"Some of the reports conclusions are the opposite of those given in articles cited in defense of those conclusions.
For example, the IPCC 2014 Terrestrial Ecosystem Report states that “there is medium confidence that rapid change in the Arctic is affecting its animals. For example, seven of 19 subpopulations of the polar bear are declining in number” citing in support of this an article by Vongraven and Richardson, 2011. That report states the contrary, that the “‘decline’ is an illusion."
Only one population out of 19 might be in decline due to global warming. This is from the U. S. Marine Mammal Commission, not some blog or right wing shill. Four are claimed to be declining, two from hunting pressure, a third is statistically insignificant.
If you want to know the truth, this is a good place to start. Yes, the link is to Watts up with that, but there is a link in the article to the original congressional testimony.
Edit: Four TD's for telling the truth about the polar bear population. Funny how some people get upset when you contradict their world view.
Out of "thin air"? I think not!
I think you're forgetting that the air is supposed to be much thicker now due to all the co2 we're adding to it.
Lets compare the figures.
At the end of the little ice age150 years ago the air was composed of 99.972% gasses other than co2.
Now the air is only 99.96% other gasses (see the huge difference?)so they must now use this "supposedly" thicker air to create their theoretical disappearing polar bears.
I doubt anyone has a quart jar of 150 year old air to weigh so this hypothesis is as good as any since its apparently OK to just make stuff up as we go along.
James,
With all due respect, do you really want to quote these sources. You’ve linked to an article written by Michael Bastach who writes his piece based on details from Susan Crockford.
Bastach is not a scientist, his background is politics. He worked for the Heartland Institute (funded by Exxon to deny climate change) and after that by Koch Industries, the world’s largest funders of climate change denial. Crockford works for the Heartland Institute, she has been paid a monthly salary by them for the last two years, she was hired specifically by them to lie about climate change and undermine the work of the IPCC. Her job is to lie.
I don’t know if you were aware of these facts (I guess you should be as pretty much every ‘scientist’ who opposes the global warming theory is linked directly to the denial propaganda machine).
As for the actual numbers, even if Crockford is correct, then it still means that polar bear populations are very low. It also means that there are still more sub-populations where numbers are declining than there are where they’re increasing.
Quite what role global warming has had in the changing population numbers is very difficult to say as data are sparse.
It is however very obvious that if the Arctic continues to melt as it has been doing in recent decades then the polar bear numbers could plummet.
There used to be 10 million square kilometres of ice each summer, in 2012 that fell to a little over 3 million km2. If the ice-loss continues as it has been doing for the last 30 years, there will come a time when there is no ice left in summer. The bears will be compressed onto an ever shrinking ice sheet until the last of it melts leaving the bears stranded in the sea.
Polar bears that are based on land when the last of the ice melts will be fine but potentially thousands of bears could be lost in a matter of days.
Prior to 2003 the Arctic had never retreated to less than 6 million km2, by 2012 it was down to 3 million km2. At this rate it could be just seven years before we have an Arctic summer free of ice.
More realistically, based on trends over the last 20 years then we could be seeing an ice-free Arctic in about 14 years time. The graph below plots the minima for ice-extent from 1994 to 2013 and projects forward what may happen if the current trend continues.
What is the left-wing nuts putting a species on the endangered list going to do? To what end? How do they profit?
Calling people liars is no help. Counting polar bears yourself, telling people how many you found and THEN saying your number is right and theirs is wrong (too small), is helpful.
Well the numbers shows that polar bear populations are rising. The basis for listing is a theory of global warming, they wanted the precedent so they could regulate CO2.
Why do you link to plots of temperature and sea level pressure and claim that is evidence for the Arctic having less ice early in the 20th century? Do you think people are dumb enough to be tricked by that? (Well, some people probably are.)
Nearly all animal populations are based on "assumptions", only if the population of a species was less than a hundred and limited to a very small range would an accurate population size be counted.
To determine animal populations generally sampling is done, and then populations modelled out from that.
The IUCN Red List has stated for years that the population numbers for polar bears (particularly certain sub-populations) is hypothesized. The number is used as a gauge of population trends and to assist with management purposes. Generally in environmental science the pre-cautionary principle will be applied (therefore the population numbers would be a conservative or 'worse case' scenario given a particular conifdence interval). The final number would be based on statistical analysis.
This has nothing to do with satisfying public demand, but instead everything to do with environmental management and conserving a vulnerable species.
Early numbers were only by hunting permits and anecdotal reports by hunters. Often these numbers were driven by hunting associations which pose as wildlife associations. But these were known to be likely false. The numbers used in the reports are by aerial sampling, hunting reports and radio tags. Obviously they can be in error and the variance is such that sometimes global warming deniers cite them and other times environmentalists cite them. However, it is unfair for you to extend your tendency of bias to the scientific community which has an intense peer review process, the scientific community itself will hang any researcher found to be introducing bias as soon as it can, that's not to say bias doesn't get into some reports, but the research community is so competitive that purposely introducing such bias would be suicide for one's career.
That is the twisted imterpretation of the reporter, not the actial science paper.
Considering that the information which liberal fringe environmental zealots have convinced the government to put polar bears on the endangered species list because of "global warming" is based on outright lies shouldn't this be cause for the feds to strip the endangered species label from the poster animals of climate change?
http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/30/scientists-admit-polar-bear-numbers-were-made-up-to-satisfy-public-demand/#ixzz33KP5cRUW
And if scientists were so pressure to make up this kind of crap to satisfy climate change lunacy then what other 'data' regarding climate change was created by scientists to satisfy public demand?
Crockford claims that she received an email from " Dr. Dag Vongraven, the current chairman of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG)."
“As part of past status reports, the PBSG has traditionally estimated a range for the total number of polar bears in the circumpolar Arctic. Since 2005, this range has been 20-25,000. It is important to realize that this range never has been an estimate of total abundance in a scientific sense, but simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand. It is also important to note that even though we have scientifically valid estimates for a majority of the subpopulations, some are dated. Furthermore, there are no abundance estimates for the Arctic Basin, East Greenland, and the Russian subpopulations.Consequently, there is either no, or only rudimentary, knowledge to support guesses about the possible abundance of polar bears in approximately half the areas they occupy. Thus, the range given for total global population should be viewed with great caution as it cannot be used to assess population trend over the long term.”
No point getting upset. Let's just wait and see what gets published by the PBSG.
“Thus, the range given for total global population should be viewed with great caution as it cannot be used to assess population trend over the long term.”
It seems to me that they admit they really don't have good numbers. They were basically saying their numbers can't be used to say that they haven't been declining (or growing or stable). I always repeat that there is much we don't know. Those who think we can count all the animals haven't really been out in the wilderness or have a good understanding of it.
IMO, Polar Bears probably were endangered once but since they have been protected their numbers have rebounded. I don't think Polar Bears should be on the endangered species list due to our CO2 emissions. The risk is so miniscule that it makes of mockery of other species that are actually endangered.
DailyCaller is not a legitimate source
You want to know about polar bears, go to a real site http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/a...
It's the global warming deniers who make things up to satisfy corporate demand.
