Advertisements

DEAR Climate Change Alarmists, We Are Doing Just Fine Thanks, And So Is Our Sea-Ice! Regards, Polar Bears

POLAR BEARS - We Are Fine | CLIMATISM

POLAR BEARS – We Are Fine | CLIMATISM


“Inuit believe there are now so many bears that
public safety has become a major concern,”
Nunavut’s polar bear population is unsafe,
government document says – The Globe and Mail

“Public safety concerns, combined with the effects of
polar bears on other species, suggest that
in many Nunavut communities, the polar bear
may have exceeded the co-existence threshold.”
Nunavut’s polar bear population is unsafe,
government document says – The Globe and Mail

***

DIRE predictions of an “ice-free” Arctic have remained popular on the climate change fear-mongering circuit, owing to the psychological and political currency of all things melting and not least the emotional relevance applicable to the fate of the Arctic’s most famous resident and ‘global warming’ mascot – the polar bear.

SOME of the failed Arctic sea-ice predictions by alarmists ‘scientists’ and the fake news media over the years :

  • “Arctic summers ice-free by 2013” (BBC 2007)
  • “Could all Arctic ice be gone by 2012?” (AP 2007)
  • “Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?”(National Geographic 2007)
  • “Imagine yourself in a world five years from now, where there is no more ice over the Arctic” – Tim Flannery (2008)
  • “North Pole could be ice-free in 2008” – Mark Serreze (New Scientist 2008)
  • “Gore: Polar ice cap may disappear by summer 2014” (USA Today 2009)
  • “Arctic expert predicts final collapse of sea ice within 4 years” (Guardian 2012)
  • “Say Goodbye to Arctic Summer Ice” (Live Science 2013)
  • “Ice-free Arctic in two years heralds methane catastrophe – scientist” (The Guardian 2013)
  • “Why Arctic sea ice will vanish in 2013” (Sierra Club 2013)
  • “Next year or the year after, the Arctic will be free of ice’” – Peter Wadhams (The Guardian 2016)

Source : CLIMATE DUD-PREDICTIONS : ‘Ice-Free’ Arctic Prophesies By The ‘97% Consensus’ And Compliant Mainstream Media | Climatism

*

CURRENT STATE OF THE ARCTIC 

MINIMUM sea-ice extent has been trending up over the past twelve years. The EXACT opposite of what the mainstream media and ‘97% experts’ have been telling you :

MINIMUM Arctic sea-ice volume has been rising, not declining, since 2007 :

dtpq2wcvaaab84w

@KiryeNet キリエ on Twitter : “The Arctic has been refreezing for 12 years…minimum sea ice volume has been rising since 2007”

*

ARCTIC SEA-ICE EXTENT TO DATE

ARCTIC sea-ice extent is very close to the 1981-2010 median :

*

ARCTIC TEMPS & MELT CYCLES

ARCTIC temperatures and melt cycles correlate almost perfectly with ocean circulation cycles (AMO), and show no correlation with atmospheric CO2 levels :

reykjavik-iceland-temperatures-vs-the-atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation

Reykjavik, Iceland Temperatures Vs. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation

***

POLAR BEARS 

*

NO other icon of ‘Global Warming’ epitomises its very own false narrative like the polar bear does for ‘Climate Change’.

WITH deadly irony, polar bear numbers have grown dramatically as carbon dioxide emissions have risen in lock-step. A CO2 correlation, at last!

INDIGENOUS Inuit’s of Northern Canada are now facing the very real task of having to cull the population as “the polar bear may have exceeded the co-existence threshold.”

“Inuit believe there are now so many bears that public safety has become a major concern,”

“Public safety concerns, combined with the effects of polar bears on other species, suggest that in many Nunavut communities, the polar bear may have exceeded the co-existence threshold.”

Nunavut’s polar bear population is unsafe, government document says – The Globe and Mail

*

POLAR BEAR POPULATION (1981 – 2015)

screen-shot-2019-01-19-at-4.26.11-am.png

Polar Bear Population (1981 – 2015)

*

POLAR BEAR POPULATION – THE LATEST COUNT!

via Susan Crockford PhD :

Susan Crockford is zoologist with more than 35 years experience, including published work on the Holocene history of Arctic animals. She is currently an adjunct professor at the University of Victoria, British Columbia.

About | polarbearscience

Latest global polar bear abundance ‘best guess’ estimate is 39,000 (26,000-58,000)

It’s long past time for polar bear specialists to stop holding out for a scientifically accurate global estimate that will never be achieved and determine a reasonable and credible ‘best guess’. Since they have so far refused to do this, I have done it for them. My extrapolated estimate of 39,000 (range 26,000-58,000) at 2018 is not only plausible but scientifically defensible.

In 2014, the chairman of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) emailed me to say that their global population size number ‘has never been an estimate of total abundance in a scientific sense, but simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand.’

In my new book, The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened, I contend that this situation will probably never change, so it’s time to stop holding out for a scientifically accurate global estimate and generate a reasonable and credible ‘best guess’. Recent surveys from several critical polar bear subpopulations have given us the information necessary to do this.

These new numbers make it possible to extrapolate from ‘known’ to ‘unknown’ subpopulations within so-called ‘sea ice ecoregions’ (defined in 2007 by polar bear scientists at the US Geological Survey, see Amstrup et al. 2007), as shown below, to update old estimates and generate new ones for never-studied areas.

usgs-polar-bear_ecoregions_icedrift.jpg

USGS – Polar Bear Ecoregions

Since the PBSG has so far refused to take this step, I took on the challenge. I contend that an estimate of about 39,000 (range 26,000-58,000) at 2018 is not only plausible but scientifically defensible. See the graph below from my new book:

population-size-estimate-graph-chapter-10-e1553617271572

Global polar bear population size estimates to 2018. From Chapter 10 of The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened (Crockford 2019).

This new estimate for 2018 is a modest 4-6 fold increase over the 10,000 or so bears that existed in the 1960s and after 25 years, a credible increase over the estimate of 25,000 that the PBSG offered in 1993 (Wiig et al. 1995).

However, my new estimate is much larger than the improbable figure of about 26,000 (range 22,000-31,000) offered by PGSG biologists in 2015 (Regehr et al. 2016; Wiig et al. 2015). The scary question is this: what do Arctic residents do if there are actually as many as 58,000?

See my new book (Crockford 2019) for the full rationale and references used to arrive at this figure.

The bottom line: it is scientifically unacceptable for the PBSG to continue to refuse to provide an extrapolated ‘best guess’ global estimate for polar bears, given that the scientifically accurate estimate they crave is essentially unattainable. An estimate of about 39,000 (range 26,000-58,000) at 2018 is not only plausible but scientifically defensible.

REFERENCES

Amstrup, S.C., Marcot, B.G. & Douglas, D.C. 2007. Forecasting the rangewide status of polar bears at selected times in the 21st century.US Geological Survey. Reston, VA. Pdf here

Crockford, S.J. 2019. The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened. Global Warming Policy Foundation, London. Available in paperback and ebook formats.

Regehr, E.V., Laidre, K.L, Akçakaya, H.R., Amstrup, S.C., Atwood, T.C., Lunn, N.J., Obbard, M., Stern, H., Thiemann, G.W., & Wiig, Ø. 2016. Conservation status of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in relation to projected sea-ice declines. Biology Letters 12: 20160556. http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/12/12/20160556

Wiig, Ø., Born, E.W., and Garner, G.W. (eds.) 1995. Polar Bears: Proceedings of the 11th working meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialists Group, 25-27 January, 1993, Copenhagen, Denmark. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge UK, IUCN. http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/meetings/

Wiig, Ø., Amstrup, S., Atwood, T., Laidre, K., Lunn, N., Obbard, M., et al. 2015. Ursus maritimus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T22823A14871490. Available fromhttp://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22823/0 [accessed Nov. 28, 2015]. See the supplement for population figures.

Latest global polar bear abundance ‘best guess’ estimate is 39,000 (26,000-58,000) | polarbearscience

***

POLAR BEAR “crisis”? Nope. Simply more fake news propaganda from the Climate Crisis Industry!

***

THIS is what your children are being taught, and told to say about Polar Bears and global warming climate change. Complete lies and blatant falsehoods!

SEE : If children want to protest against climate change, why not do it at the weekend? | The Spectator

H/t @BarbaraMcK42

•••

RELATED :

SEE also :

ORIGINS Of The Global Warming Scam :

•••

THE Climatism Tip Jar – Pls Help Keep The Good Fight Alive!

(Climate sceptics/rationalists still waitin’ for that “big oil” cheque to arrive in the mail!)

Help us to hit back against the bombardment of climate lies costing our communities, economies and livelihoods far, far too much.

Thanks to all those who have donated. Your support and faith in Climatism is highly motivating and greatly appreciated!

Citizen journalists can’t rely on mastheads, rather private donations and honest content. Every pledge helps!

Click link for more info…

Thank You! Jamie.

Donate with PayPal

•••

Advertisements

6 Comments on “DEAR Climate Change Alarmists, We Are Doing Just Fine Thanks, And So Is Our Sea-Ice! Regards, Polar Bears”

  1. https://mashable.com/2018/04/11/scientists-challenge-climate-denier-polar-bear-blogs/

    This and other anti-regulation blogs are milking a false angle on what’s really happening. Polar bears conflict with civilization not because there are more of them per se, rather that they’re unable to stay on the ice as long, so they head inland for food. It’s the same thing that happens when landlocked habitat is lost to human influences, forcing species to come close to cities. Ice in this case is the driver, but you deny it’s happening because you think people are above the laws of nature.

    The Inuits claim to understand the bears more than scientists but they only see LOCAL events. Hunting groups also play into it (they want to kill more bears, regardless). You play on that anti-“elitist” aspect, as if tribes with limited ability to travel are able to see a bigger picture than scientists. It’s just not true.

    Over time there will likely be fewer total polar bears, but global warming deniers have no long-term thinking skills, just the ability to duck & dodge from topic to topic, driven by an anti-regulation agenda. They aren’t honest enough to admit that their distaste for regulation is the core issue, not the flaws they cite in scientific research. It’s like people who can’t admit that they’re dumb and crass for smoking, so they cherry-pick medical reports and ignore their own shortcomings.

    P.S. Industrial wind turbines are a bad idea in any event, and it’s tiresome to see them criticized by climate-deniers as a scheme to push warming “alarmism” (even though elements of that are true). It’s not a simple issue. See: https://www.google.com/search?q=blight+for+naught

    Like

  2. Mark says:

    No comment about 1000 bears killed evey year legaly ?

    Like

  3. Kraig says:

    Hey Jamie, just spent several hours reading your articles, (and doing doing the fact checking)
    three Q’s:
    1. Are you getting your articles published in mainstream media? if not, why not?
    2. Would you please publish the (or any) credible research which conclusively identifies the precise percentage of anthroprogenic CO2 alleged to be responsible, in specific degrees for warming?
    3. With the hyperventilation over transitioning to “…100% renewables by 2050”, how many square kilometers per country would have to be sacrificed to install the required PV/turbines?
    (would like to see if you come up with the same number I have)
    Appreciate your work, and look forward to hearing from you.
    Cheers, Kraig

    P.S. ice core paleo-climate data including Vostock, EPICA, and Law Dome may come under fire when it is proven that researchers; failing to account for atmospheric and compression solubility of CO2, underestimated historic CO2 levels by a factor of 3-5X thus exaggerating current levels as “crisis levels”.

    Like


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.