Good interview.

Here is a link to more on arctic sea ice loss and the impact on polar bears.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/09/07/low.ice.ap/index.html

I suppose it's difficult for a lot of folks to grasp that the world is always going to change, whether we want it to or not. It becomes a reflection of our own mortality and frail position within the animal kingdom.

We believe because we are the "highest order", or "controllers" in the great scheme of things, that we are to blame for everything that happens and we can also control what's to come.

Let's pull our swollen heads out of the sand. We are a minute, parasitic species that scurries around on a very thin, floating skin of dirt that covers an extremely hot lake of magma. Our entire population of 6 billion, would fit on the large island of Hawaii, if we all stood together. Not very impressive, are we, when we see ourselves in real terms.

Ice ages, massive earthquakes, polar tilt, the sun, eruptions of super-volcanoes and ocean currents have been shaping and changing this planets climate since the beginning.

Groups like the Defenders of Wildlife, believe they can keep everything in nature exactly the same as it is today, as long as humans do not play a role in their own evolution as animals. The animals they defend, did not exist on most of the northern hemisphere until 15 thousand years ago. They believe they can alter the natural progression of nature.

As the climate warms and we lose the polar bear, and other species, our future generations will read about how these bears used to live on the icepacks back in the 19th century, much the same as we speak of the mastadon or sabre tooth tiger, that no longer exists, due to climate shifts.

Nature is built upon survival of the fittest. Species adapt to change or become extinct and we are no exception to this rule. Whether it is global warming or another ice age that will happen, many species will become extinct, as always and new adapting species will emerge, as always.

The difference between humans and polar bears is that we have evolved enough to get off the icepack when it melts , move onto solid ground, farm it and change our diet. This is not a cute Disney movie. If the bear can't adapt to the change, then he'll go the way of the mastadon and another species will eventually form to take it's place to keep the seal population in check.

That's the nature of things!

Last week Arctic sea ice reached a 30 year low. This week, Antarctic sea is is sitting at a 30 year high.

Obviously, whatever is affecting the Arctic is a local phenomenon, not a global problem. If it was global, we would see it at both poles. If you actually care about polar bears, instead of knee-jerk blaming "global warming" it might make sense to look for an explanation which actually makes sense.

Why not worry about Penguins freezing and starving too? The cold temperatures and extra 1,000,000 km2 of ice to travel across must be really tough on them.

Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada , 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present.

It is noteworthy that the neighbouring population of southern Hudson Bay does not appear to have declined, and another southern population ( Davis Strait ) may actually be over-abundant.

I understand that people who do not live in the north generally have difficulty grasping the concept of too many polar bears in an area. People who live here have a pretty good grasp of what that is like to have too many polar bears around.

This complexity is why so many people find the truth less entertaining than a good story. It is entirely appropriate to be concerned about climate change, but it is just silly to predict the demise of polar bears in 25 years based on media-assisted hysteria.

Dr. Mitchell Taylor
Polar Bear Biologist,
Department of the Environment,
Government of Nunavut , Igloolik , Nunavut , Canada

May 1, 2006
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Taylor/last_stand_of_our_wild_polar_bears.html

A bit more on ice loss in the Arctic. Chukchi Sea ice extent dropped off dramatically in June, yet temperatures adjacent (in Barrow, Ak) were near normal for the month. The second half of June had below normal temperatures in Barrow. It was not warm temperatures that were melting the ice, but something else.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.10.html
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/PABR/2007/6/8/MonthlyHistory.html
http://www.weather.com/outlook/recreation/ski/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/USAK0025?from=tenDay_bottomnav_ski

After the ice melted away from Barrow in June, temperatures went above normal in July because the nearby ice normally keeps temperatures depressed in the summer.

In order to make sense about what is happening to sea ice in that part of the Arctic, we are going to have to look for a more sophisticated explanation than "Global Warming."

The arctic sea ice loss happened over a thousand years ago as well. Vikings were growing crops on Greenland in areas that today are not suitable for such activity.

What happened to significant rising ocean levels from melting ice caps? This was the alarmists successful attempt to draw attention to AGW.

We know that most ice shelves, glaciers and icebergs are actually under water. The water while frozen is in an expanded state, which through bouyancy creates a natural rise in ocean levels. Our ocean levels are what they are today because of the amount of water that is diplaced by the frozen, expanded, subsurface water. When the water melts, it actually reduces water displacement when going from its solid state to liquid state. Whatever is frozen above the waterline (freeboard) will add to ocean levels, but when compared to how much is displaced by the subsurface ice, the difference is insignificant.

Put a few ice cubes in a glass, submerge them while adding water. Let it melt. How much did the water level in the glass rise after the ice melted?

It seems rather convenient to blame everything on global warming. Now they are talking about an impending ice age, due to the disturbance of the oceans currents, it's "conveyor belt". Way to narrow it down! Let's go from one extreme (warming) to the other (ice age), that way all of the bases are covered. Regardless, it's man's fault. Let's see if we can prevent the sun from eventually consuming the earth too. Silly, silly generation.

Let's examine something, shall we? We have electricity in our bodies. Well, this electricity (energy) is derived from our brains, our central core. Prosthetic limbs are now controlled by thought, by electricity generated in our brains.

You are who you are based upon what is in your brain. You are not just Brett because of your arms, legs, hair, or skin color. You are Brett because of the energy collected in your brain. One could lose an appendage, but could still be.

Memory is a fascinating thing. Just think about how it works. Amazing! As we live, we gather more and more information and process it. It gets locked in our brains. This memory/energy makes up who we are. Without the ability to capture this energy, we would not be who we are. Our brians are very powerful, chocked full of this energy. This energy that is in our brains is our soul. The energy/electricity in our brains is in essence...us.

The atom.

When the atom is split, the proton and neutron get attracted to the adjacent atoms, causing them to split. That one atom influenced the other atoms, a chain reaction. We are all somehow connected. Now when the atom is split, the atoms energy (electron) is released. The more atoms split, the greater the energy. So you've got all of this energy now from the split atom, but where is the atom? What happened to the original atom? The atom as we saw it no longer exists, it is gone. The atom has died. But the atom now lives on through it's energy. The atoms energy never dies. It gets transferred to fulfill the demands for it's energy.

Our soul (electricl charge) is contained in our brains. When we die, our soul (electrical charge) is split from our brains, like an atom, and gets transferred. The atom dies, our brain dies, but the energy is released. This energy is either positively or negatively charged. A positively charged ION becomes part of a greater energy, an energy that we cannot comprehend. A negative charge becomes grounded like electricity, confined to the ground.

Well, we know atoms, or particles of the atom are the building blocks for the make up of everything in our universe. In order, they are:

- Particles of matter(in the atom)
- Atoms
- Elements
- Molecules
- Macromolecules
- Cell organelles
- Cells
- Tissues
- Organs
- Systems
- Organisms
- Populations
- Ecosystems
- Biospheres
- Planets
- Planetary Systems with Stars
- Galaxies
- The Universe

Interpreting the Bible. Comparing Adam and Atom.

Prophets could only describe what they saw or heard, in a way for people of that time to comprehend.

Of course in the beginning, life, human life began with Adam (atom). We now know this. The creator used a part (particle) of atom to create everything else. By mixing the particles of matter found in Atom, life is created. Life begins with the atom. With that said, we are living on an atom, earth. We are the nucleus, the moon is our electron, just like the electron in the orbit of an atom.

It makes you wonder. We are suspended in space. How big is space? How small is our planet? Well, microscopic in relation to the size of space. If we are on an atom, one could conclude that we make up a microscopic piece of something greater, larger than we have the ability to see. Perhaps evil (- charge) is the cancer that is always trying to destroy life. As God intended it to be, ions are ALWAYS naturally more positive. This is a scientifically proven fact. This is why good (+) will always prevail over evil (-). By the way, Jesus died for us(fact) on a cross. What is a cross? A positive symbol(+). That symbol is used everywhere to remind us to think positively.

There is an energy around us that no man has yet to develop the equipment to interpret. However, all of us have the power to feel this energy (tingling sensation) through our central nervous sytem. We must accept this. Even the smartest scientist that walked the earth, Albert Einstein, believed in God. The stuff that he figured out without the help of super-computers.... Anyway, we love to be in control of our lives, but the bottom line is that we are here because of the ultimate creator and his mercy. Amazing!

Common sense should be the word of the day, not global warming.

I appreciate you and your blog. Thank you!

Did you say unbiased?
Lake Chad is about 9 ft. deep. Good place to exaggerate a change in shoreline.This change is cyclical.

Folks - Hansen has ( reluctantly ) released his code!
Head over to Climate Audit for an intelligent discussion of this breaking news ... the next weeks should be interesting as the veil is pulled back on the handling of the global temperature data.
How much do you want to bet ( Andrew / Tom ) that there will be more revisions & lowering of the warm years in the last two decades as well as uncovering manipulation of the hot & cold period data in the 30's - 40's & 60's - 70's.
This is a great day for honesty & sends a clear message to the other obstructionists ( Jones & Mann etc ) that the days of climate scientists operating in a vacuum of responsibility are finished.
Andrew ... have you read of the poor Brit trapped in the sea ice north of Siberia ... you know, all that ice that there isn't any of anymore. I understand he was sailing there to highlight how " ice free " the arctic is!!
Have a great weekend folks.
Rick.

Patrick,

Both of your comments on the extent of Arctic and Antarctic are true. I don't think your conclusion can be made that simple, however.

Antarctica is is surrounded on all sides by open sea, which allows for an uninterrupted circumpolar current. That polar current has a dampening effect on any global events that might significantly affect the continent. This was seen about 30-40 million years ago when Australia broke away and began deflecting the warm equatorial currents away from the south pole.

The Arctic, on the other hand, is completely surrounded by land, which prevents the flow of an uninterrupted ocean current except for the Beaufort Gyre within the Arctic Basin itself (the Beaufort Gyre, in fact, circulates in the area where we see the most pronounced loss of sea ice). With no surrounding currents to absorb and deflect warmer currents from the south, the Arctic is more vulnerable to changes in global climate.

The Bering Strait is in fact one of the main points where warm water enters the Arctic from the south. High SST anomalies in the Pacific have probably helped warm the currents of the Beaufort Gyre, leading to the record rates of ice melt in that portion of the Arctic.

Consequently, the sea ice anomaly in the Arctic is 2 million square kilometers, whereas the anomaly in the Antarctic is only a positive one million square kilometers. So in any event, there is still a net global loss of one million square kilometers of sea ice globally.

I've been doing quite a bit of research on this lately, and all these conclusions are my own. If you have any questions or any issues with my logic, feel free to ask. This is, after all, just a hypothesis.

Patrick - thanks for the info.

Why worry about polar bears? Their numbers are robust - there is no indication of trouble. Everything else is baseless hysteria.

As Patrick points out, since the Arctic sea ice is a local effect, not a global one, it makes sense to look for local causes. Local causes possibly responsible for the ice loss include the Arctic Oscillation.

The folks at the NSIDC aren't so hysterical about Arctic sea ice as the global warming crowd.
They are quick to point out they lack long-term data and have an incomplete understanding of the complex Arctic system.

It just goes to show you how unsettled the science is.

Global warming now causing earthquakes too.
The glacier at Ilulissat, which supposedly spawned the iceberg that sank the Titantic, is now flowing three times faster into the sea than it was 10 years ago.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/sep/08/climatechange

The iceberg which sank the Titanic in 1912 was fairly large. The visible portion was reported to be 400 feet long and 60 to 100 feet high. One might infer that large chunks of ice were breaking off of Greenland glaciers 100 years ago.
http://www.uscg.mil/lantarea/iip/FAQ/Titanic_1.shtml

These glaciers are constantly moving, sometimes as much as 65 feet per day, due to the immense weight of the Greenland ice cap pushing down on them. Between 10,000 and 15,000 of these break off every year.
http://www.titanic-titanic.com/icebergs.shtml

I would comment better on this, but I believe John D. hit the nail on the head! Well said.

If the icepack melts, the polar bear may become a land-based bear, making it much easier for them.

Seals will no longer have the ice to rest on and multiply and will congregate on the shorelines, like on southern coasts.

The bear will not need to travel miles upon miles for only one seal. There will be an abundance of fat seals basking on the beaches and rocks for them.

Over time, the bears will adapt and successive generations will see their fur turn cinnamon and then eventually brown, to blend in with the surroundings.

They will have to overcome the grizzlys and kodiak bears that will slowly migrate north with the elk, moose and caribou as warming continues.

Don't fret for the bears. They will do fine if they can figure it out. Bears are like 600 lb rats without tails. Both are opportunists. They have fur, teeth and claws, great smelling, hearing and swimming ability.

They will chew and claw through walls to eat anything that moves, or anything that you put in front of them that smells good, even motor oil and each other if the snack presents itself.

The only folks that think the polar bear has a problem are the bleeding hearts that watch too many animals in Disney movies and Pepsi commercials, giving the bears human traits, befriending and talking to every other animal in the forest.

No wonder some folks get mauled trying to feed and pet the real thing and finding out it's not the teddy-bear you cuddled up with in bed when you were a child.

Warming will be good for a lot of animals and not so good for some. That's just the way it is.

The Greenland ice cap is melting so quickly that it is triggering earthquakes as pieces of ice several cubic kilometres in size break off.

Scientists monitoring events this summer say the acceleration could be catastrophic in terms of sea-level rise and make predictions this February by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change far too low.

The glacier at Ilulissat, which supposedly spawned the iceberg that sank the Titantic, is now flowing three times faster into the sea than it was 10 years ago.

Robert Correll, chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, said in Ilulissat today: "We have seen a massive acceleration of the speed with which these glaciers are moving into the sea. The ice is moving at two metres an hour on a front 5km [3 miles] long and 1,500 metres deep."

Prof Correll is visiting Greenland as part of a symposium of religious, scientific, and political leaders to look at the problems of the island, which has an ice cap 3km thick containing enough water to raise worldwide sea levels by seven metres.

Today leaders of Christian, Shia, Sunni, Hindu, Shinto, Buddhist and Jewish religions took a boat to the tongue of the glacier for a silent prayer for the planet. They were invited by Bartholomew I, the spiritual leader of 250 million Orthodox Christians worldwide.

Prof Correll, director of the global change program at the Heinz Centre in Washington, said the estimates of sea level rise in the IPCC report were conservative and based on data two years old. The predicted rise this century was 20cm to 60cm, but it would be at the upper end of this range at least, he said, and some believed it could be two meters. This would be catastrophic for European coastlines.

He had flown over the Ilulissat glacier and "seen gigantic holes in it through which swirling masses of melt water were falling. I first looked at this glacier in the 1960s and there were no holes. These so-called moulins, 10 to 15 metres across, have opened up all over the place. There are hundreds of them."

He said ice-penetrating radar showed that this melt water was pouring through to the bottom of the glacier creating a lake 500 metres deep which was causing the glacier "to float on land. These melt-water rivers are lubricating the glacier, like applying oil to a surface and causing it to slide into the sea. It is causing a massive acceleration which could be catastrophic."

The glacier is now moving at 15km a year into the sea although in surges it moves even faster. He measured one surge at 5km in 90 minutes - an extraordinary event.

Veli Kallio, a Finnish scientist, said the quakes were triggered because ice had broken away after being fused to the rock for hundreds of years. The quakes were not vast - on a magnitude of 1 to 3 - but had never happened before in north-west Greenland and showed the potential for the entire ice sheet to collapse.

Prof Correll said: "These earthquakes are not dangerous in themselves but the fact that they are happening shows that events are happening far faster than we ever anticipated."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/sep/08/climatechange/print

Darren M.

Thank you, sir! Much appreciated.

Sometimes I just wish that people were able to see the big picture rather than jumping to conclusions based only on past human behaviour.
Humans will not adapt to global warming any more than the animals can, droughts heatwaves and rising seas, will just force us to migrate in concentrated numbers and endure greater suffering.

Polar bears walruss seals and penguins will now have fewer habitats, bringing their large numbers closer to human communities where they will compete for space and fisheries. The loss of ice will have a disastrous impact on breeding because traditional sites will no longer exist. Walruses breed on floating ice and their young need time on solid ice to mature before taking to the water. Polar bears need territory to roam. They hunt using ice holes in surprise attacks to catch seals. Without ice they will be forced to mount attacks on groups of seals that together can deliver a powerful land based defence and escape easily into the sea.
To suggest that animals will have an easier time when the ice melts is to admit complete ignorance of nature evolution and the current threats posed by global warming.
I encourage you to think again, perhaps reports of large numbers of polar bears is deceptive because they are no longer spread thinly over the thining ice.

Patrick, you cannot compare the Antarctic with the Arctic, they are poles apart one surrounded by ocean the other by land one in the SH and the other in the NH, one has no Ozone cover and other never had a Viking community.
The earthquake reports should read ice quakes, I�m sure that earthquakes will occur but the ice quakes should be seen a the results of glacial movement which is not unusual and should not in itself be cause for alarm, only further proof that Greenland is loosing its ice just as the arctic is becoming ice free.

OK Travis, I've got a question for you. What is it about these graphs that is confusing to you?

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.south.jpg
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.jpg

Rich,

Any rise in sea level will not be due to the melting of sea ice. The sea level rise predicted by the IPCC and others would be the result of melting ice in Greenland and Antarctica. As I mentioned earlier, I don't see the Antarctic ice cap melting any time soon.

The most likely source of sea level rise in the next fifty years would therefore be from melting glaciers in Greenland (which for the record is NOT underwater). The melt would increase the volume of water in the oceans, leading to a rise in sea levels. I won't get into an argument right now as to whether or not that is going to actually happen, but that is how global warming proponents support the claim that melting polar ice will result in a rise in sea levels. The increased rate of sea ice melt and other signs lead them to believe that Greenland is now beginning (or will soon begin) to lose more ice than it is gaining.

rick,

Thanks for the update on Climate Audit. Great comment from Steve McIntyre which sums up the absurdity of the endlessly shifting AGW position.

So United States sh