Polar Bears Are Thriving

Ah! Bless! Cannot tell if that is misinformation or wishful thinking but certainly the reinsurers do not agree with you


https://www.dw.com/en/climate-change-and-extreme-weather-science-is-proving-the-link/a-43323706

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/climate-change/how-to-live-with-it/weather.html



https://e360.yale.edu/digest/extrem...-increased-significantly-in-the-last-20-years

 

And when in the history of the planet have we never lost species?

Really? Got any kind of evidence to back up that claim? Because other than severe events like the KT Event, there is nowhere near enough resolution in the strata to determine exactly how fast extinctions happened.

But we know that the demise of the megafauna happened over a period of a few thousand years. And in reality, never really ended. It simply slowed down because the largest animals are gone, and those were the ones most impacted.

Actually, eventually that will increase. You see, that is how things work.

The arid areas of the planet will be pushed back, and areas that are now desert will eventually become lush again. Once the ice caps are gone and the humidity rises enough and the rain bands expand.

But food production? Now you are addressing something completely different, and that is the human population of the planet. Which most scientists would admit is artificially high, and without the technology we use to even make it possible around 2/3 would die off.

"Food production" verifies the fact that humans are kept alive artificially, and are detached form the actual ecology of the planet. It surely will be impacted, but there are millions of things that can do that, which have not a damned thing to do with "Climate Change".

What would be the impact of a repeat of 1816? That alone should scream that the population is unsustainable and unnatural.

I have actually lived most of my life in farming communities. Have you?

Here is a fact, that as the planet gets warmer, production actually increases. Look no farther than the MWP for proof of that.

And once again, can you prove that?

Hell, most "Climate Scientists" can not even say when the Little Ice Age ended! I remember when they were saying it was the early 1920's, then it got pushed back to the 1800s. But I know for a fact it started even sooner. But we do know that such events can be fast, or slow. And for all of those in the past, man had nothing to do with them. So out of all of them, why is man suddenly responsible for this one?

And once again, the population of the planet is irrelevant. If you take the population of the planet as of 1850 as the "Norm", that was around 1.2 billion. The planet got warmer, and now we sit at just under 8 billion. So tell me, has the warming harmed humans, or helped them to become the unquestioned dominant species?

it all depends on where it is.

Tell you what, look back at the geological record. And are you concerned about the "ecology", or an artificially high human population? Because you can not logically defend one, while promoting the other which actually decreases ecological diversity and ranges.

 

You know, that is the kind of thing that always makes me laugh.

Now I am going to be a bit crude, but that claim about "big oil" is nothing but a load of ****. Hell, maybe I am missing something here, because I somehow am not getting my checks from "big oil". Jack, are you getting your "Big Oil Checks"?

If you only have that to fall back on, then you really are no more believable than those down in the Conspiracy Theory section. That claim that the "truth" about 9/11, the JFK assassination, and ten thousand other things from cars that run on water and antigravity devices are all kept locked up for "reasons" by government, big oil, or a ton of other things.

Tell me, are you also an anti-vaxxer? A flat earther? Do you believe that alien lizards are really in control of our government?

 

Hell, let me confuse some even more for a bit on this claim.

Imagine trying to live in the carboniferous. When global average temperatures were 10-15f (12-20c) warmer than they are today. And the carbon dioxide levels were almost negligent. Yet, the oxygen levels were 15% higher than they are today. Yet the atmospheric pressure was about 1/3 of what it is today.

Imagine an incredibly hot Earth, where the pressure is similar to that at the top of the highest mountain peaks. But incredibly high in oxygen. We were never evolved to live in those conditions, humans would die rather quickly if thrown into an environment like that.

Simple fact, most life on the planet today could not survive in those conditions. Just as most life that lived then could not survive in our conditions.

 

“Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough. [In response to the book "Hundred Authors Against Einstein"]”

― Albert Einstein

And btw, the "paid by Big Oil' smear is false.

 

Sorry, but Munich Re is an interested party. The data show no trend.
Reality check: Global Weather Related Disaster Losses
2018 › 01 › 24 › reality-check-global-weather-related-disaster-losses
at a high, making up most of the $135 billion. Munich Re executives warned that losses would continue to ... foretaste of what is to come,” Torsten Jeworrek, a Munich Re board member, said in a statement.

 

Whatsupmybutt again quoting a TWEET a from a known climate change denialist

https://www.desmog.com/roger-pielke-jr/

Pielke is not a climate scientist - he is not even an economist - he is a political aciencist



https://theaseanpost.com/article/resilience-riskier-world

 

It is only very very occasionally that one scientist can overturn academic thinking and that is more within the bounds of theory. When we are talking about over 18,000 scientific papers examining the data then the chances of ONE scientist having data or theory that would overturn that is - well, laughable

 

The IPCC edifice is built on sand.

 

Really? Want to prove that allegation

18,000 papers

 

Please discuss the data rather than attack people.
Roger Pielke Jr. | Department of Environmental Studies
https://www.colorado.edu › envs › roger-pielke-jr

Roger Pielke, Jr. has been on the faculty of the University of Colorado Boulder since 2001, where he teaches and writes on a diverse range of policy and ...

Roger Pielke, Jr. has been on the faculty of the University of Colorado Boulder since 2001, where he teaches and writes on a diverse range of policy and governance issues related to science, technology, environment, innovation and sports. Roger is a professor in the Environmental Studies Program. Roger is currently focusing his research on a NSF-sponsored, 16-country evaluation of science advice in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Roger holds degrees in mathematics, public policy and political science, all from the University of Colorado. In 2012 Roger was awarded an honorary doctorate from Linköping University in Sweden and was also awarded the Public Service Award of the Geological Society of America. In 2006, Roger received the Eduard Brückner Prize in Munich, Germany in 2006 for outstanding achievement in interdisciplinary climate research.

Roger has been a Distinguished Fellow of the Institute of Energy Economics, Japan since 2016. From 2019 he has served as a science and economics adviser to Environmental Progress. Roger was a Fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences from 2001 to 2016. He served as a Senior Fellow of The Breakthrough Institute from 2008 to 2018. In 2007 Roger served as a James Martin Fellow at Oxford University’s Said Business School. Before joining the faculty of the University of Colorado, from 1993 to 2001 Roger was a Scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

 

You'll be disappointed to learn that science is not a democracy. The work of deconstruction has begun.
New Study: The CO2-Drives-Global-Warming ‘Concept’ Is ‘Obsolete And Incorrect’
By Kenneth Richard on 14. March 2022

Share this...
“The IPCC concept that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes global warming is three decades out-of-date.” − Lightfoot and Ratzer (2022), Journal of Basic & Applied Sciences
In analyzing UAH global temperature and Mauna Loa CO2 records from 1979 to 2021, climate researchers Lightfoot and Ratzer (2022) report there has been “little, if any” correlation between these two variables during this period.

They assert that between 91 and 98% of Earth’s greenhouse gas effect is from water vapor, as CO2 and other trace gases contribute less than 5% to greenhouse gas forcing.

A solar minimum has just began in the current solar cycle 25. The declining solar output is projected to eventually lead to a ~1 to 1.2°C cooling over the next 30 to 40 years. Solar minimum periods are also accompanied by crop failures due to frost and weather extremes delivering excessive heat.

The authors conclude by suggesting the popularized conceptualization of CO2 as a driver of global warming has proven to be “obsolete and incorrect”.



Image Source: Lightfoot and Ratzer, 2022

 

I don’t “attack people” I point out those who have a history of denialism and NO ACADEMIC CREDENTIALS IN THE AREA. Winning faux “awards” proves nothing because often said awards are given out by institutes like Heartland

I am happy to quote directly from the re-insurers on this. In fact Munich Re has done extensive work around this
https://www.allianzre.com/content/d...What_climate_change_means_for_reinsurance.pdf

https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/11/2/146
https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/22/659/2022/

https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en...rs-grapple-with-climate-change-risks-12116706


https://fortune.com/longform/insurance-industry-climate-change-swiss-re-reinsurance/

 

You seem to know little about the Bruckner Prize.
As I said, Munich Re is an interested party.
Surprise! Spiegel Online Slams Profiteering From Climate Alarmism… Munich Re Admits: “No Climate Signal”
By P Gosselin on 17. February 2018

Share this...
Spiegel Online published two days ago an excellent article by science journalist Axel Bojanowski on the widespread “disinformation surrounding climate change” and the profit made from the hyping and exaggeration of weather extremes.

Examples cited are the Deutsche Bundesbahn (German Railway), the reinsurance industry, foremost Munich Re, and alarmist climate scientists such as Potsdam Institute’s Stefan Rahmstorf.

All have been playing it loose with the data on weather events and exaggerating (at times grossly) and with the aim of deriving profit, Spiegel reports. . . .

 

You just proved you are trying to conceal the truth. The terms, "climate change denialist," "climate change denier," etc. are always inherently lies because no one denies that climate changes. Even the term, "climate change," used as if it meant, "the hypothesis that variations in global temperature are primarily determined by changes in atmospheric CO2" is a lie, as that is not what "climate change" means. "Climate change" means change in climate. Any time it is used with any other presumed meaning, the person using the term is 100% guaranteed to be lying.

 

Like how she is trying to say Jack, myself and others are "deniers". Even though we have all admitted over and over that we do not deny that the planet is getting warmer.

Although I would likely have been screamed at 40 years ago when many of the same people were screaming "New Ice Age", as then I would have been a denier. And ironically, many of those screaming that back then are leading the charge today on "man made global warming". Funny thing is, the climate has reversed, and it is still caused by man (according to them).

As I said already, they have their belief already locked in stone, and are just chasing the data and modifying their hypothesis to match the data they think is important (and throw out data they can not explain). That is not science, that is a religion.

"Everything revolves around the Earth! The sun, the moon, stars, everything! Well, except those things we call "planets". They are called that because they wander, but they still go around the earth, even if sometimes they go backwards!"

I would love to see some hop into time machines, and go back 30 kya, and scream at Neanderthal that they had to stop using fires to stay warm, as that was causing global warming.

 

What YOU do is do a bunch of Cut and Paste stuff but show no indication you understand what they are claiming.

 

The perspective of the deep past can illuminate the present.

Ancient polar bear remains explained by sea ice and polynyas: my peer-reviewed paper
Posted on May 6, 2022 | Comments Offon Ancient polar bear remains explained by sea ice and polynyas: my peer-reviewed paper
My open-access, peer-reviewed paper on the ecology of ancient polar bears in relation to sea ice has just been published in Open Quaternary. It’s called ‘Polar Bear Fossil and Archaeological Records from the Pleistocene and Holocene in Relation to Sea Ice Extent and Open Water Polynyas’.

A unique compilation of more than 104 polar bear skeletal records from the Holocene and late Pleistocene shows that most ancient remains are associated with existing or ancient open water polynyas or the expansion of sea ice during past cold periods. This big-picture analysis indicates that as they do today, polar bears were most commonly found near polynyas throughout their known historical past because of their need for ice-edge habitats.

Read my longer summary below and download the paper here. This is a much-updated and expanded analysis based on an informal study I did in 2012.


Continue reading →

 

There is once again a need to counter lying propaganda about polar bears.

Wandering polar bears are the new starving bears falsely blamed on climate change: Déjà vu
Posted on May 12, 2022 | Comments Offon Wandering polar bears are the new starving bears falsely blamed on climate change: Déjà vu
I said last year that wandering polar bears appeared to be the new ‘starving’ polar bears that were formerly the go-to victims falsely blamed on lack of ice due to climate change and here we are again. Polar bear specialists and their cheer leaders so seldom disappoint.


Although not one of the Canadian news outlets that reported on the fat polar bear that was shot after unexpectedly showing up on the Gaspé peninsula two weeks ago blamed this incident on global warming, a few days later The Guardian in the UK stepped up.

Of course it did. My own report of the incident is here, from 1 May 2022, in case you missed it (with sea ice charts, as always).

Continue reading →

 

Bears gotta eat.

Polynyas are critical for polar bear spring feeding
Posted on May 17, 2022 | Comments Offon Polynyas are critical for polar bear spring feeding
Areas of open water or thin ice in spring are essential for the survival of Arctic species, as I emphasized in my recent peer-reviewed paper on polar bear ecology. Sea ice is still abundant in spring (April-June), which is the critical feeding period for polar bears: they must consume about 2/3 of the total calories they need for the entire year. Most of those calories come from newborn seals (ringed, bearded, and harp).




In southern areas, such as Hudson Bay and Davis Strait, virtually all of this feeding is completed by the end of May, making June a time of opportunistic hunting for most bears: if they find a seal, they will kill and eat it but if not, they can do without. That’s not just my opinion but the reason given by polar bear specialists themselves to explain why Southern Hudson Bay polar bear numbers had not declined in the 2000s despite a sudden increase in the ice-free season:

…even though break-up has advanced by up to 3-4 weeks in portions of Hudson Bay it still occurs no earlier than late June or early July so does not yet interfere with opportunities to feed on neonate ringed seal pups that are born in March-April in eastern Hudson Bay. Therefore, losing days or weeks of hunting opportunities during June and July deprives polar bears of the opportunity to feed on adult seals, but does not deprive them of the critical spring period when they are truly hyperphagic. [Obbard et al. 2016:29]

Continue reading →

 

When it comes to climate change I'm reminded of that clip on a tv show where a guy says

"So what if my grandkids never see a polar bear?"
"I've never seen a dinosaur and you don't hear me bitching about it".

 

The polar bears are thriving, and will continue to do so for a long, long time.

 

I know but it is still a cool story and cooler sentiment.

 

Thanks for the polar bear report.

I believe the biggest reason is hunting bans. They went almost extinct in the 1950s due to excessive hunting

 

As for the real science

https://brightly.eco/are-polar-bears-endangered/

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41...7so6oA4CMq5Mw==&tracking_referrer=www.bbc.com