Extreme weather

[LesPalenik]

"University dumps professor who found polar bears thriving despite climate change"

Just what I've been saying all along.  The bears figured out what to do as it warms up in the north and/or have no problem in the first place.  All a lot of fake news to drum up support for global warming alarmists.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/20/susan-crockford-fired-after-finding-polar-bears-th/

It seems that the warming in Arctic is affecting more the Inuits than polar bears. Perhaps worse than warming is the increasing pollution in the air and water. And nobody can dispute that.

decreasing ice could allow increased shipping through Arctic waterways, including the Northwest Passage. While this may mean economic benefits for Nunavut, it can also raise the risk of oil and chemical spills.

https://www.climatechangenunavut.ca/en/understanding-climate-change/climate-change-impact

[Chris Kern]

Glad to see you back Slobodan.

Yes, indeed: you have been missed.  My blood pressure has been unusually low of late.  (No offense meant to Alan; he has certainly been trying his best.)

[Alan Klein]

Yes, indeed: you have been missed.  My blood pressure has been unusually low of late.  (No offense meant to Alan; he has certainly been trying his best.)

Well, it's my blood pressure that's gone up since Slobodan has been AWOL.  OF course, Ray has been particularly helpful in this thread.

[Alan Klein]

Proof?

Here's the 72 page scientific study by this professor who's an expert on polar bears and has studied them for many years.  I've copied the study's Executive Summary below.
What I discovered is that in Al Gore's followup to An Inconvenient Truth, polar bears were not mentioned at all.  They were the main victim of global warming in the original release. It was already obvious, even to Gore, that the bears were not in danger.  So they ignored this incovenient truth in their second presentation.
https://polarbearscience.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/crockford_state-of-the-polar-bear-2017_gwpf-report-29_feb-2018-final.pdf

Executive summary
• Global polar bear numbers have been stable or risen slightly since 2005, despite the fact that
summer sea ice since 2007 hit levels not expected until mid-century: the predicted 67% decline in polar bear numbers did not occur.
• Abundant prey and adequate sea ice in spring and early summer since 2007 appear to explain
why global polar bear numbers have not declined, as might have been expected as a result of
low summer sea ice levels.
• The greatest change in sea ice habitat since 1979 was experienced by Barents Sea polar bears
and the least by those in Southern Hudson Bay, the most southerly region inhabited by bears.
• As far as is known, the record low extent of sea ice in March 2017 had no impact on polar bear
health or survival.
• Some studies show bears are lighter in weight than they were in the 1980s, but none showed
an increase in the number of individuals starving to death or too thin to reproduce.
• A just-released report of Southern Beaufort Sea bears having difficulty finding prey in 2014–
2016 suggests that the thick ice events that have impacted the region every ten years or so
since the 1960s have continued despite reduced summer sea ice.
• Claims of widespread hybridization of polar bears with grizzlies were disproven by DNA studies.
• Overly pessimistic media responses to recent polar bear issues have made heartbreaking news
out of scientifically insignificant events, suggesting an attempt is being made to restore the
status of this failed global warming icon.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Here's the 72 page scientific study by this professor who's an expert on polar bears and has studied them for many years.

You suggested that (several) studies would show that reduced hunting did not play much of a role.

The study you mentioned says e.g. " recovery from previous overhunting might still be ongoing" and  "based on current conditions, as long as spring and early summer ice re-main abundant, it looks as though polar bears will continue to recover from the over-hunting of the early 20th century".

[Alan Klein]

You suggested that (several) studies would show that reduced hunting did not play much of a role.

The study you mentioned says e.g. " recovery from previous overhunting might still be ongoing" and  "based on current conditions, as long as spring and early summer ice re-main abundant, it looks as though polar bears will continue to recover from the over-hunting of the early 20th century".

You just discounted her whole 72 page report where she argued there were no losses as expected due to global warming. Hunting had no influence on her study's conclusion.


Hunting had been prohibited for years before the population studies by global alarmists started (except for indigenous tribes that continue hunting). The argument from global warmists in their studies was that polar bear populations were to decrease by 67% due to warming from a base line population which occurred after hunting was prohibited.  So hunting played no part on the before and after numbers since it didn't occur during this period.   Check the first bullet in the executive summary. 

[jeremyrh]

Here's the 72 page scientific study by this professor who's an expert on polar bears and has studied them for many years.  I've copied the study's Executive Summary below.
What I discovered is that in Al Gore's followup to An Inconvenient Truth, polar bears were not mentioned at all.  They were the main victim of global warming in the original release. It was already obvious, even to Gore, that the bears were not in danger.  So they ignored this incovenient truth in their second presentation.
https://polarbearscience.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/crockford_state-of-the-polar-bear-2017_gwpf-report-29_feb-2018-final.pdf

Always a good laugh to check up on the source of Alan's information:

https://www.desmog.co.uk/global-warming-policy-foundation - some information about who funded the publication - or some lack of information, as the funders don't want to 'fess up

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/10/climate/polar-bears-climate-deniers.html - some background on the claims made (hint: they don't stack up)

[Alan Klein]

Always a good laugh to check up on the source of Alan's information:

https://www.desmog.co.uk/global-warming-policy-foundation - some information about who funded the publication - or some lack of information, as the funders don't want to 'fess up

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/10/climate/polar-bears-climate-deniers.html - some background on the claims made (hint: they don't stack up)

Global warming scientists predicted a 67% decline in polar bear populations.  2 out of 3 would be dead.  It didn't happen.  The rest is just conversation.

Of course the main issue, that I expounded two years ago was no one is taking into account adaptation and survival of the species.  That's especially disconcerting for scientists who should know better who would point toe Darwin to support their theories.  So let me use his theory.

Those members of the polar bear population who refuse to give up their old ways of eating seal from sea ice, assuming the ice shrinks, will die off.  They won't have offspring that survives.  The bears that adapt, that catch seal on islands and other land or find other land sources of different prey will survive.  They will have the offspring that will repeat their parents methods and continue the species. Nothing new in all this.  Exactly how things happen in Darwin's nature. 

[jeremyrh]

Global warming scientists predicted a 67% decline in polar bear populations.  2 out of 3 would be dead. 

Not true.  So the rest of your post is moot.

[LesPalenik]

Those members of the polar bear population who refuse to give up their old ways of eating seal from sea ice, assuming the ice shrinks, will die off.  They won't have offspring that survives.  The bears that adapt, that catch seal on islands and other land or find other land sources of different prey will survive.  They will have the offspring that will repeat their parents methods and continue the species. Nothing new in all this.  Exactly how things happen in Darwin's nature.

More likely, the polar bear survival can be attributed to the increase of seal population.
 

A collaborative project between Indigenous Alaskan hunters in villages across the Bering, Beaufort, and Chukchi Seas, and scientists with the state’s Department of Fish and Game found that the pregnancy rate in bearded seals is on the rise. What’s more, the animals also seem to be maturing at a younger age. In the 1960s, bearded seals were reaching sexual maturity at around four years old. Now, they’re hitting puberty at age two and a half.

https://www.hakaimagazine.com/news/bearded-seals-are-maturing-younger-and-having-more-pups/

BTW, the seal liver is considered an Arctic delicacy. You can boil or roast it, but the best way is to eat it raw.  No wonder the bears are doing so well.

[faberryman]

Not true.  So the rest of your post is moot.

He didn't read the articles you linked to so of course he got it wrong.

[Alan Klein]

More likely, the polar bear survival can be attributed to the increase of seal population.
 
https://www.hakaimagazine.com/news/bearded-seals-are-maturing-younger-and-having-more-pups/

BTW, the seal liver is considered an Arctic delicacy. You can boil or roast it, but the best way is to eat it raw.  No wonder the bears are doing so well.

Maybe I should switch my diet to seal liver? Healthy eating; healthy heart.


Regarding seal births, Darwin at work again.  What disturbs me is that no matter how good the news is, every nature article still continues to press that changes in climate will destroy species.  It's a knee jerk reaction.  They can't give good news just as it is.  They twist it into something negative.  Man is bad.  Man is destroying nature.  They have to create a gray cloud around every silver lining.   


 

[Alan Klein]

It's that kind of "skeptic" fake news that drives people to question climate change.  You get the feeling your pocket is getting picked. 

[LesPalenik]

Regarding seal births, Darwin at work again.  What disturbs me is that no matter how good the news is, every nature article still continues to press that changes in climate will destroy species.  It's a knee jerk reaction.  They can't give good news just as it is.  They twist it into something negative.  Man is bad.  Man is destroying nature. They have to create a gray cloud around every silver lining.

You see, politically it is more correct to let the polar bears eat the seals than to allow the Newfoundlanders kill them and sell the fur.

[jeremyrh]

Those members of the polar bear population who refuse to give up their old ways of eating seal from sea ice, assuming the ice shrinks, will die off.  They won't have offspring that survives.  The bears that adapt, that catch seal on islands and other land or find other land sources of different prey will survive.  They will have the offspring that will repeat their parents methods and continue the species. Nothing new in all this.  Exactly how things happen in Darwin's nature.

Those members of the Syrian population who refuse to give up their old ways of going to school and working in the fields will be blown to bits by Russian and Turkish bombs. Those that adapt and hide in cellars will survive. Their children will copy their parents behaviour and continue the species.

Does that actually make sense to you ?  Do you think this is how evolution actually works?

[James Clark]

You see, politically it is more correct to let the polar bears eat the seals than to allow the Newfoundlanders kill them and sell the fur.

Well, yes, it is.  Polar bears don’t have self awareness of the ability to consider consequence.  I assume Newfoundlanders might. 

[Alan Klein]

Those members of the Syrian population who refuse to give up their old ways of going to school and working in the fields will be blown to bits by Russian and Turkish bombs. Those that adapt and hide in cellars will survive. Their children will copy their parents behaviour and continue the species.

Does that actually make sense to you ?  Do you think this is how evolution actually works?

To bring my analysis to the human species, climate change and environmental changes have always happened.  It has forced whole populations of people to move on to other locations to find food and opportunity to survive.  Crowding due to high birth rates due to good conditions also force people to move on.  If the land is occupied by other, individuals have to move to find areas where they can claim a stake.  Territorial species of all kinds do this.  Also, people living in marginal areas who can't find economic opportunity move on to areas where they can get jobs.  America was expanded and settled due to huge economic advantages by moving into areas that had little or no populations before.  Battles with indigenous people of course were fought over those territories.  All animal and plants species do this. It's the reason the whole world became occupied by humans.  Nothing unusual.  Standard Darwin type stuff.

I just want to make clear, I'm not suggesting we should go around killing people under the guise we're just doing Darwin's work.  I'm just explaining how things work in the world.

[jeremyrh]

Standard Darwin type stuff.

Nothing to do with Darwin.  But I'm happy to see that you are welcoming people from Africa whose lives are endangered by failed harvests to move to your backyard.

[Alan Klein]

Whatever.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Another climato-criminal busted - asthmatics:

Asthma carbon footprint 'as big as eating meat' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-50215011