Are you bucking for the award of most misleading post?

The Wales in the subject line is a small town in Alaska. I’d normally rate a stunt like making it sound like there are polar bears in the country of Wales as too clever by half, but I don’t think this even rises to that standard.

In the famous words of Pat Paulsen, “I’ve upped my standards. Now up yours.”

We live in polarizing times

Not people in Wales, but Welsh people in Alaska.

70% of the Earth is water, and none of it is carbonated.
Which means the Earth is, essentially, flat.

Actually, most of the water on Earth is carbonated

https://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanography/faculty/zeebe_files/Publications/ZeebeWolfEnclp07.pdf

"CARBON DIOXIDE, DISSOLVED (OCEAN)
The ocean contains about sixty times more carbon in the form of dissolved inorganic
carbon than in the pre-anthropogenic atmosphere (~600 Pg C). On time scales <105
yrs, the ocean is the largest inorganic carbon reservoir (~38,000 Pg C) in exchange
with atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and as a result, the ocean exerts a dominant
control on atmospheric CO2 levels. The average concentration of inorganic carbon in
the ocean is ~2.3 mmol kg−1 and its residence time is ~200 ka.
Dissolved carbon dioxide in the ocean occurs mainly in three inorganic forms:
free aqueous carbon dioxide (CO2(aq)), bicarbonate (HCO3−), and carbonate ion
(CO32−). A minor form is true carbonic acid (H2CO3) whose concentration is less
than 0.3% of [CO2(aq)]. The sum of [CO2(aq)] and [H2CO3] is denoted as [CO2].
The majority of dissolved inorganic carbon in the modern ocean is in the form of
HCO3− (>85%), as described below."

https://aslopubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.4319/lo.1970.15.1.0080

"CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE SURFACE WATERS OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC OCEAN AND THE BARENTS AND KARA SEAS John J. Kelley, Jt2 Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle 98105 ABSTRACT Measurements of the equilibrium concentration of carbon dioxide with respect to air in the surface waters of the Kara, Barents, and Norwegian Seas during the late summer of 1987 show undersaturation. The North Atlantic Ocean during late summer is slightly undersaturated except for limited areas such as the North Sea, south of Nova Scotia, and within the Gulf Stream, where supersaturation is found."

This is what happens when the polar bears run out of Coca Cola after the holidays.

Global warming is decimating the penguin population, forcing the polar bears further south for food.

;)

Lassie, the Polar bear killed Timmie and then hid his body in the Wale.

Polar Bears and Penguins live in different hemispheres.

As for them killing people. Aleut heritage - Polar Bears do actively hunt and kill people for food when the opportunity arises. Studies say "NO" - reality where First Nation peoples live has hundreds of years of experience with the deaths.

One Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Polar Bears and Penguins live in different
> hemispheres.
>
> As for them killing people....

Kindly note the ;).

Polar bears are probably the most dangerous predator on Earth.

caffiend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Polar bears are probably the most dangerous
> predator on Earth.

In a top-15 list of Earth’s most dangerous animals, including hippos, flies, frogs, vipers, spiders, crocs and mosquitoes, the polar bear doesn’t make it.

You may (or not!) be surprised to read that according to Condé Nast Traveler, the world’s most dangerous animal is the dreaded Human Being of the species Homo sapiens.

The article states:

“… we’re animals too, and since we’ve been killing each other for 10,000 years, with the total deaths from war alone estimated at between 150 million and 1 billion (and that was a decade ago), it’s a no-brainer that we top the list. We assault each other with incredibly high rates of senseless brutality, from gun violence to terrorist attacks around the globe. We're dangerous to other animals, too—think global warming, the destruction of forests and coral reefs, and overtourism, for starters. Given the threat we pose to countless other creatures—and the fact that we often act irrationally and have the capacity to annihilate our entire planet with a host of horrifying weapons like nuclear devices and genetically-modified superbugs—we are squarely atop the list as the most dangerous animal in the world.”

https://www.cntraveler.com/stories/2016-06-21/the-10-most-dangerous-animals-in-the-world


According to 'science alert', humans are only the second most dangerous animal (although are listed as the most dangerous mammal) and their choices of dangerous animals include others not on the list above. Of course, it's largely a matter of opinion, and which parameters they use when making their selections. They certainly have many to choose from when compiling their lists.

I also note that when you mention 'animals' you aren't necessarily thinking of insects, although some make it onto the lists. Indeed, an insect is on or near the top of both lists (the puny mosquito that packs a wallop).

The animals on this second list are also on my Memo to Self of beings to avoid by a wide distance at all times. Even if they're in a zoo I figure they can get out if they want to.

(Not that I enjoy seeing animals in zoos. I saw a giraffe up close and personal once in a zoo in London and while it was amazing to see such beauty right under my nose it was heartbreak to see the poor beast in such a setting, far from home, surrounded by humans, no space, no peace).

https://www.sciencealert.com/what-are-the-worlds-15-deadliest-animals



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/25/2023 12:37PM by Nightingale.

I read another interesting article about this, caffiend, but lost track of it so can't post it for you. I can't recall the gem of info that caught my attention.

Meanwhile, here's another one that gives some more info, about their history, colour and degree of cuteness, etc.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/5-things-you-never-knew-about-polar-bears



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/28/2023 09:24PM by Nightingale.

I'll take exception to two of the article's points: "Polar bears 'probably' won't attack you." That's an hypothesis I wouldn't dare test, even if I was well armed. Second, status of polar bear populations is in dispute. Here's an article which states they are growing:

https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-the-polar-bear-population-is-declining/

Others disagree, claiming that such data are the result of improved counting and oversight. A lot probably depends upon your take on "global warming," as images of forlorn polar bears have become icons of the "global warming" thesis.

And your site is a well-known climate change denial site.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/foundation-for-economic-education/

https://sourcewatch.org/index.php/Foundation_for_Economic_Education

https://www.desmog.com/foundation-economic-education/

The politics of caffiend's website are also absurdly right-wing. One of the headline articles claims that Pelosi is to blame for the national debt, an assertion that ignores the greatest single increase in the US debt in history: that which ensued from the Trump tax cuts.

https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/environment-verify/polar-bear-population-thriving-population-rising-claim-misleading-misrepresents-data/536-0eb6146f-fb8c-437a-a97c-59625228187a


"THE ANSWER
This is misleading.

Claims that polar bears are thriving, as proven by a rising population, are misleading. Polar bear numbers did rise in the late 20th century after governments implemented hunting restrictions. But they aren’t currently increasing in number, and their future remains in peril.

Scientists don’t know the exact number of polar bears in existence, largely because many of them live in places difficult to reach. Instead, they estimate a global population and update that estimate whenever their data improves.

But even if scientists did have all the data, and even if that data did show a present-day growth in the polar bear population, polar bears wouldn’t be “thriving.” The global polar bear population would still be vulnerable to decline as sea-ice loss continued in the Arctic.



Instead of looking at polar bears as a single global population, today’s researchers track polar bears in 19 distinct sub-populations, each within a separate region of the Arctic. These sub-populations all face unique conditions that affect polar bears differently, Derocher said. So because scientists research and track each region of polar bears individually, they can get insight into which parts of the Arctic polar bears are doing the best, and which parts they’re doing the worst.

Of the 19 sub-populations, 10 lack enough data for scientists to determine population trends, according to a map from Polar Bears International. Three populations are in decline, four are stable and two are on the rise.



Remember those two sub-populations on the rise? They live in regions with nearly 100% sea ice cover year-round. Whiteman said that those conditions are unfavorable even for polar bears, which need breaks in the ice if seals are going to surface for air and make themselves vulnerable to hungry bears.

So while polar bears in regions without much sea ice will suffer first and decline most rapidly as what little ice they have melts, Whiteman said that polar bears in these ice-dense regions will actually benefit from improved habitat quality, at least at first. Polar bear biologists actually predicted this would happen, Whiteman said.

But eventually, if sea ice loss continues to such an extreme that the icier regions are left with barely any sea ice at all, then the polar bears there will also suffer."

Aren't dissidents what drive science forward? Without them there wouldn't be science. Just cults that don't evolve.

Ah yes, the theory that the tin-foil hat brigade are good for science.

Well, at least you walk the walk.

Imagine the damage a bipolar bear would do.