**A hunter has shot and killed a rare ‘grolar bear’ in Canada as researchers warn the existence of the hybrid could ultimately spell the end of the polar bear, the world’s largest land carnivore.
Didji Ishalook, 25, told the Toronto Star he thought he had spotted a polar bear or an Arctic fox near Nunavut on Hudson Bay. But DNA testing seems likely to show that Mr Ishalook actually shot a rare cross between the two species, who normally live in very different climates.
Polar and grizzly bears are increasingly mating with each other as the warming Arctic allows the two species to come into contact more often. A number of hybrids have been DNA tested in recent years.**
Might also be that the grizzlies are getting a bit crowded in their more typical range, or perhaps that polar bears are roaming farther south than before. Or it might simply be that nobody could DNA test for years and years. It might have formerly been a commonplace for all we know.
Yeah, I almost linked to that National Geographic article - it’s a good one. But basically, considering the early two thousands to now is just the merest flash of a fraction of a nanosecond, they’re basically the same article.:shrug: As global warming thaws the Arctic Circle this happens more and more, though as you say, it’s still relatively rare at this point.
Well, that’s exactly what’s happening. This is what the phrases “global warming” and “climate change” really refer to. At some point, armadillos in the south may extend their range because of this, but right now that’s completely out of the equation. One way that this whole global warming debate is being manipulated by the energy industry, is simply by reframing the definition of what constitutes “global warming.” “It’s not happening in your area,” they’ll say, “because it doesn’t exist.” But this is a distortion which is deliberately misleading. Climate change is about the Arctic, and please note that I said Arctic, not Antarctic. The Antarctic is the last place that will be affected by this, and only after everywhere north of it has been affected.
But if you live in the Arctic Circle it isn’t even a question. It’s just a question of whether you have eyes or not. The landscape is thawing and melting before people’s eyes, and there is simply no denying it. Not for people who live there.
It wasn’t so very long ago that people claimed MMGW was melting the Antarctic too, until it was discovered the ice there was growing, not diminishing. Oops! Now it’s only the Arctic. And never mind that nobody experiences the slightest change in their climate.
And if there really was 'climate change" going on, one would think the climate would change and that someone would notice.
I am personally not aware of whatever the oil companies might be writing or sponsoring. I just know that there is a definite climate zone north of here that manifests itself in flora and fauna differences and storm tracks, and none have changed since I was a little kid.
No, you’ve been misled by industry shills. Originally, climatologists used the phrase only to refer to the Arctic, and more specifically, to Arctic ocean currents. That is what the phrase 'Global Warming" means. Anyone who says it has to do with the Antarctic is deliberately obfuscating what they don’t want you to know. Period. And of course I am aware that Al Gore made some kind of movie about this, but I’ve made it a point to never watch it. It’s Al Gore, so of course I’m not interested in listening to a word he says. As far as I’m concerned, that’s just a given. Same thing with Michael Moore. But just because people like them spout a lot of partisan nonsense, doesn’t mean that they’re anything other than latecomers to this whole subject. So, it’s a complete strawman argument.
If you want learn what global warming/climate change is really about, then please research arctic methane emissions, and everything to do with that. You’ll find that C02 emissions have always been secondary to methane emissions among climatologists. Methane is twenty-five to thirty times more warming than carbon dioxide, and the only reason carbon dioxide is even discussed at all is because it has the ability to release methane trapped in permafrost and the floor of the ocean. That’s the only reason it’s even mentioned at all. Methane is what the subject is actually all about, because of it’s properties, and because of the terrifying fact that no one knows for certain how much there is. And it’s a crucial mystery, because if there’s enough of it, and it’s released, Earth’s temperatures could become Venus-like very, very rapidly. Which, of course, fossil fuel corporations condition people to mock. It’s just a trick they use to keep Americans off balance. The other trick they use is injecting all these idiotic, spurious mentions of Antarctica. I encourage people to not be taken in by any of it.
Polar bears are genetic cousins to brown bears. Some think polar bears diverged from brown bears, some think the opposite. But regardless, sometimes there are “genetic throwbacks” among both; an ordinarily brown bear being born white or an ordinary polar bear being born with some brown bear characteristics.
Methane clathrates (ice) are more a product of pressure than temperature. Very large Clathrate areas are found in tropical oceans. Some believe warming in tundra areas releases methane. Some believe it results in a net reduction of atmospheric methane because plants eat it and lock down more carbon than is released through rotting of the underlying peat. It might be recalled, too, that during the Medieval Warming Period it was considerably warmer in the Arctic than it is now. That’s what led to the early explorers trying to find the “northwest passage”. During the Middle Ages, one actually could sail through the arctic from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
So, with all due respect, I don’t think either of those things points to an upcoming climate disaster.