this, the fact that we can't exactly predict the consequences of global warning doesn't meant that they won't be catastrophic. There are many possible major consequences (the death of the deep ocean, ocean levels rising, the gulf stream redirecting etc.). Rather than it being a case of "Oh we don't know what's happening, so it'll probably be fine" I think it's far more a question of not being able to predict exactly how and when things will wrong. That's my opinion anyway.
Matt