If polar bears die out will we be left with two Antarctics?

Question

If Arctic means "with bears" and Antarctic means "without bears" and if global warming kills all polar bears then what?

Answer 1

Arctic does not mean 'with bears' you are confsing it with the following dictionary definition.

"Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source
Arctic
c.1391, artik, from O.Fr. artique, from M.L. articus, from L. arcticus, from Gk. arktikos "of the north," lit. "of the (constellation) Bear," from arktos "bear," the Bear being a northerly constellation. From the usual I.E. base for "bear" (cf. Avestan aresho, Arm. arj, Alb. ari, L. ursus, Welsh arth); see bear (n.) for why the name changed in Gmc. The -c- was restored 1556. Arctic Circle (66 degrees 32 minutes north), first attested 1556, is that inside which the Great Bear never sets."

From this source.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arctic

On this basis the polar bear has nothing to do with it.

Answer 2

Actually, this is a bit of a moot point, since global warming is *not* killing polar bears.

Surprised to hear that? Well it's true.

Despite what Al Gore and the other global warming alarmist are telling you, polar bears are actually doing fine. Have a look at this link...

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Taylor/last_stand_of_our_wild_polar_bears.html

For those who can't be bothered to read it, it's a piece by Dr. Mitchell Taylor, a Polar Bear Biologist.

Regarding the idea that climate change is threatening to drive polar bears into extinction within 25 years, he says...

"That is a startling conclusion and certainly is a surprising revelation to the polar bear researchers who work here and to the people who live here. We really had no idea."

He concludes with...

"I understand that people who do not live in the north generally have difficulty grasping the concept of too many polar bears in an area. People who live here have a pretty good grasp of what that is like to have too many polar bears around.

This complexity is why so many people find the truth less entertaining than a good story. It is entirely appropriate to be concerned about climate change, but it is just silly to predict the demise of polar bears in 25 years based on media-assisted hysteria."

In other words...

DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE!!!

Answer 3

Nice try! That's an effect of global warming that probably hasn't occurred to most people.

However, you have the meaning of Arctic a little off. In ancient Greece, the direction North was indicated by the constellation arktos, which resembled a bear (and actually means 'bear'). Anything lying to the north was arktikos. The northern constellation was also used as a reference for the southerly direction, which is opposite of the northern constellation or 'anarktikos.'

Answer 4

It could be if warming trends continue, but on the other hand, it could be bad for all parties involved. For instance, a hypothetical: penguins exist in relative peace without the concern of many predators. Bears could conceivably feast on these birds, dwindling the population of penguins, causing the bears' population to explode, and in turn starving the bears due to overpopulation and lack of food. It would be devastating for both species, and possibly others as well. Chain reactions are part of what's causing the melting (solar-reflecting ice replaced by solar-absorbing water), and it definitely applies to ecosystems as well. Ecosystems are delicate and evolve over time with built in checks and balances -- even small organisms can wreak havoc when thrown into one. Inserting a new species, especially a large predator, is something to do with great care. The sad truth is, as reports have said, polar bears may be extinct outside of zoos in within the century.

Answer 5

No, there might be no more bears but the poles will remain the same. South is the ANtithisis of North and such the poles were named accordingly, the arctic in the North and the ANtarctic in the South

Answer 6

The arctic is a frozen mass of ice and the antarctic is a continent. So if both poles were to melt we'd have sea in the north and a huge land mass in the south (notwithstanding the fact that most of us would be dead by then).

Answer 7

Global warming is NOT killing polar bears. They're endangered because of people.

Answer 8

the disapearance of the polarbears environment will put them in danger ,i guess thy will move south and start eating indians instead of eskimos and seals
the northpole is ice floating in water
Antarctica is ice on a continent with a huge inland sea
we may be left with no Poles and a lot of water when greenland and antarctica have melted

so the name will become obselete
and canada may be called arcticanada

Answer 9

I'll Move in! Ant-arctic

Answer 10

Probably not because penguins will only live in Antartica. Thhey probably wont make it into the northen hemisphere.