>> If the thin oil film covers the oceans, acting as a blanket preventing oceans to cool, then it is preventing evaporation, so there is no “evaporation taking to the sky,” and therefore no “massive cloud banks,”. >> right, we are on the right path... yes evaporation is inhibited...... allowing the oceans to get hotter... and in many places clouds to be more scarce.... precipitating a positive heating feedback in the Southern Hemisphere (Northern Hemisphere is different at this time) because this situation has never happened before the prognosis is uncertain BUT if the heating continues until a new hydrological equilibrium is reached, certainly eventually massive land drying will occur, with ice melts and if the oil layer remains..... not really sure what the "new world climate" will be like BUT if the oil layer is removed... by stopping input or ????? (humans being decimated, no water) then the hot seas will evaporate more strongly, leading to massive cloud banks and then to an ice age...... something to think about, because I expect the dice has been cast and we no longer have any control in any way.... it appears that there is nothing we can do to prevent our destruction.
It looks as you are seeing the future as a half-empty glass. I am a lot more optimistic and see the world as a half-full glass that we have been filling since the human species appeared on the surface or the Earth. I repeat: look at the abysmall difference between the warming in the top 2 inches and the rest of the water mass contained in the oceans, oceans that are cooling in the Antarctica (wirnter and summers) and the Arctic, cooling in winter and slightly warming in the summer. I think that evaporation is inhibited in totally still and quiet waters, where the oil can spread over the surface. But those conditions are seldom encountered in the oceans. My opinion is that the oily theory is stretching things too much, as the warming theory did until we saw that things became to come into focus and exaggerations and blatant frauds were uncovered one by one. But, regarding the Southern Hemisphere, it is a lot cooler than the Northern Hemisphere and it is cooling in too many important parts (beside Antarctica), as great regions in South America (rural areas, not big cities), and Australia, and New Zealand, including some medium size cities.
We now also know why the World's Ice Caps are melting, http://www.nunatsiaq.com/news/nunavut/51223_10.html Here is Simeonie Aqpik describing the shift in the weather, and why the Inuit knew the climate would change. Most of what tells is exactly what the scaremongers love to hear, but he knows the reason why: There you go, and we were all thinking that it was the greenhouse gasses.
So people give more credence to the sayings of a crazy old Eskimo than scientific measurements and instrumental readings? This is an extended practice among journalists and common people, who believe more in anecdotal “narrations”. No wonder everybody seems to be crazy these days. Fear can make large populations go crazy –and governments and bureaucracies will profit from that state. Fearful people are easy prey of governments and other greedy organizations. We have been discussing this piece of informations at our forum “Climate Skeptics”, where there are famous climatologists and other scientists from all over the world –not like Sciforum with lots of amateur “armchair” climatologists whose science relies on press releases. Now let see why we have been laughing a lot about this stories from Simeonie Aqpik, the reliable and deeply scientific story teller from the Arctic. “These days it doesn’t seem to get all that cold anymore, but back then, when we didn’t have enough warm clothing, like we have now, it used to be very cold. It was so cold, the dog teams would leave long trails of their breath along the way, when the winds were calm.In the old days, they didn’t have “enough warm clothing”, so today their recall those days as really cold. Also they didn’t have modern heating and all the technological advances that make today “perception” of their everyday living a little warmer and acceptable. But today, there are not many dog teams, because they have been replaced by snowcats and motorized sleds. Even so, the few dog teams that are still pulling sleds will leave their breath along the trails –as usual. The article is written in a poetic, romantic way in order to provoke an emotional response from the reader, so it cannot be considered a reliable evidence for scientists to add to their records. “It is now obvious that the climate is changing, because the ice takes a long time to freeze and the sun rises from a different direction these days. I always use the sun as a guide, so I have noticed the difference.” This statement is unbelievable! According to the 74-year nut, the sun is coming now from a different position on the horizon! Has the Earth’s axis changed so much that the sun has changed it rising point above the horizon? Clearly this aging (or totally Alzheimer crippled old man) doesn’t know what’s he’s talking about. Perhaps readers are not aware that people usually are paid by journalists (and NGOs activists) to say things that can be used later in leaflets and propaganda. This is a clear case. An example of how a Green Legend can be transformed into a Green Sacred Myth is the Chief Seattle famous speech, adored by greens all over the world. In a later post, if you want the hideous details, I will be more than glad to provide them. “Seals that have been shot are sinking a lot faster than before and there’s fewer seals.”Global Warming makes dead seals sink much faster? Amazing! Warming loads them with lead? Or eskimos are hunting seals with machineguns and filling them up with lead? Were you surprised by the warm weather we’ve had? “Long time ago, we used to see yellow clouds coming in and people predicted that the trees down South were burning, even though they didn’t have any means to hear news about it. But they knew that because of the colour and smell of clouds and this usually happened only in the summer. Besides, seals population don’t depend on warm or cold water for their survival. There are large seal populations in warm waters (in South America, and North America too), so warm waters don’t kill seals or scare them away. There was some years ago a decrease in seal in the southern part of the Alaskan offshore due to a decrease of salmon population. The salmon decrease wasn’t caused by warming, or pollution (Exxon Valdez, etc), and has reverted since then. Salmon are back and seals too. But old Aqpik perhaps didn’t turned on his transistor radio then and missed the news. But this article comes from a small news service in the web called Nunatsiaq, that have a big ax to grind. Where are they located? They say: Where is Nunatsiaq News? Nunatsiaq News is based in Iqaluit, a town of over 6,000 people at the end of Frobisher Bay on Baffin Island. Known as Frobisher Bay until January 1, 1987, Iqaluit developed around the Crystal 2 air force base built by the U.S. Strategic Air Command in 1942.It is north of Quebec territory, so we should try to see which forests were burned then (?) providing that yellow smoke full of pollution, carrying the celestial message of doom. Maybe some Canadians can provide useful information about those forests fires of years ago. But there is something strange: “... and people predicted that the trees down South were burning, ...”“Prediction” is something applied to the future not to the past. Perhaps, we must concede, it is a mistake made by the Inuit journalist using wrong words. Perhaps he should have used “hinted” or “presumed”. “Inuit have predicted that the starvation would some day arrive and that happened to our ancestors. They knew that would happen, so they were prepared for that, by catching and preserving animals.Well, they have the second biggest freezer in the world for conserving game meat, no doubt about that. Actually, there is no need for that because polar bears and seals are now more abundant than ever in history. The polar bear population (calculated by conservation organizations) range in the 25,000 bears for the Arctic region, a recovery from a 9,000 population of some decades ago. It looks they made a good job at conserving wildlife, and we must congratulate them for it. See their excellent website: http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/ and their good FAQs at http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/faq/#q3 This article sounds pretty much as the Chief Seattle hoax of the 70s. :bugeye:
Edufer is correct to reject Simeonie Aqpik's predictions. I have proof: The bunyon on my left toe is swollen too big to fit the shoe and last time that happened was just before the cold winter of '47. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I am sure it was better indication of global cooling than that Indian's indicator of global warming, if yours was also in the summer of '47 (that would be my winter of '47 as I lived in Northern Hemisphere then) Perhaps we should send report to NY times, etc. so people will not worry needlessly now that we have solid UNDERSTANDING of climate indicators to stand on, that we do stand on. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If you check history books you will find that the medevil warm period was prior to the little ice age. Our sun dictates life here on earth. Check out soho and the new eit284 that now shows it's coronal hole and the solar winds that are just about here now. heh. As far as ancient prophecy or any of that stuff, its legend. And, as we all know, the written word/symbols shows us that history repeats itself. We are experiencing climate change and it has nothing to do with global warming. Just the word hydrothermal mega plume (in the indian ocean) scares us all. And it should. But don't fret too much, the earth has its own agenda, and, luckily for us, it takes it's own sweet time.
Then how do you explain all that we have been posting with cited references? Do you think this is a worldwide hoax? The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Assocaiation (NOAA) NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory Antarctic Cooperative Research Center (CRC) British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, U.K The U.S. Geological Survey Association The Journal of Science These organizations are not "Press Releases," and if a Press Release quotes one of their scientists or researchers involved in an ongoing research project, then what is wrong with that? What's the differrence? They sources both come from the horse's mouth. And they all agreee, through there scientific researchers, the results of which have been posted above numerous times in numerous way, that Global Warming is a fact - here and now. 1) Ozone layer decrease in South America: directly correlated to increase of skin cancer and melanoma deaths there. The huge holes in the ozone layer today were never there before in the history of the Earth: letting in huge amounts of ultraviolet rays. Undeniable proof of Greenhouse Gases and the resulting Global Warming trend 2) Polar bears not able to retrieve seals in the Arctic because the ice is too thin know for them to venture out. 3) Inuit Indians now suing the United States for the same reason. 4) Decreases in seal population due to Arctic Ocean warming. 5) Absolute rises in sea level global-wide due to rising temperatures due to Greenhouse gas effects. 6) 87% retreat of all glaciers in Antarctica. Retreat of glaciers in Greenland, Alaska, the Arctic, Antarcticta, and worldwide (6-9 miles per year). Including in the Alps, the Himalayas, and Glacier National Park, Montana. 7) Kyoto Protocal agreements: a banding together of world national leader's to do what they can to stop and reverse the effects of Global Warming. And who are you to think that you no more than what they ALL know as fact: a crack-pot voice shouting out.
How is it possible to get such an amount of fallacies in a single post? I guess that you know when a hoax, hype is going on like this one of the characteristics is the victims don’t realize it themselves that they are managed with fallacies only. As it is sheer impossible to pull anybody out of it. Skeptics are vicious villains who really buy petrol and gas from the oil companies, so they have an agenda and therefore they are wrong. There is little use I guess to expose every fallacy in that post, like the bandwagon, the restricted choice, etc. No-one is reading it anyway, since skeptics are wrong by definition. I’m afraid we have to wear out this unbelievable hype, at the cost of some trillions wasted to the largest idiocies ever.
We had one person post a whimsical self-proclaimed analysis that a thin film of oil covers the Earth's entire oceans, which is simply pure poppycock. And now it leads to this. We have isolated areas of oil film on oceans due mostly to tanker oil spills. So where does all the rest of the hypothetical scenario come from? Please cite some sources for further review and reference. Thanks a lot.
Polar Bear and Seal Decline in the Arctic, Ice-Free Arctic, and Global Warming: "The results in climate models that include obseved changes in the atmosphere's greenhouse gases and aerosals (atmospheric particles) have been compared with identical calculation where anthropogenic [human developments of] greenhouse gases and aerosals were left out. Recent published results show that human-induced changes correspond with those that have been observed in the ice cover. Statistical analysis in the change of sea ice over the last 40 years compared with changes in a reference analysis over the last 5,000 years gave a 99.9% probability that the changes were human induced. Total area of sea ice in the Arctic in the winters from 1978-1998 shows a shrinking of 610,000 kilometers squared (14% in the 20 years). Compared to the global mean temperatures over the last hundred years, the temperature of the atmosphere has increased by 0.2 degress Celcius every ten years over the last few decades....The melting of sea ice in the Arctic will probably reduce the submersion of water in the northern regions since the surface layer will be able to be fresher and lighter, and thereby be more difficult to submerse. But at the same time, less ice in the Arctic Ocean will possibly lead to a difference in vertical mixing here than what has been observed until now, resulting in an increase in strength of current flowing out of the Arctic Ocean." Source: "Towards an Ice-Free Arctic," by L.H.Smedsrud and T.Furvik, Cicerone,2/2000 http://www.cicero.uio.no/cicerone/00/2/en/smedsrud.pdf "Arctic ice thickness has diminished by 40% over the last 40 years....If the recent rate of thinning is substained, the Arctic Ocean could be ice-free in summer by 2050....The average annual temperature at Resolute has increase by about 1.3 degrees Celcius over the last three decades, an increase of about 2.5% per decade." Source: "Sea Ice in the Canadian Arctic in the 21st Century," by John C. Falkingham, et. al., Canadian Ice Service, Environment Canada. http://www.socc.uwaterloo.ca/summer/volume_1/II12_Falkinghametal/II12_Falkinghametal.PDF "A cascade of impacts, beginning with reduced sea level ice will be manifested in reduced adipost stores [animal fat] leading to lowered reproduction rates because females will have less fat to invest in cubs during the winter fast. Non-pregnant bears may have to fast on land or offshore on the remaining multiyear ice through progressivelly longer periods of open water while they await freeze-up and return to hunting seals. As sea ice thins, and becomes more fractured and libile, it is likely to move more in response to winds and currents so that polar bears will have to walk or swim more and thus use greater amounts of energy to remain contact with the remaining preferred habitats....Given the rapid change of ecological pace in the Arctic, the long generation time, and the highly specialized adaption of polar bears, it is unlikely that polar bears will survive as a species if the sea ice disappears completely as has been predicted." Source: "Polar Bears in Warming Climates," by Andrew E. Derocher et. al, Integr. Comp. Biology, vol. 44, 2004, pp. 163-176. "Through the 50's, and particularly during the 60's, the was a rapid rise in the polar bears killed....The last estimate of population size indicates that the present population might not be sustainable....Density of ringed seals, where multi-year pack ice prevails are also lower. It seems likely that the lower density of seals reflects the lower overall productivity in the marine ecosystem.... [Reference to Global Warming effecting suitable locations for female maternity dens] Extensive searching along the Alaskan coast resulted in very few additional maternity dens....In years when pack ice does not reach the coast till later in the winter, female polar bears may not be able to reach the coast or offshore islands and could be forced to den on drifting packs of ice instead. Beginning in 1989, there was a major shift in the Arctic Oscillation Index...and a record minimum ice extent. More open pack and less multi-year ice in the southern Beaufort Sea both lead to greater melting and thinning of the annual ice, resulting in more open water since 1989. In addition, man annual temperature in April, May, and June have increased steadily and, as a result...the annual ice along the mainland coast during the winter, fresh water melts from rivers and sea ice melts extends farther North into the Beaufort sea than was the case in earlier decades. Melling (1998) has shown that between 1989 and 1996 the upper halocine in the Canada Basin has warmed 0.15 degrees Celcius, an amount sufficient to account for 0.7 meters of sea ice." Source: "Polar Bears and Seals in the Eastern Beaufort Sea and Amundseb Gulf: A Synthesis of Population Trends and Ecological Relationships over Three Decades," by Ian Stirling, Arctic, vol. 55, 2002, pp. 59-76. "The presence of sea ice in Hudson Bay and other coastal areas is a major factor affecting interactions between the marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Loss of ice and therefore hunting of seals by polar bears will reduce bear and arctic fox populations within the region. In turn, this is likely to have significant effects on their herbivorous prey populations and forage plants. Further, the undersurface of sea ice is a major site for the growth of algae and marine invertebrates which in turn act as food for the marine food web. A rise in sea-level may flood coastal saltmarsh communities leading to changes in plant assemblages and a decline in foraging by geese and other consumers. The anomalous cooling in the eastern Arctic, primarily in late winter and early spring, has interrupted northern migration of breeding populations of geese and ducks and led to increased damage to vegetation in southern arctic saltmarshes as a result of foraging. It is likely that there has been a significant loss of invertebrates in those areas where the vegetation has been destroyed. Warming will have major effects on permafrost distribution and on ground-ice resulting in a major destabilization of slopes and slumping of soil, and disruption of tundra plant communities. Disruption of peat and moss surfaces lead to loss of insulation, an increase in active-layer depth and changes in drainage and plant assemblages. Increases of UV-B radiation will strongly affect vulnerable populations of both plants and animals. The indigenous peoples will face major changes in life style, edibility of food and health standards, if there is a significant warming trend." Source: "Atmospheric Change and Biodiversity in the Arctic," by Roger I. C. Hansell, et. al., Environmental Monitoring, Vol. 49:2-3, 1998, pp.303-325 "Climatic warming, the first impacts on polar bears (Ursus maritimus ) will be felt at the southern limits of their distribution, such as in James and Hudson bays, where the whole population is already forced to fast for approximately four months when the sea ice melts during the summer. Prolonging the ice-free period will increase nutritional stress on this population until they are no longer able to store enough fat to survive the ice-free period. Early signs of impact include declining body condition, lowered reproductive rates, reduced survival of cubs, and an increase in polar bear-human interactions. These changes are currently detectable in the polar bears of western Hudson Bay." Source: "Possible impacts of climatic warming on polar bears," by Stirling, I and A. E. Derocher, Arctic. Vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 240-245. 1993. Decrease in Body Mass of Polar Bears in the Hudson Bay Area: "Estimated body mass values between the periods, calculated using equations showed that the EBM for polar bears captured in 2000–03 was significantly less (7–18% less) than that for bears captured in the mid-1980s....This finding has direct implications for ongoing research on polar bears in southern Hudson Bay, where long-term monitoring of body condition has become a high priority amid growing concern that climatic warming may cause a gradual decline in the body condition of polar bears inhabiting Hudson Bay." Source: "To weigh or not to weigh: conditions for the estimation of body mass by morphometry," by Marc R.L. Cattet and M.E. Obbardb, Ursus, Vol.16:1, 2005, pp102–7 http://www.bioone.org/bioone/?reque....2192/1537-6176(2005)016[0102:TWONTW]2.0.CO;2 "In some areas of Canada's Arctic the temperature is expected to rise an estounding 15 degrees by 2050....Polar bears need sea ice to access prey." Source: "Climate Change and Canada's National Park System," a overview by the David Suzuki Foundation of "Parks Canada 1997 State of the National Park's Report." http://www.davidsuzuki.org/files/NatParkBak.pdf
Ozone Depletion due To Green House Gases "The pattern of climate trends during the past few decades is marked by rapid cooling and ozone depletion in the polar lower stratosphere of both hemispheres, coupled with an increasing strength of the wintertime westerly polar vortex and a poleward shift of the westerly wind belt at the earth's surface. Recent stratospheric ozone reductions and Green House Gas increases both cause significant radiative cooling in the stratosphere. Annual mean responses to the changes of carbon dioxide, ozone, and stratospheric water vapor since 1979 each show about 2°C cooling in the polar lower stratosphere in a recent climate model...Ozone decline and Green House Gas increases could also be contributing to the delay in the breakdown of the polar vortex in springtime. It appears that decreased ozone in the polar lower stratosphere caused by reduced transport can lead to a stronger vortex and further reductions in planetary wave ozone transport. This positive feedback could sustain long-lasting anomalies that would be similar to the trends observed in the Northern Hemisphere. The enhanced lower stratospheric cooling over the polar cap region renders the stratospheric ozone layer more susceptible to ozone-destroying chemicals. Because of these dynamical, chemical, and radiative feedbacks, the ozone hole and greenhouse warming issues are much more strongly coupled than has widely been assumed. Predicting the future course of the Northern Hemisphere Annual Mode (NAM) related climate change is further complicated by the possibility of a transition of the Arctic Ocean to an ice free state during the 21st century. The tendency toward a more westerly (counterclockwise, or cyclonic) circulation within and around the polar cap region may be contributing to the recent retreat of the Arctic pack ice during summertime as well as the thinning of the perennial pack ice. A more cyclonic wind stress, as occurs in the high index polarity of the NAM, favors divergence of ice and surface water out of the Arctic, opening up leads, and thinning the layer of cold, fresh water that insulates the pack ice from the warmer, saltier waters underneath. Another possible complicating factor is the oceanic thermohaline circulation, whose sinking branch lies along the edge of the pack ice in the far reaches of the North Atlantic. In recent years, the conditions that favor bottom water formation (i.e., strong outflows of cold, dry air across the ice edge) have been observed less frequently over the Greenland Sea and more frequently over the Labrador Sea, suggesting that bottom water formation has been occurring farther westward. Whether such a shift will, in time, serve to change the intensity or basic character of the thermohaline circulation has yet to be determined. There are indications that the latitude of the north wall of the Gulf Stream has shifted northward slightly in recent decades in response to the trend in the NAM. A continued northward shift would favor additional warming over Eurasia and the Arctic, above and beyond that associated with the trend in the NAM itself. Coupled interactions such as these could conceivably give rise to NAM-related variability on time scales much longer than the historical record." Source: "Can ozone depletion and global warming interact to produce rapid climate change?," by Dennis L. Hartmann, et. al., Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington, Geophysics, Vol. 97, Issue 4, 1412-1417, February 15, 2000 http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/4/1412
There you go again. There is unmistaken evidence of global warming. No problem. But the fallacy of the restricted choice demands the obvious conclusion this way: Greenhouse gasses cause warming There are more greenhouse gas and there is more warming Consequently the warming is caused by more greenhouse gas. People are producing more CO2, so people cause warming. So all the studies call the warming global warming So it's all true. Now let's do some waking up. This is all resticted choice fallacy, affirming the consequent fallacy and bandwagon fallacy. There are more reasons for warming and cooling, there are more reasons for variation in greenhouse gasses (although irrelevant due to the small effect) and no matter how many studies call AGW true, it doesn't make it true. This graph (posted in the other thread) shows that the effect of more greenhouse gasses for radiation absorption is very small: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The merged blue dots in the lower left hand corner show the variation in reradiation versus the current range of CO2. But natural variability of temperature in the last 20,000 year (big graph) and the last 4000 years (inserted) has been orders of magnitude higher than the current warming simulated by the tiny red line at the right in the inserted graph: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! However there is no clear cause - effect relation at all with CO2 levels in those variations. So warming?: yes by all means, no doubt about that. Anthropogenic greenhouse gasses? Why? What's the evidence? There is only evidence for a very minor role. The real why has probably nothing to do with science but a terrible lot with the working of the human mind with its subjective needs. And I'm incredibly mild here.
>> We have isolated areas of oil film on oceans due mostly to tanker oil spills see http://www.omegafour.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=46&sid=fd9d857a5a2546649494ceff85059cf9 Surface layer marine biologists have identified petroleum oil on the water in all places of the world....... You can discount it all you want, but the oil is there and growing in thickness, and the sea is "unnaturally" heating up. AND there is no solution.
What does this mean? As I stated three times: The consensus amongst scientist as to whether Global Warming is a natural event or man-made is 50:50. In other words most think that 50% of Global Warming is due to natural causes of the Earth warming since the last ice age, and 50% is due to man-made causes. Nevertheless, if we want to live comfortably on Earth and survive, it is best for us to stop and reverse the trend, rather then allowing it to increase. Still, the man-made causes, such as exhust gas emmission and smog in urban areas is clearly manmade and results in difficulties in breathing, health problem, and an eyesore. No one wants to see polar bears become extinct and the Inuits are now filing law suits against both Canada and the United States because they can no longer walk out onto the ice in the winter to fish for their food sustenance. No one wants forests and human structures ruined by acid rain. Nor do we want to continue the massive deforestation - a useless cause.
This is a link to another web forum. Then the link on that web forum leads to an article stating that most of the problem is around industrial waste disposal area and oil pollutants. Still farther down another post cited this source: " Conventional wisdom from surface chemistry would suggest that the natural organic matter in the microlayer consists of material adsorbed at the air-water interface, making up a film of molecular thickness. This view is certainly supported by the visual appearance of surface slicks. However, visible surface slicks are relatively rare on the open oceans, although in coastal seas they are more prevalent. For example, Garebetian et al. (1993) report that in the Mediterranean slicks were present 30% of the time and covered >50% of the photographed area. " http://gesamp.imo.org/no59/char_sur.htm I think we should stick to what research has been done regarding this and cite the scientific sources. Global Warming is increasing water temperatures in some locations too, still lowering it in others. I would expect the Meditteranean to have a thicker oil slick because it is a small area of water surrounded by total human habitation and their waste thrown into it. It's a major sea lane for shipping - toxic spills.
This thin layer is an important part of the ocean's ecosystem both to support and sustain marine life, and to prevent ocean water evaporation. There is only one scientist they keep citing that seems to be raising an alarm bell ("Dr. Hardy"?), and he is only doing so about certain areas. Who is this Dr. Hardy? Do we have more sources? "The upper meter of seawater is divided in to sublayers, each with its own biological and chemical features. Within the surface layer, (the upper 60 centimetres), the first 0.05 millimetres contains an especially dense concentration of minerals, organic chemicals, protozoans and micro-organisms. The upper 70 millimetres has dense concentrations of slightly larger organisms, including fish eggs, fish larvae, and crustaceans. Larger, floating jellyfish and seaweeds are found in the upper 30 centimetres. Plus, there are many transient creatures that move up and down in tune to the sunlight. Some animals live their whole lives on the surface of the sea. These creatures are known as neuston, and include such things as the blue-bottle stinger, and many microscopic plants and animals. A large number of sea creatures spend the most sensitive times of their lives at the surface of the sea. Eggs of many species of fish and invertebrates are shed into the sea by their parents. These eggs contain fats, so they float to the surface. There, they develop into tiny swimming creatures called larvae and move deeper into the water. But for a few hours or days, they inhabit the skin of the sea, and may return to this layer to feed as they grow older. Eggs and the very young stages of life are very fragile and sensitive to environmental poisons. Dr. Hardy discovered that fish eggs that develop where the surface of the sea is polluted either die, develop slowly, or become malformed. The plants and animals that live in the water excrete many organic compounds, such as amino acids, proteins, and fatty acids that serve as nutrients for bacterial growth. These rise to the surface where they are concentrated the thin organic skin of the water. This happens in fresh water as well as salt water. When water creatures - from microscopic to large - die, the oils in their bodies may float to the surface before they completely decompose. The thin layer of oily material on the surface of the sea is an important part of the water cycle as it helps control the rate of evaporation. It is also a highly nutritious food source for many species of microscopic plants and animals called Plankton. On calm days we say the sea is "slick calm" or "oily calm" because the microscopic layer of oil is evenly distributed on the surface. Wind pushes the oil into long ribbons of calm water known as "wind slicks" or "wind rows." You can see these on most days when looking at the sea from an overlook or from a boat. Samples show the plankton and nutrients are many thousands of times more concentrated in the windrows than in water only a few centimetres deeper or in adjacent areas. Unfortunately, the oily surface of the sea is also the first to receive pollutants from the atmosphere. Scientists believe more than 30 per cent of all ocean pollution comes from tiny particles of dust and smoke in the air - often called fallout. This settles on the most sensitive and vulnerable part of the ocean - its skin. The pollutants contain pesticides, heavy metals, and industrial and motor vehicle toxins such as sulphuric acid, chlorine, and dioxin." Source: "Where the Sea Meets the Sky," Ministerial Conference on Environment and Development in Asia and the Pacific 2000, Kitakyushu, Japan 31 Aug - 5 Sept., 2000 http://www.unescap.org/mced2000/pacific/background/microlayer.htm
Valich, please go back to my post (that you obviously didn't read) where I said at the end: “Inuit have predicted that the starvation would some day arrive and that happened to our ancestors. They knew that would happen, so they were prepared for that, by catching and preserving animals." Well, they have the second biggest freezer in the world for conserving game meat, no doubt about that. Actually, there is no need for that because polar bears and seals are now more abundant than ever in history. The polar bear population (calculated by conservation organizations) range in the 25,000 bears for the Arctic region, a recovery from a 9,000 population of some decades ago. It looks they made a good job at conserving wildlife, and we must congratulate them for it. See their excellent website: http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/ and their good FAQs at http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/faq/#q3 And then go to those links of the "Polar Bears International Organization" and learn something useful.
