IPCC calculation model. It doesn't really matter that this is Ausie only. At least a MSM source but not really what I was looking for though http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...eneration.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by CBR
Printable View
IPCC calculation model. It doesn't really matter that this is Ausie only. At least a MSM source but not really what I was looking for though http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...eneration.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by CBR
Ah yes, the climategate that has been checked over several times now, yet it apparently does not satisfy the skeptics because somehow the scientists keep getting exonerated. Must be a conspiracy somewhere.
They should be more open with their research though and have AFAIK rightfully been criticised for that.
The butcher judging his own product as we say here, the models on which the consensus is based are flawed or at least disputed, and that's the nicest thing you can say about it, outright fraud would be more accurat. It reeks of post-normal sciene, and not a little bit. Wouldn't go as far as calling it a conpiracy, but a lie yes, and a very lucrative one.Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
I have told you in this thread multiple times. You are living in denial.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
First, that article is outdated. Second, Booker is a fringe journalist, who has lost all respect he may have ever gained from being a founder of Private Eye.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
There were several independent investigations of it, both UK and US making it a total of six so far I believe. But it will never be enough.
Don't worry Fragony. If you ever get tired of it all and want to find a more remote place to live I hear they need more farmers on Greenland.
Funny you bring that up, as the 15% decrease in ice was actually only 0.1% of it. They even apoligised for itQuote:
Originally Posted by CBR
Yes and? Evidence of global warming being wrong? Evidence of conspiracy? They still grow more crops up there and then it does not matter how many blogs goes into frenzy over how much ice there is or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
It wouldn't matter to you if global warming is a lie? The earth just isn't warming up. Fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
And there's is no such thing as an ice free Northwest Passage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I give you that there's no clear increase for the last decade, but it's worth to remember that 1998 was an extreme year in 1998, while it's a warm year in 2011.
I'm sure 1998 was pretty extreme in 1998, weren't we all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Free passage existed by the way you dreadbeards found it
Greenland was called that for a reason. Is it the greenest it has ever been?
=][=
Is the world warming? Overall yes
How much is man made? A lot, but how much I'm not sure.
Is it a bad thing? Not necessarily. It is much better then a mini ice age. Dinosaurs roamed a much warmer world. So whose up for T-Rex drumsticks? They come with one hell of a bite.
You all do realise that the Earth is being terra-formed in favour of the octo-squids?
One of the Biggest Climate Skeptics' own research has set the record straight for him.
News Article on Washington Post
Quote:
Muller and his fellow researchers examined an enormous data set of observed temperatures from monitoring stations around the world and concluded that the average land temperature has risen 1 degree Celsius — or about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit — since the mid-1950s.
Quote:
Muller’s figures also conform with the estimates of those British and American researchers whose catty e-mails were the basis for the alleged “Climategate” scandal, which was never a scandal in the first place.
Quote:
The Berkeley group’s research even confirms the infamous “hockey stick” graph — showing a sharp recent temperature rise — that Muller once snarkily called “the poster child of the global warming community.” Muller’s new graph isn’t just similar, it’s identical.
Quote:
skeptics are wrong when they claim that a “heat island” effect from urbanization is skewing average temperature readings; monitoring instruments in rural areas show rapid warming, too.
Quote:
The results have not yet been subjected to peer review, so technically they are still preliminary. But Muller’s plain-spoken admonition that “you should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer” has reduced many deniers to incoherent grumbling or stunned silence.
happy to agree with all of the above, but it does not substantially change my criticism of CAGW:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10...udy/page2.html
Quote:
Muller also cautions that observers should not take the BEST results and use them to prove something that they can't. When we asked him if it were possible to extrapolate from his team's results and predict whether the temperature increase will continue, he told us: "I don't think that is possible. The key issue is what fraction of the observed change is anthropomorphic. We don't shed much light on that."
I'm not surprised that little light is shed on that, since I don't think anyone claims that climate change looks like a human. It might however be anthropogenic. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
lol, i noticed that too when i read it yesterday, but i think we know what he means. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Is it bad that I saw that too? I guess I'm in good company.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Am I understanding this; Muller is no longer a skeptic at all because his research says that two out of three temperature gauging stations show warming...? Is the fact that the earth is warming even up for debate? :dizzy2:
Sorry buddy, but unless your research shows that 1) it's anthropogenic, 2) it's going to continue to rise to crises levels I will happily remain incoherently grumbling and being stunned silent. :rolleyes:Quote:
The results have not yet been subjected to peer review, so technically they are still preliminary. But Muller’s plain-spoken admonition that “you should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer” has reduced many deniers to incoherent grumbling or stunned silence.
Edit: I guess what I'm not understanding is the media's reacting to this as a lolpwnd moment for skeptics.
Well that depends whom you are replying to... Ah, here it is:Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I would not say that, but rather that man is not the main driver of the climate, since in the past we have seen fluctuations of the temperature. There is an experiment at CERN called the CLOUD experiment Basically they are testing in lab conditions to see what is driving.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63AbaX1dE7I
good vid, cheers
If you are a scientist you should be a balanced skeptic. Examine the evidence and refine the methods to get the data.
Science should work to a consensus it should not work towards being a dogma.
The current consensus is that humans are helping the globe warm.
The reaction should not be denial it should be to build better tools and to question if this is really a good or bad thing.
Too much and we are Venus so global warming could be terrible, a couple of degrees more and we can go back to having Terrible Lizards.
i'm not sure that there is anything to disagree with there Pape.
No it isn't, can't just decide that there is consensus, it really has to be thereQuote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Cool new e-mails http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...arming-debate/
The euro crisis is a godsend in way, at least gutmensch gets to blame capitalism for something that is real, the absence of a need for post-modern science is somewhat refreshing, but I still think we should rebuild the wall
NEINNEINNEIN thx to the IPCC models we can predict an industrial age every 10.000 years with clockwork precision and ours is comming to an end
if we do not act right now
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...jim-lacey?pg=1 <-'More nails for the coffin of man-made global warming' inquisitive journalist explains e-mails
But warmists will just continue to repear repeat keep repeating, it doesn't have to be true just keep repeating
durban failed, jolly good:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/12/cop17_failure/
i have a pretty high confidence that the science in IPCC5 in 2015 will be 'right', and some small confidence that the policy recommendeed will not be quite so insane, but i'll be damned if i want any legally binding treaties agreed before then.
I was watching Frozen Planet with the great David Attenborough. One stat he mentioned is that the Artic ice since 1981 has retreated to 2/3s the surface cover...a third of the ice has disappeared!
But it's not that bad, it's worse. Another stat in the same section... Military submarine data that measures Artic ice thickness ... And they have measured it a lot... After all if you need to surface for an emergency you need to know where. The ice thickness has halved.
So the Artic ice has halved in amount.
That's bad, but wait its worse.
You need to multiplie the two area x thickness = volume.
Artic ice volume 2011 = 1/2 * 2/3 = 1/3 the volume of 1981.
Now if the Antartic lost 2/3 of its ice the oceans would rise 40m. Nothing to worry about there.
good job it isn't then, eh?
Oh dear, somehow we sub-sealevel dutchies must have missed any effect of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Antarctic isn't diminishing like the Artic.
It's colder, larger and on land. Artic is floating in water so it's melting will not have the same sea level contribution as ice tha is melting on land.
As such if the Antartic melts it will have a much more visible effect then the Artic.
And if a train falls on my head I'll be dead, guaranteed. But there has to be a train above me, can't fall on my head if there isn't any
Simple experiment:
Need:
Ice cubes
Water
Three glasses
Whiskey
Marker pen.
First glass put three ice cubes in, add water until all the ice cubes are floating. Mark a line on the cup where the water level is.
Second glass put three ice cubes in, add water, but make sure the ice is not floating and still touches the bottom of the glass. This is difficult so do this before glass three. Mark the water level.
Third glass put in as much or little ice as you like, add the whiskey and sit back , drink and watch the ice melt in the other two glasses.
Report back which of the first two glasses had the highest rise in water level.
The first one is the Artic, the second is the Antartic.
No need I know what the outcome will be, ice has more volume than water. But tell me, if the artic did all that melting stuff since 1981, where did the water go. It sure didn't end up here. Odd n'est pas
Do the experiment and we can discuss the results
Why don't you think of somethingg yourself, take the actual mass off ice and think of how sea levels can rise 40 meters. All the ice that is below sea level melting will lower sea levels, and what's above sea level will have to be spread out. No need for fancy calculations, it's simply impossibleQuote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
It ended up taking the same spot as the void left by the melted ice. Basic chemistry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
current sea level rise, so with current trend (that seems to be slowly accelerating) it's about 3,1 mm/year, or 31 cm/century.
Models of much more rapid sea rise are mentioned further down.
No it doesn't, as ice has more volume than water the submerged ice melting will lower the water level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Basic physics and I tested it with Bailey's and ice tonight.
Marked the glass, waited for the ice to melt. Same level.
The ice floats because it is less dense than water. When it melts it's density increase...the over all effect is that the level of the water (Bailey's in my case) does not rise.
Now. If the ice wasn't floating in the water as is the Antartic, any ice melting there will rise sea levels.
Antartic is much much larger and much colder then the Artic. So it currently is not melting like the Artic.
All the Artics melting is not adding anything to sea levels.
However if the Antartic lost 2/3 of its volume sea levels would rise by 40m.
Less baily's would be my advice. Ice is a solid object, that is why you don't drown when being on it. It has weight so it displaces water, water being fluid. Netto effect of submerged water melting is still an overall lowering of water level, not a rise. VERY basic stuff what do they teach you kids these days
Missed this, 31cm in a centuryy for whatever reason, to even consider a rise of 40 meters, doubt there even exists enough water to raise the sea by just one sorry meter. How. From whereQuote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Simple experiment you can do at home as already outlined.
Glass of water, put in some ice. Make sure the ice isn't touching the bottom of the glass. Mark a line on the glass at the current water level. Sit back and watch. Basic experiment.
I'm not asking you to believe me. I'm asking you to be a true skeptic and verify for yourself.
What you will find is that the weight of water displaced by the ice is the same weight as the ice. Hence once the ice melts it will not cause the water level to rise up anymore.
That is why the melting of the Artic is not a danger in itself. It is a warning sign.
Now the Antartic is a much much larger and colder piece of land with a lot more ice on and around it. The ice on that land of it was ALL melted is sufficient to raise sea levels by 60m. Luck has it that it isn't melting yet as it is far colder then the Artic. Actually it isn't luck again it's colder therefore it will melt after the north pole is water on summer.
Anyhow test the floating ice, read up about the differences between the two poles and come to your own conclusions.
Basically arctic ice is already displacing volume of water (more or less) it would create when melted. Antarctic ice is not displacing any water due to it being on land. Frag asks where is this 40 meter rise coming from. Basically the ocean and antarctic ice are two separate systems, not a single one. So when antarctic ice melts, you are essentially pouring more water in the glass.
At least that's my understanding.
Pape and ACIN did a very good job explaining it just now and personal experiment is the most riveting way of approaching any such subject, yet I am a bit incredulous as to whether we are actually debating this – buoyancy is a ~2200 years old principle, gravity itself has a much shorter history in science.
Archimedes established in On floating bodies:
Quote:
Any floating object displaces its own weight of fluid.
Any object, wholly or partially immersed in a fluid, is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the object.
let me know when you have found a way to have sea levels rise 40 meters, there just isn't nearly enough water for that.. it would have to rise 40m EVERYWHERE, how do you see thatto be possibl. Right, it isn't, ocean is only a few km deepQuote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Ehmmmm the current depth of the ocean is irrelevant in relation to a rise in sea levels.
It is very easy to calculate the volume of added water.
Antarctica holds about 90 percent of the world's ice (and 70 percent of its fresh water).
It is covered with ice an average of 2,133 meters (7,000 feet) thick.
If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet).
Indeed, ice has more volume. And that extra volume is the thing sticking up above the water surface. Take 1 kg (1L) of water, freeze it (roughly 1.1L). The ice cube will float, but also displace 1 kg (1L) of water. This is one version to weight things less dense than water. If an object becomes completely submerged (by weight or force) the you get its volume, by the displacement of water.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Melting completely submerged ice would lower the water level, but it would require something to keep the ice from floating up.
The worser scenarios are about 0.5-2 meters in a century.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Antartica contains ice equivalent to about a 60 meter water rise.
Greenland about 7 meters.
And yes, melting all of it would take thousands of years.
Land bound or bottom frozen (with abundant ice above sea level) regions are those that increases the sea level. It's the same principle that made the water level more than 100 meters lower than today during, the ice ages.
And for the fun of it. Fragony, the only relevance the depth has, is that increased water temperature increases the volume of water. It's very minor, but on 4 km (estimated average water depth) of water it makes a difference. Going from 4 C water to 30 C would cause a sea level rise of 17 meters. I doubt this factor is going to matter much normally (an average sea temp of 30 C is proably a half desert Earth or something like that), but it exists.
'Antartica contains ice equivalent to about a 60 meter water rise.Greenland about 7 meters.'
So they say but it's impossible when you think of it. Take it's volume and the volume it would require to even raise it with just one meter. Absolute bull that sea levels can rise 7, or even 60 meter, they may say so but that doesn't make it true, calculare it for me and i will listen
What’s so difficult about it? :shrug:
It's an elementary school problem.
You convert the ice volume of the ice sheets into the water volume it would create.
The volume of Antarctica’s ice is 29,315,965 km3.
Now, of course, we have different densities. Specifically, because of the various gasses trapped within it, ice is about 90% as dense as water – hence a 0.9 conversion rate.
Thus the volume of said water is 29,315,965 x 0.9 = 26,384,368 km3.
Now, you take your newfound water volume of the ice sheets and divide it by the total surface area of the oceans, which is 346,976,563 km2.
You now have 26,384,368 km3 / 346,976,563 km2 = 0.0760 km = 76m.
Basic arithmetic.
I suppose they come up with only 61 meters because there are a few independent atmospheric variables which intervene to lessen the impact.
Why not? In heavily simplified terms which serve only to illustrate orders of magnitude:
~71% of the earth's surface area is covered by ocean so assuming that we can just stack water vertically what would a 60m increase entail? Well, the 6.4km radius of the earth implies that the volume required would be something in the order of magnitude of: 7,1 * 6,0 * 4 * pi* (6.4*10^3)^2 m^3 = 2.2*10^10 m^3 in liquid water.
So what is Antarctica's surface area, then? According to the wiki, that is 14 million square kilometer, i.e. 14 *10^3 *10^3 m^2. Therefore if all that area was, on average covered with just 1m thick layer of ice what do we have: 1,4* 10^7 m^3. So how thick are these ice sheets apparently?
Well according to teh wiki 98% of that surface area is covered by layers of ice averaging at least a mile in height (1.6*10^3m). So using similar simplified calculation that yields a volume of: 1,4*10^7 * 0,98 *1.6*10^3 = 1.4*1.6*0.98 * 10^10 = 2.2*10^10 m^3 in ice... As a lower bound... Looks familiar?
Actually, it becomes a very difficult calculus problem. Since water does not stack, knowing the total volume of water released from the melt only gets you half way. The percentage of the earth's surface covered with water will change as the volume of water increases, in a very not-easily-computable way. How much coastline and brackish riverbank gets eaten with a 20 meter rise in water levels? 30 meters? They have computer models for it, it is not as easy as you make it out to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowake
It doesn't but the same holds true for ice as well at those volumes. Given the height of the ice sheets even in terms of order of magnitude this is a non-trivial volume as well.
@drone
It is already accounted for :bow:
Vertically, as I show above, you obtain 76m.
70-75% of the earth is already covered in water.
It appears to me that this, combined with the atmospheric variables I was mentioning above, makes the 61m they are advancing as a figure just about right.
Perhaps it's not 61, perhaps it's 59, or 55, but easily above the 40m figure they were debating about? Definitely.
10%-20% margin error on quick calculations is usually close enough to be acceptable. If you're toying with really large numbers, a factor 100 is still a small error.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
Yes, the good calculations takes that into consideration and as Nowake already displayed, is already considered in the given calculations.
But it's not an elementary school problem.
Pssshhhh, I was calculating this kind of stuff in 5th grade.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
You could make it a primary school problem. Measuring melting ice in a cup is kitchen physics, cooking is kitchen chemistry.
Get a globe if the world.
Trace Antartica.
Photocopy tracing.
Cut out the photocopies.
Blue tack them to the globe.
Count the number of Antarticas that now cover the globe.
Take the thickness of the ice in Antartica (averages ~ mile)
Divide thickness by number of Antarticas to cover the globe.
You have an approximation on how much the worlds waters could rise.
I prefer the martini glass exercise. Take a shot glass, fill it with vodka, and pour it into a martini glass. Mark the level with a marker. Fill shot glass, pour, mark again. Fill, pour, mark again. Notice the lines get closer as more shots are poured in. This is what will happen when the icepack melts. Now drink the vodka.
But the water doesn't rise all that much since 1981, surely we dutchies must have noticed it if it did. Attenwhatshisnam is full off it, should stick to filming polar bears in Amsterdam's zoo. Nothing to be absolutely terrified about, it ain't happening
EDIT:
It has been explained by half a dozen people already, all replying to you directly, that currently we are observing the melting of the Arctic's floating ice, and not the ice covering the Antarctic land.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frag
It was also explained exhaustively why the difference is crucial.
Come on, now that we even proved there is plenty of solidified water to raise the sea level way above your threshold, are we going to just repeat the whole discussion for the sake of it?
@drone, ACIN
Look, my remark was a reply to Frag’s insistence that calculating mathematically that the sea level could rise by 40m is impossible.
Quote:
drone: But it's not an elementary school problem.
ACIN: Pssshhhh, I was calculating this kind of stuff in 5th grade.
Thus I really don’t see where’s the cause for irony :shrug:
We were taught about buoyancy and how to calculate its force (hence also establish displaced volumes) precisely in the 5th grade, which inaugurated our first year of physics classes.
We were taught about density in the 6th grade.
Normal kids in a normal school in a normal 250.000 people town in a normal east-European country.
Now I will give you that perhaps that is middle school, not elementary, I am always fuzzy when it comes to your system – we go through general school (1st to 8th) and lyceum (9th to 12th) here, so we don’t really make a distinction.
Oh well, I guess we really needed the off-topic, you meanies ganging up on poor old Nowake :stare:
REMOVED
I did read the posts in question in that kid's thread and I found your sarcasm towards Sarmatian's comment - that is, your switching of his name upon quoting him - brilliant and a great pity that no one else remarked upon it but me - or perhaps they did and did not comment on it as well.
So I find it hard to reconcile your usually biting humour with this awful incapacity or refusal to understand the facts above.
Being just fourth just gets to you sometimesQuote:
Originally Posted by Nowake
Get it?!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Nuh-uh, I am a fun sponge, the ultimate prick.
EDIT: Please don't close the thread, we will find our way back on track!
Fragony if you want to catch up to Archimedes level of Eureka science I suggest yet again doing the ice bouyancy test and watch it melt and measure it for yourself.
At the moment though your mindset of not testing or challenging your ideas or verifying even basic science puts you in the same philosophical boat as not so fun fundamentalists.
Don't assume anything as it just makes an ass of u & me. Go test the floating ice, then you will understand why the melting Artic has zero impact on sea levels.
Until then your opinions on global warming are noted and form a Eucledia Point.
Au contraire I'm more of a fun fundamentalist. But I'm glad we all agree that water-levels aren't rising, and especially not with 60 meters. So what's the problem really? Attenbfgghhgf said the ice was retreating by the way, only landice retreats, the kind that's above water.
What is happening: the Artic ice is one third it's volume since 1981. As the Artic is floating its melting is not contributing to rising sea levels.
Antarctic is much larger and colder. Antarctica is approx the size of the EU and Australia combined with ice about a mile thick. It hasn't melted like that ... Yet... But what if it did?
What if: Antarctica melted to the same ratio as the Artic?
a) it's land ice so it's melting will contribute to sea levels unlike the Artic.
b) 70% of the worlds fresh water is locked in the Antartic. It's size is more then most minds can comprehend, for instance the land area that Australia claims in Antartica is over twice the size of Western Australia... Which itself is many times the size of Texas.
c). Melt 2/3 of the ice in the Antartic ... Same amount as the Artic has experienced in thirty years..
d) melting of a much much larger body of ice that is on load will contribute to sea level rising, 40m for 2/3 of the ice in the Antartic.
All basic physics... Literally Eureka era... Plus basic volume calculations and you can compute the results for yourself.
'What is happening: the Artic ice is one third it's volume since 1981.'
That's what they say in a BBC documentary, doesn't mean it's true. Take your experiment, if global temperature would rise the north-pole melting would still rise the sea level. Which doesn't rise
That is precisely Pape's point: because the North pole is a little floating ice cube in your drink, melting it doesn't make a difference. Its volume is already accounted for in current levels by the displacement of liquid needed for it to float. (Hence why we don't notice big spikes in sea levels during summer or drops during winter.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
By contrast the Antarctic is not a little floating ice cube, but a big ice cube lying on a table. So what if you took it from your table then dropped it into your drink?
You can't reason someone out of something they never reasoned themselves into.
What are the odds of balancing these effects up to an overall effect of zero? Maybe there is simply nothing happening? Where is the rest of the water that will rise sea levels 60 meter comming from by the way, if we do not act right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
Fragony, you do know that trolling is quite rude.
Not trolling, if a global rise of temperature is the common dominator in the equation and the end result (rising sea level) is zero the two poles should exactly balance eachother out. Either they do, or nothing is happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
No takers, but we can pour Pap's an extra glass as the rise in temperature would also melt glaciers. So much for your science. If I pour some extra water it will rise, no matter how weird it may look. Your math is wrong and it takes only common sense to point out where
And here's a nice example of what I feel is trolling. The worst estimates is 2 meters rise until 2100. For all 60+ meters to melt, we're talking more than a millenia or aliens testing their heat weapons on Antartica.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Sigh. Artic= glas with ice cubes floating on top of water. We've already given examples about how to display buoyancy. Water level won't rise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Notable consequences. The polar bears are in trouble in thier natural habitat. The Northwest passage is suddenly useful for the first time in history. Suddenly every country is starting to claim Artica due to new access to the sea bottom.
Antartic =Mix between ice on the table (=continental glacier) and the whole glass being frozen with a nice 2km tall tower of snow on top of all of it.
And for the final thing you said. Did you notice that I said that the sea level is already rising because of this melting of glaciers? It's just slow due to the scale involved. It's about 5,8 cm since 1993.
Polar bears are doing just fine, And so are we here. You have absolutely nothing to absolutely terrify us.
My Alaskan tea-party conservative grandmother says the same thing lol. "The polar bears are doing just fine, they're just coming to live on the land now." She forgets to mention that more people are getting eaten by polar bears.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Because there are more of them, doh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuuvi
haha no, I'm no biologist but I've read that polar bear populations are declining in most places. Polar bears usually live out on the sea ice and hunt seals. But because the sea ice melts so much in the summer now, the polar bears are forced to come onto the land to search for food or they risk drowning. This means that more people are getting eaten than in the past because a) people live on the land, not the ice; and b) polar bears aren't as good as brown bears and wolves at hunting caribou, etc. so people make for an easier meal.