Polar Bears Are Thriving

Polar Bears are thriving 15 years after the summer sea ice cover stopped declining while it is still low there is NO Polar Bear population decline at all this after 15 years of low summer ice!

The modeling assumptions are already refuted and it is silly anyway since they get most of their calories for the year by July 1 when their food supply then moves far away.

 

False. I already posted the conclusions of actual experts.

 

Almost none of which offer credible empirical support for the key AGW assumption that global temperature is primarily determined by CO2, and most of which only "support" AGW because their authors considered it politically advisable to genuflect to a hypothesis their research actually did nothing to support.

 

Ah, no. The "science" there is nothing but speculation, and assumes that polar bears are so unintelligent -- maybe as unintelligent as AGW "scientists" -- that they wouldn't just move north in response to warmer climate.

 

Go publish a paper in an appropriate peer reviewed journal. Then you have the right to express an opinion. All non-professional opinions are just noise worth less than a dime a dozen.

 

But those conclusions were based on speculation, not evidence.

 

You aren't a scientist and you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Speculation doesn't get published, for starters.

 

Do you go to your physician and give him a diagnosis too?

 

I see. So, Aristotle had no right to express an opinion....

 

It most certainly does.

 

You provided no evidence to support your claim while I posted what is common knowledge.

"Polar Bears are thriving 15 years after the summer sea ice cover stopped declining while it is still low there is NO Polar Bear population decline at all this after 15 years of low summer ice!"

How come you can't prove this wrong?

"The modeling assumptions are already refuted and it is silly anyway since they get most of their calories for the year by July 1 when their food supply then moves far away."

How come you can't prove this wrong?

 

How would YOU know since you don't show any indication that you understand any of it.

You aren't a scientist obviously therefore you have not yet made a case on anything.

 

No all you did was post a link nothing more, you have to show how I am wrong which you haven't done at all.

 

Amstrup was among the old boys who were humiliated a few years back when Crockford demolished their previous prediction of doom. They keep trying to find new ways to dodge the data (and the obviously thriving bear population).

 

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this statement is true without fact checking it.

With that said, he had to move his home, eh? So what? I mean it sucks for him as that doesn't sound cheap, especially on a Mayor's salary way the hell out in the boondocks of Alaska. But the Earth's climate is constantly changing. It warms up, it cools down, and then it repeats the pattern, over and over and over again. It's been warmer than it is now, and it's been colder. The last ice age was what, 10,000 years ago? In geological time, that's a blink of an eye. It's also not the last ice age that humanity, if it manages to survive, will have to deal with.

Right now, the alleged threat is rising sea levels. I'm not sure I buy that, given that I have lived most of my life in a coastal community and if it has been rising, it's not something visible to the naked eye. I saw a chart the other day that showed that over the past century (that's 100 years) the MSL in Key West had allegedly risen by 6 whole inches. I did the math, and at that rate, it will take 15,600 years for the water to turn my home into a waterfront property and submerge many of the current ones, but, again, who cares? You think those existing homes are going to last for 15,000 years?

At 6" a century, nobody living today, even a newborn, will ever even notice it. By the time it becomes a real problem, assuming the trend doesn't switch to a period of cooling, it will be thousands of years from now, and humanity will just have to improvise, adapt, and overcome it. We're smart enough to do so. And if, some thousands of years from now, what we now call NYC will likely have radically changed anyway. At current migration trends the place will be abandoned in a few centuries anyway.

The next ice age, which WILL come (albeit thousands of years from now) will be even worse for humanity to deal with, as many, many people will have to migrate south, losing their homes and land in the process as they may be covered in miles of ice. But even once it starts, it will take many generations to reach that point, so folks will have MORE than enough time to plan for the inevitable. Just as they do now.

If it was as bad as climate alarmists are running around like the boy who cried wolf would have us believe, lefty politicians would not be buying ocean front properties and insurers wouldn't be writing policies on them.

Whatever is going to happen over the course of the next few centuries, the worst case is that some seawalls may need to be fortified, and homes on stilts that were built, intentionally, right at the high water line in the first place, like many vacation spots in the coastal communities of NC, may have to be moved or abandoned.

But just as CA has its earthquakes, tornado alley has its tornados, living anywhere near the Mississippi River is just asking to get flooded out every couple of years, Florida has it's hurricanes, and living near a volcano, whether thought extinct or not has its own risks, there's not a spot on this planet safe from mother nature at some point or another. You don't seriously think the current coastlines have always been that way, do you??

 

That should be obvious to anybody with a brain.

They do not eat ice, they eat meat. Fish, seals, and the like. And that requires access to water. Not possible when everything is completely covered with ice and snow.

Of course, maybe they really survive by eating the occasional penguin.

 

Really? Did you just use a website that encourages "Brightly's goal is to empower conscious consumers around the world" as a reference to a serious debate about science?

WTF? Do you also use references from fashion sites to debate how leather is bad and we should all use pleather?

Do you even know what a real reference is?

I am so freaking sick of people who cherry pick their references, and just vomit up anything simply because it says what they want to believe.

 

Technically, we are still in an ice age.

To most geologists, the main "yardstick" is the presence of a permanent ice cap at both poles. Of course, that is only in the last 45 million years or so, when the ice cap over the continent of Antarctica formed and has not yet melted.

So as long as the North Pole is still covered year round in ice (any part of it), we are still for all practical purposes in an Ice Age.

But don't worry, if you believe that this interglacial will be like most others, we are going to be in for tens or hundreds of thousands of years with no ice at all over the North Pole. Where palm trees will thrive in Alaska, and there will be no more permafrost or tundra over most of North America.

That is why I laugh at people freaking out over the conditions now. They actually have no idea how much different the world was during every other interglacial ever. In fact, go back around 45 million years and before, even Antarctica was a lush forested area. No ice at all. Because in reality, even glaciers are believed to be an aberration on the planet, let alone permanent ice caps.

 

Ah yes, the rare Antarctic polar bears. Excellent sarcasm.

 

Photoshop ftw!

 

I am not a scientist; but I definitely have a clue what I am talking about, which is why the indisputable empirical facts of objective physical reality keep proving me right and you wrong.

 

Or the even more rare Arctic Penguin.



However, it is often comical that a lot of people do not realize that penguins only live in the Antarctic, and polar bears only in the Arctic.

 

~ Many "professional opinions " are just worthless noise too — bought and paid for .

~ Are you referring to politicians and government "experts " ... ? '

 

Alarmists keep trying to find the cloud around the silver lining.

Barents Sea good news: researcher reveals polar bears, even females, still in excellent condition
Posted on May 23, 2022 | Comments Offon Barents Sea good news: researcher reveals polar bears, even females, still in excellent condition
Barents Sea polar bears had another good year in 2022 despite having lost the most sea ice of any subpopulation but the media and activists can’t help themselves insisting a dismal future is ahead.

Oddly, Norwegian polar bear researcher Jon Aars recently said the quiet part out loud: that he expects Barents Sea polar bear numbers to keep rising, which is rather at odds with the standard narrative: . . .

 

The bears' habitat is stable.

Polar bear habitat in Canada over the last decade: spring sea ice not in a death spiral
Posted on May 29, 2022 | Comments Offon Polar bear habitat in Canada over the last decade: spring sea ice not in a death spiral
Sea ice extent in Canada at the height of Arctic spring over the last 10 years has been more like a gentle roller coaster than a death spiral. See for yourself.






Continue reading →