3 ms·

So what happens to the indigenous population of animals (polar bears are the first that come to my mind) when this happens? Do they just die out or are there gr

by mugdho 10y ago

So what happens to the indigenous population of animals (polar bears are the first that come to my mind) when this happens? Do they just die out or are there groups trying to get them to safety?

yellow_postit 10y ago
Outside of captivity, where would it be safe for arctic animals?
- mugdho 10y ago
  Probably nowhere. But the alternative to captivity is that we will just see entire species of animals go extinct.
  - Silfen 10y ago
    We have already seen many, many species go extinct. The exact figures are not well understood, but there's a lot more at stake than just the polar bear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
    - shoo 10y ago
      There's a 2009 paper "Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity" that may be of interest. > The planetary boundary (PB) concept, introduced in 2009, aimed to define the environmental limits within which humanity can safely operate. This approach has proved influential in global sustainability policy development. Steffen et al. provide an updated and extended analysis of the PB framework. Of the original nine proposed boundaries, they identify three (including climate change) that might push the Earth system into a new state if crossed and that also have a pervasive influence on the remaining boundaries. They also develop the PB framework so that it can be applied usefully in a regional context. [1] http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/1259855 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/1259855 [2] http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1063&context=iss_pub http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl... edit: and the indicator that is off the charts relative to its corresponding "safe operating space" boundary is biodiversity loss - measured in species extinction/(millions of species * year). Climate change looks practically controlled compared to that. (ha).
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- SkyMarshal 10y ago
  Northern Canadian/European/Russian land masses.
- tzs 10y ago
  How about the Antarctic? Save the polar bears and fix Gary Larson's biggest "Far Side" error at the same time.
- flukus 10y ago
  The antarctic maybe. Though interfering with native ecosystems has never ended well. On the plus side, we get bi-polar bears.

by mugdho 10y ago

So what happens to the indigenous population of animals (polar bears are the first that come to my mind) when this happens? Do they just die out or are there groups trying to get them to safety?

yellow_postit 10y ago

Outside of captivity, where would it be safe for arctic animals?

mugdho 10y ago
Probably nowhere. But the alternative to captivity is that we will just see entire species of animals go extinct.
- Silfen 10y ago
  We have already seen many, many species go extinct. The exact figures are not well understood, but there's a lot more at stake than just the polar bear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
  - shoo 10y ago
    There's a 2009 paper "Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity" that may be of interest. > The planetary boundary (PB) concept, introduced in 2009, aimed to define the environmental limits within which humanity can safely operate. This approach has proved influential in global sustainability policy development. Steffen et al. provide an updated and extended analysis of the PB framework. Of the original nine proposed boundaries, they identify three (including climate change) that might push the Earth system into a new state if crossed and that also have a pervasive influence on the remaining boundaries. They also develop the PB framework so that it can be applied usefully in a regional context. [1] http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/1259855 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/1259855 [2] http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1063&context=iss_pub http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl... edit: and the indicator that is off the charts relative to its corresponding "safe operating space" boundary is biodiversity loss - measured in species extinction/(millions of species * year). Climate change looks practically controlled compared to that. (ha).
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
SkyMarshal 10y ago
Northern Canadian/European/Russian land masses.
tzs 10y ago
How about the Antarctic? Save the polar bears and fix Gary Larson's biggest "Far Side" error at the same time.
flukus 10y ago
The antarctic maybe. Though interfering with native ecosystems has never ended well. On the plus side, we get bi-polar bears.