5 ms·

Why is this surprising to intelligent scientists? Common sense says that unless the bears eat the ice and it's their only source of a critical resource (nutrien

Why is this surprising to intelligent scientists? Common sense says that unless the bears eat the ice and it's their only source of a critical resource (nutrients?) then of course the bears will find a work around. Did they really think the bears would just give up and die if the ice all melted?

moomin 4y ago
You might want to read beyond the headline.
- martyvis 4y ago
  +1. Totally agree. Nowhere in the article does anyone seem "surprised". If you are going to project a response on the scientists it would probably be relief or concern.
  - kosyblysk666 4y ago
    ...and what r u projecting here? ...a concerned mother?
AnimalMuppet 4y ago
If I understand correctly, ice does supply a critical resource to polar bears - cooling.
wolverine876 4y ago
I'm sure you already know that animals, including humans, die due to changes in their environment. So what do you mean here?
- kosyblysk666 4y ago
  yes,, death it is part of the evolution whats ur point?
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    Feel free to take part in evolution yourself, but leave the rest of us out of it. I feel no allegiance to evolution as a cause or god; it's just a natural process.
    - kosyblysk666 4y ago
pvaldes 4y ago
Is not so simple. Polar bears migrate to avoid the harsh season. To survive, they need to cross a chilling open sea that is all except calm. They can swim for more than a week and more than 650Km non stop. This is what grants them the tag of marine mammals, and is well earned. Finding a chunk of ice to rest and sleep in this travel can be the difference between surviving (at coast of a 20% of its fat reserves) or drowning in the sea, specially for cubs that often die in the travel. Less and less floating icebergs mean less bears surviving, until none will be able to swim so far without help. And then you have a big chunk of the population vanished in a couple of months.
- RobertRoberts 4y ago
  "Polar bear population discovered that can survive with little sea ice" What polar bears "need to survive" either is misunderstood, or these bears have evolved. Either way, scientistific claims need to be questioned, because to the common person it's obvious that bears will adapt, and that "needing sea ice" to survive is a simplistic notion.
  - pvaldes 4y ago
    The problem with what common person feel as obvious is that is based in common person knowledge. People is often unable to see (or refuse to see) the whole picture about a field that they don't master. It does not mean if is informatics, or ecology. To start, the title in HN is misleading. Without access to the full article, I can't really discuss the job, but I have a few mental questions to myself that would need to be addressed. Maybe they are discussed in the article, maybe not. If all known populations of bears appear in areas with at least a little of sea ice, and none in areas without sea ice; I think that the answer to the question "would polar bears survive if the sea ice vanishes?" is not difficult to deduce. In any case the last lines of the link: "correction, we didn't mean to say that polar bears can survive without sea-ice" are self-explanatory.

moomin 4y ago

You might want to read beyond the headline.

martyvis 4y ago
+1. Totally agree. Nowhere in the article does anyone seem "surprised". If you are going to project a response on the scientists it would probably be relief or concern.
- kosyblysk666 4y ago
  ...and what r u projecting here? ...a concerned mother?

AnimalMuppet 4y ago

If I understand correctly, ice does supply a critical resource to polar bears - cooling.

wolverine876 4y ago

I'm sure you already know that animals, including humans, die due to changes in their environment. So what do you mean here?

kosyblysk666 4y ago
yes,, death it is part of the evolution whats ur point?
- wolverine876 4y ago
  Feel free to take part in evolution yourself, but leave the rest of us out of it. I feel no allegiance to evolution as a cause or god; it's just a natural process.
  - kosyblysk666 4y ago

pvaldes 4y ago

Is not so simple. Polar bears migrate to avoid the harsh season. To survive, they need to cross a chilling open sea that is all except calm. They can swim for more than a week and more than 650Km non stop. This is what grants them the tag of marine mammals, and is well earned. Finding a chunk of ice to rest and sleep in this travel can be the difference between surviving (at coast of a 20% of its fat reserves) or drowning in the sea, specially for cubs that often die in the travel. Less and less floating icebergs mean less bears surviving, until none will be able to swim so far without help. And then you have a big chunk of the population vanished in a couple of months.

RobertRoberts 4y ago
"Polar bear population discovered that can survive with little sea ice" What polar bears "need to survive" either is misunderstood, or these bears have evolved. Either way, scientistific claims need to be questioned, because to the common person it's obvious that bears will adapt, and that "needing sea ice" to survive is a simplistic notion.
- pvaldes 4y ago
  The problem with what common person feel as obvious is that is based in common person knowledge. People is often unable to see (or refuse to see) the whole picture about a field that they don't master. It does not mean if is informatics, or ecology. To start, the title in HN is misleading. Without access to the full article, I can't really discuss the job, but I have a few mental questions to myself that would need to be addressed. Maybe they are discussed in the article, maybe not. If all known populations of bears appear in areas with at least a little of sea ice, and none in areas without sea ice; I think that the answer to the question "would polar bears survive if the sea ice vanishes?" is not difficult to deduce. In any case the last lines of the link: "correction, we didn't mean to say that polar bears can survive without sea-ice" are self-explanatory.