Polar bears are 450,000 years older than we thought – Endangered predator may be particularly vulnerable to rapid climate change in Arctic, experts fear
The polar bear is a much older species than previously thought and probably emerged as the Arctic’s top land predator when a cold-adapted bear diverged from an ancestral brown bear about 600,000 years ago, a study has found.
The findings suggest that the evolution of the world’s largest land carnivore was a much slower process than originally believed, which indicates that the polar bear may be more vulnerable to rapid climate change in the Arctic than previously suggested.
I guess if you are determined to see problems everywhere…
The polar bear type is some 600,000 years old and has been through many ice ages and warm ups. They’re still here. They’re thriving. Yet somehow they are NOW at risk of disaster when the temperature is still a tad lower than the Midieval Warm Period where everything prospered. …??? My head hurts trying to follow the warmist “logic”.
The subtitle “Endangered predator may be particularly vulnerable to rapid climate change in Arctic, experts fear,” appears to be completely
made up by the Independent.
An internet search for the report shows most
published it without the whacko embellishment
of “endangered,” “rapid climate change,” and
“experts fear.”
They aren’t endangered, there is no rapid
climate change, and there is a dearth of
experts cited. And none cited give any
warnings. Journalistic malpractice.
MSM is doing it frequently. I recently posted on two reports which had “spin” inserted which wasn’t even mentioned in the papers summarised, here’s one example:
“Southern Australia and nearby Pacific nations are likely to be the most seriously affected in the world by the continuing rise in sea levels, according to new research.”
The “new research” was an analysis of coastal marsh sediments, and had a lot to say about past sea level rise in Tasmania, but of necessity, nothing about future sea level rise. No speculation or predictions whatsoever, just a detailed analysis of rates of rise. In fact the paper showed that sea-level rise slowed dramatically after 1950.
“According to new research” is a blatant LIE.
As for polar bears, we have that constant “joining the dots” (very popular just now wrt “freak weather”) about reducing sea-ice and the bears’ ability to hunt. If the ice disappears, where do their main (but not only) prey go to rest and breed? On the land, of course, where most seals worldwide spend most of their time. Here in the UK we have the largest populations in the world of several seal species , yet I’ve never seen a “British Isles sea-ice extent” chart. Several studies have shown that the bears thrive in low-ice (or even no ice) conditions. I’ve even seen it claimed that the bears are at a disadvantage on land, because they’re not camouflaged as they are on ice. On land, seals are slow, and bears are fast. On the ice, I’d say the the seals have a better chance of getting away. No diving into leads or holes on land. Most if not all of this “stuff” is at best speculation, and at worst bordering on untruth.
The Inuit have a right to feel aggrieved, with “stay-in-the warm” greenies and scientists telling them they don’t know their own back-yard intimately.
Canadian Goverment is still issuing permits to hunt and kill polar bears. I read 450 a year.
You just can’t import the trophies to the U.S.
http://www.polarbearfacts.org/
“The FWS’s recent listing of the species as threatened — based on reports that attempt to predict speculative impacts 45 years from now”
Junkscience defined.
The critical thinker uses observational data to *test* a theory; the true believer uses observational data to *prove* a theory.
And when the observational data doesn’t *prove* their theory they make it up.
And if they can’t make it up they talk at length to the media, expressing opinions and speculations not supported by their paper.
The blooming bear is a predator. What they do is kill other livings things to eat for thousands of years. Bears are great at fishing. If we eliminate all the fish in the world, maybe bears will have a problem.
Okay, I’ll play the devil’s advocate. If polar bears can live just fine on land, instead of on ice, why do they basically stay on the ice? Do the brown bears chase them away from dry land, or what?
Heat. Their bodies generate so much heat that it becomes very uncomfortable for them. They can keep swimming for long periods because the water soaks up the heat. Air isn’t so effective, so after running they flatten themselves out on the ice to increase surface contact, and let the ice be their heat sink. On land they would just have to be a bit conservative about hunting/running to avoid overheating. Since they favor ice over dirt for being a heat sink, the ice must be more effective.
When there’s ice there’s seals on it. Hint: PBs like seal burgers.
Who on earth are these so called experts, they have corrupted the word expert so much, that it does not have any meaning now.