Pizzlies in Osnabruck photo credit Corradox CC by SA 3.0
I wrote, yesterday about the fears for the future of the polar bear species, and the problems that global warming are causing. Today, I am writing about another news subject from a few months ago – that of hybrids between brown bears and the polar bears.
Polar bears as a species, are only though to be between 150,000 and 1.7million years old, with most putting their estimate at around 600,000 years. This is very young for a species, and they descend from brown bears, with a 2011 study finding that female polar bear DNA seems to originate from a group of brown bears living in Ireland during the last ice age when vast ice sheets stretched from there to the north pole, and allowed polar bears to truly wander far and wide.
Pizzly’s and Growler bears, while found in nature on rare occasions, would have naturally been so rare as to be insignificant. It is only human caused global warming which has forced these animals together – and regular meetings in the natural world, of closely related species, usually ends up with offspring.
These hybrids (male polar bear and female grizzly ends with a Pizzly bear, while a female polar bear and a male grizzly ends with a Growler bear) are likely to become more common. Polar bears will increasingly have to head south, to be able to survive, and Grizzly bears will increasingly head north for cooler environments, bringing them into contact more and more often.
Before and after (after being above) image of a river in the Amazon rainforest
Why is this a problem? Well there are several issues that should concern everyone. The natural end of the line, is for the complete loss of the Amazon rainforest. There is much fear that it may be another tipping point, and that therefore, once the rainforest starts failing, it would accelerate the loss of the rest.
Rhino are unable to sweat, which means that as temperatures increase, both black and white rhino are more and more reliant on finding shade, in order to keep their huge bodies within safe temperatures – will there come a time, where this is impossible? What other species might be at risk, even far from the poles.
Just bare in mind, with the video above, if you have problems with heights, the view when you start the video above will not be pleasant.
So, if you are a species who spends its days moving around on cliffs, which most species would spend their lives avoiding often even if the alternative choice is death, clearly it is extreme. The fact of the matter, is that heights are not the only threat that animals like mountain goats face when living in the mountains: Bears, wolves, eagles, and wolverines and even animals like snow leopards that live in the mountains, will get the majority of their calories from meat. Animals like mountain goats, along with various deer species, will be the mainstay of these predators in the mountains.
What is, unfortunately a fact, is that mountain goats do not fly. As such they need to be able to see the cliff, so as to be able to step carefully and not loose their footing.Â
This means that goats cannot become nocturnal, as without enough light, they will fall to their deaths. As such mountain goats tend to be crepuscular – active in the early morning and late evening
 However, this move has already happened, so all that this move might do, is reduce the length of time that mountain goats can remain active, which is likely to lead to starvation amongst much of the wild population.
Trumps beliefs on climate change, from quotes that he gave
Apologies for those who think that this is covered too much on this website – I to would like to just write on wildlife and the threats that they face. Unfortunately, virtually all habitats on earth are threatened by climate change, and as such, politics in the USA has to be of interest to us all. Should any Americans be reading this – welcome. If this is just confirming what you believe, please spread the word (for much of the rest of the world, while Trump has many, many qualities which should rule him out as president (and even more so as a republican candidate) on this website, we are only interested in policies which result in changes to wildlife and issues with climate change.
The emissions of the USA are currently 13.49% of global population as of 2023. While that does not sound too bad, remember on 4.23% of global population lives in the USA, so in other words, the USA carbon emissions are 3 times the global average (never mind how much they need to drop if we are to avoid the worst of global warming). To put that in perspective, currently Europe emits around 8% of global emissions, but with 9.23%, as a block it emits less than its current fair share of emissions. The EU has agreed to cut emissions by 90% by 2040, relative to 1990 levels, and has currently cut emissions by 30%. In the USA, Biden has set an aim of cutting emission by around 50% by 2030, below 2005 levels, and so far, they have cut around 20% so have a way to go.
So, having laid out where they are, what does Trump think. Well, one thing to bare in mind, is that Trump is terrible in keeping his word. He says whatever occurs to him in the moment. However, what is clear is he has little to no regard for scientists, and believes that whatever occurs to him is probably right. He is also adamant that whatever cuts are made by the USA, must be made by countries like India, China and Brazil, despite their emerging economy status, or the vast historical emissions of the USA – currently, the USA has emitted roughly 25% of all historical emissions since 1750, while by contrast, China has emitted half of that.
Trumps first term in office, was characterized by a range of things, but they included, a heavy and sustained attempt to increase the extraction of fossil fuels, and it is estimated that should he be elected in November, the result will be a net gain of 4 billion extra tonnes of carbon as a result.
So what do we expect from a Trump presidency 2.0? The list is long, and mine will not include everything. Furthermore, given how willingly he breaks his word, it is impossible to know if he will do any of the things on this list, or indeed, if he would have the support in the other branches of government to even try. Still, this is what he is saying
Trump believing that climate change is a hoax: While many Republicans are belatedly coming around to the (now obvious) consensus, that not only are humans certainly the main cause of climate change, but also that we can therefore fix it, Trump is still claiming that climate change is a hoax (various reasons for this hoax include money for departments and bodies trying to deal with in and an attempt for China to take advantage after the USA cuts its emissions and they do not). He is also claiming, that even if he is wrong, the impacts will not be felt for 300 years – a bizarre statement, given the cost to the USA economy in 2023 alone (from worsening weather and similar, like bigger storms) is estimated at $92 billion though, when taking everything into account, this bill is likely to be many multiples higher. We are already facing the effects of climate change, as anyone who looks rationally at changing weather, rainfall and other effects can see after rather quickly . Apart from neither of these being good reasons, both China and USA are thought to be going to face costs that will rank highest, from impacts as a result of climate change. It should be noted, that those Republicans to face the horrific climate causing weather changes, are increasingly coming round to the obvious answer. As such, it is well within their own benefit that they do everything they can to limit its effect. This appears to be something that Trump is incapable of changing his view on, which in my mind should rule him out, but that is me. Unfortunately, given that many Republicans put the economy above climate change, this does not change their mind. It should also be noted, that while Trump does not like them, a majority of Republicans want both renewables and traditional power generation to continue – while this makes little sense (renewables are cheaper, more reliable and will not doom the planet) it suggests that Trump is extreme even in his own party (though this should make you wonder how he was chosen once again).
Economy: he was very eager to tout his economy and market, but neither did well. Even just comparing him to the other single term president in the recent era, his increas in GDP was less than half of HW Bush. Indeed, while many would claim you should ignore the drop at the end of his term as this was caused by Covid, but he made this far worse than it had to be. 75% of Americans prioritize the economy over the environment, the foolish result of this, is that they are storing up huge costs to the economy for their children’s generation – most generations try to leave the world in a better state for their children than they found it. In recent polls, 53% of republicans would prioritize climate change mitigation over economy – it is unclear how important this is, but if rational, this should make it impossible for Trump to get elected again (unfortunately it is unlikely to work out like this).
Market gains: He spent much time touting his economy on the basis of stock, but this too, he did not do well in, lying in the bottom half of these presidents.
Not investing in climate change mitigation and reduction is insane – the falls in GDP and the market and peoples standard of living will not be known for a long time, however, without other presidents rapidly correcting the mistakes of Trump, the cost of his decisions on the environment could run into the many Trillions.
Withdraw from the Paris climate agreement: now one of only 2 countries working together in this way. While Biden reversed this move when he started, Trump is adament that he will repeat the same move, should he return to the white house. While 1.5°C is likely passed, 2.0°C would be greatly threatened by his return to the presidency.
Replace the clean power act with Affordable clean energy: While this sounds similar, it is not, and does not do what is required for power generation. This is not only bad for the climate, but also bad for households, as solar and wind are now the cheapest power, and this is only increasing over time.
Attempt to freeze fuel efficiency standards, as well as preventing California from having higher ones: It is a fact that higher fuel efficiency does not only benefit the planet, but also consumers wallets. This is obvious – if your car drives 10 miles a litre rather than 8 miles a litre, it costs 20% less to fuel your car. Trumps argument was that this increasing fuel efficiency cost many billions and was passed on to consumers in higher costs. This is unlikely, given the competition in the market, but anyway, he tried to take these rules back beyond current averages in the fleet (which cost nothing to maintain). Over time, this may well be irrelevant, as the onward march of electric cars may eliminate petrol and diesel from the roads within the next decade or two anyway.
Eliminated and reversed the momentum on this issue that was built up in Obamas term
Drill, Drill, Drill: In line with much above, Trump has promised to allow as much fossil fuel extraction as is possible, should he get back into the white house. The fact of the matter is that USA oil demand is only falling, and is likely to do so, more and more rapidly. As with the foolishness of the UK government (agreeing to new oil field off the coast of Scotland), the majority of these assets will be stranded, long before the end of the period in which they could continue to be used.
This is a subject which I have written about before, but as I have said before, if I change one mind, it is worth it. While I do not believe that there are any benefits on the other side, few can seriously argue that in the long-term it would be wise to give Trump a second go at breaking the world.
One of the ways in which warming oceans are accelerating the worries of sea-level rise, is through warmer sea water lapping at the underside of glaciers, helping this to melt faster. Furthermore, the glacier moves faster when its base is wetter.
There is much work around the world, which is going into measuring temperatures as accurately as possible and watching for change. While the British empire routinely took temperature readings on certain trips, and there are various other long records, there is no human record which goes back more than a few centuries. While this is irrelevant for human caused climate change, as we only started releasing large quantities of warmth trapping carbon dioxide in the last few centuries (largely started by the industrial revolution in the UK), we want to be able to both have more records from the last few centuries, and records that go far further back.
At just 10-15cm this sponge is likely to be close to full size on a laptop or computer
A variety of natural methods have been found, but this new ancient sea sponge method is interesting. This is because, lying 30-90m below the surface of the Mediterranean. In the Mediterranean even in the shallows with the water only changing by around 10 degrees, however, below 12-40 feet (depending on churn etc) the temperature is incredibly constant year round. That is not to say that there is no change in temperature, but it is very small.
So in this instance, these sponges have been recording changing temperature over the years, and according to their tempearture records, the planet has alread warmed by 1.7° C, which is half a degree more than the United Nations climate panel has seen elsewhere.
A number of climate scientists have questioned how wide-ranging a conclusion, you can draw from readings taken from one sponge species in just one location in the world. However, the lead researcher stated “Taking a precautionary principle, our findings show taht global warming is more advanced than we thought and therefore it’s a wake-up call that we have to get on with reducing CO2. He went on to add “We will experience more serious impacts from global warming sooner than we had anticipated”.
6 different speciamins of this sponge species were collected. The sponge can take hundreds of years to grow (to a size only 10cm-15cm). As it grows, it stores strontium and calcium in a ratio which relates directly to the temperature of the water around them. The team reconstructed global water temperatures going back 300 years through this method, and then combined them with land-based temperatures, in order to arrive at global temperatures. Because of the depth, the water temperature changes little from winter to summer, which means that the water tends to match the global average with surprising accuracy.
Incidence like the volcanic eruption in Indonesia in 1815 show up clearly in the record. However, unfortunately, it also confirms that manmade warming started in 1860, and given that global temperature changes are benchmarked against averages of the temperature between 1850 and 1900, it shows that this cannot be considered pre impact by humans.
However, responses are rather more encouraging. Essentially, the point is, that regardless of the sense in taking readings from a moving point, given that both our current position and the warming that we have targeted are against the same wrong number, it is irrelevant – if the start temperature was higher, but all our readings are out by the same quantity, it does not mean we will hit dangerous levels any sooner – these were worked out using the same incorrect measurements.
However, whatever is true, what is clear is that we still need to cut emissions alarmingly fast if we want to escape changes that are likely to kill many people, and displace hundreds of millions more – if not billions.
Climate stripes – a clear way to see global warming over time
This image is a fantastic way to be able to see climate change. Created by Professor Ed Hawkins in 2018, it shows the changing in temperature over the last 2 centuries.
Blue lines show years where the yearly average temperature is lower than the overall average (and the darker the further below the average). The red is the opposite.
While it does not need pointing out, can you see how dark it has got in the last few years.
Below is a short video about the stripes with their creator explaining them.
At the current time, countries in the region in which the COP is held will chose a president. In theory, that is fine, however, in practice if this is going to continue then the middle east should be banned from hosting the conference.
So, what precisely did Sultan Al Jaber say, which was so troubling?
Firstly, he claimed that a ‘phase-out of fossil fuels would not allow sustainable development “unless you want to take the world back into caves'”.
He then claimed that there is ‘no science’ to suggest phasing out fossil fuels is the only way to achieve 1.5C.
After being laughed at, over this utterly insane statment, he suggested that the comment had been misinterpreted. It should be noted, that this was in response to a question from a woman, which he was relatively rude about.
Do you think this woman misunderstood?
He even had the gall to suggest that the misrepresentation was undermining his desire to reduce carbon emissions (perhaps if this is true, it can start with his huge fossil fuel company can show this?). More than 100 countries are already supportive of this.
The worlds uptake of electric cars must accelerate. This is partly underway – last year around 67 million cars were sold, but 14% of these were electric, up from just 9% the previous year. The uptake is accelerating.
It should also be noted that apart from extreme heat in the UAE, continued global warming will also damage the UAE in extreme ways. The UAE economy is 0.5% of the global economy, in the end, places like this may refuse to accept the end of oil, and will have to be bankrupted, as cars move to 100% and many other industries clean up their act.
As if it is needed, here is a list of evidence that global warming is true, laid out by someone with a doctorate in the subject material. Do share with friends who have suggested that there is not.Â
It is simple, the world is warming and we are causing it by burning fossil fuels. We are responsible and so we can do something about this.
At a time, when there is a high probability that someone who denies all obvious facts on this subject, is leading the race to return to the white house, we need to stop debating facts and fix the problem.
USA, you are currently a pariah around the world, because you cannot pass meaningful climate action. You have 4.23% of world population, emit around 16 tonnes per head on average – which amounts to 14% of global emissions or around 1/7. It is true that China (29.18% of global emissions), however India emits just 7.09% of global emission. Yet the per capita emissions of these countries are 7.44 in China and just 1.89 tonnes in India.
The UK, a similarly developed country, only has emissions of 5.6 tonnes per head
We’re hoping to return to a more normal amount of blogposts in the near future. Time is currently going into building a database of species of the world.
