Re: [Phys-l] climate vs weather; was "why and how"

["LaMontagne, Bob" <RLAMONT@providence.edu>]

I think we have gotten to the heart of Bill's original posting.

I did not state or find a d(pop)/dt because I thought it was obvious to everyone from the data. Brian Whatcott pointed to a source in which the IUCN claims a population of 950 in 2004, to which I provided a link in which the WWF claims a population of 20,000 (low end) in 2009. That is quite a d(pop)/dt! Unless Polar bears are incredibly prolific breeders (which they are not), then one of these data sources is either incorrect or has been manipulated in support of some point. 

That is the real issue, scientists exaggerating data to rally popular support for an issue and then wondering why the general population does not place much credence in science. If people can trust data presented to them, then there is no need to exaggerate to make them aware of an impending problem.

Bob at PC

________________________________________
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Cohen [Robert.Cohen@po-box.esu.edu]
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 6:45 AM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] climate vs weather; was "why and how"

William Robertson wrote:

> The only problem is that it turns
> out polar bear populations are increasing.

Bob LaMontagne wrote:

> The World Wildlife Fund - WWF ( hardly a bastion of
> conservatism - just conservationists ) stated the following in 2009:
>
> "20-25,000 polar bears worldwide
> Aproximately 19 distinct sub-populations (see above map) 60%
> of these are in Canada Tracks have been reported as far north
> as the pole Few scientists believe few bears travel beyond
> 82° north latitude. This is because the northern Arctic Ocean
> has little food for them."
>
> This is more in line with Bill's statement.

To be in line with Bill's statement, the quote would need to refer to d(pop)/dt rather that pop:

"The general population status of polar bears is currently stable, though there are pronounced differences
between the various populations. Some populations are stable, some seem to be increasing, and some are
decreasing due to various pressures. The status of some populations is not well documented."

Of course, this doesn't address how a decrease in sea ice will impact future population growth/decline.  And it doesn't seem all that relevant to Bill's argument anyway:

> You can show pictures of polar bears clinging to small ice
> floes and it tugs at heartstrings.
<snip>
> In the end, the polar
> bear issue becomes exposed for what it is, which is a scare tactic.
> That has the effect of reducing confidence in what people in the
> scientific community are saying.

If the scientific community suggests that decreased ice will negatively impact future polar bear populations, and then someone (is it the scientific community?) uses a picture of a polar bear clinging to a piece of ice as a way of providing a sense of urgency to the general population, and then someone (is it the scientific community?) uses population data from a subset of polar bears to imply that current populations are increasing...

...with the effect of reducing confidence in what people in the scientific community are saying...

um...who is at fault here again?

----------------------------------------------------------
Robert A. Cohen, Department of Physics, East Stroudsburg University
570.422.3428   rcohen@po-box.esu.edu    http://www.esu.edu/~bbq
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l