Polar Bear Population Reaches "Carrying Capacity"

[code1211]

Fascinating.

And you know about magnetic pole reversal from..scientists, I presume?

But you are selective on what science you believe, apparently. Weird.

There seems to be a whole bunch of selectivity when you're around.

Maybe it's catching...

 

[code1211]

I see you like to run with a false premise, but your support of AGW has established that already. No, I know about magnetic reversal from aviation--specifically that the numbers on runways are based in the heading of a runway magnetically and that airports are starting to have to renumber their runways because magnetic north is moving in order to keep the system working. It is how you set the directional heading on old school dial direction indicators, but they tend to vibrate out of sync so you have the back up compass on the dash to recalibrate periodically in flight, usually after ATC has yelled at you for being off course after their first friendly nudge :2wave:

It won't be very long away that the Magnetic North Pole will have slid into Russia.

I'm pretty sure it's just trying to get away from America.

 

[Jack Hays]

It won't be very long away that the Magnetic North Pole will have slid into Russia.

I'm pretty sure it's just trying to get away from America.

Like Snowden?

 

[code1211]

Actually, for you and the Other Warming denialist Right wing Blog-citers... I've never seen a post in this section on Polar Bears.

However, much to your Unwitting Regret (so sorry), YOUR article Confirms Shrinking/Shrunken Sea Ice. Which IS posted on daily.
"Carrying Capacity" more fully being.. "of the extant/shrunken Ice mass"

And I LAUGH at the GOP Brown-shirts/HACKS here trying to marginalize 95% of Climate Scientists when it's They who are the Flat-earthers.
In this particular string it'll be right back to "Obama sucks" (and the "Lets talk Beer" string) for these Non-science/pure-politicos who make up the heart of the denialist movement.

Do you have any scientific proof that AGW is an actual, real world thing?

As far as I can tell, it doesn't even have enough basis is fact to qualify as a hypothesis.

Can you name any scientific organization that has elevated this notion to the level of being a theory or even registered it as an actual hypothesis for testing?

 

[Fisher]

It won't be very long away that the Magnetic North Pole will have slid into Russia.

I'm pretty sure it's just trying to get away from America.

That is fine. Santa is a commie bastard anyways. Take his damn elves with him for all I care. Bastard doesn't bring me anything but a stack of bills in January.

 

[code1211]

Well, to be honest, that number is down, because the Oreskes study looking at 900+ papers from 1994-2004 showed that NONE rejected the concept of AGW. That was the original study the deniers were pissed about.

Still waiting for that survey that you seem to think exists somewhere.

The Tarot Card readings you are referencing do little more than display the bias of the collectors.

 

[code1211]

Yeah, I know it's not a word. I tend to make up my own from time-to-time... some thread OPs simply bring out the best--or worst, depending on perspective--out of me.



That's right, only the Davis Inlet was mentioned. So then, why did that little tidbit of information lead you to believe that those who are concerned about polar bear population are a bunch of propagandist/alarmists? You do know that the Arctic is much larger than the Davis Inlet, no?



Found this interesting tidbit of information:

Polar bears are found in 19 subpopulations around the Arctic. Of the 19 recognized polar bear subpopulations, scientists only have enough data to make accurate determinations about 12. Of those 12, eight are in decline, three are stable, and only one is increasing. Animal populations decline for all sorts of reasons, and in the case of polar bears, being hunted by people is certainly one cause for concern. What’s also clear, however, is that the loss of sea ice is partly to blame for declines in at least four polar bear subpopulations. Sea ice is absolutely critical to the health of polar bears. They use it as a platform for hunting their prey, giving birth to their young, and traveling from one place to the next. Because of climate change, that platform of sea ice is melting, fast. And as climate change accelerates, polar bear habitat will be put in ever increasing danger.

Isn't it interesting that you got your information from a site that only cared to cherry pick the one subpopulation that is doing okay? Maybe you should get your information elsewhere, or, just as important, try to be more critical than the regular drooling spoon-fed crowd.

https://realitydrop.org/#myths/76?article=71794&user=neil




Wow. Better take off that tinfoil toque, eh.

The population of polar Bears is very difficult to ascertain. It is generally accepted that it's increasing, but the simple fact of the matter is that man is killing them not by CO2, but much more directly.

Other Food Chain toppers just don't fare well when they get too close to men.

 

[code1211]

In case everyone else hasn't noticed..
This guy's posts are ALL empty frauds.
Like he's posted/Drunk a 24 pack in His "Let's Talk Beer" string intermingled/muddled with posts elsewhere.
NO Answer of course.


Ooooph!
That's not how it was used.
I understand you're Intimidated by Real links, as opposed to Your OP, 'Daily Caller'; but my second study was merely meant to answer Code1211's inference that the consensus count was just based on One study.
So posting a Second study, is not merely "appeal to authority" it's simple rebuttal.
Tho you got to utter A fallacy, THEE Fallacy was all yours.

Is there an actual survey to support this? The link that I found had the agenda driven sorting and editing the sources to gain the desired result.

There are those petitions types of things that have a multitude of the disaffected saying that they are doubting the essence of the notion.

There is also that pesky inability to elevate this thing to being an actual scientific and the very real doubt that this could even pass muster as a hypothesis.

Has there ever been a method proposed to falsify the claims of AGW? Without that, it cannot even be a hypothesis.

 

[code1211]

All I know is I saw an interview with one of the camera guys that were shooting the polar bears for Gore's documentary. We all remember the polar bear "stuck" on the ice, the camera guy said it was just the way it was shot. There was plenty of ice and the bear actually swam out to that spot for a while and came back.

It's all a hoax.

I don't know anything about that particular shot. It is well documented that polar bears can swim 400 miles at a time. It's also pretty well know that bears are pretty smart and they like to play.

 

[Threegoofs]

Still waiting for that survey that you seem to think exists somewhere.

The Tarot Card readings you are referencing do little more than display the bias of the collectors.

You mean actual surveys of the literature?

You could do one yourself- just look at Nature Climate Change over the last three months. Chances are you won't find a single article contesting AGW.

 

[Jack Hays]

You mean actual surveys of the literature?

You could do one yourself- just look at Nature Climate Change over the last three months. Chances are you won't find a single article contesting AGW.

Are you kidding?:lamo
I posted one tonight.:lamo:lamo

 

[Threegoofs]

Are you kidding?:lamo
I posted one tonight.:lamo:lamo

Yes, but how many times?

 

[polgara]

Are you kidding?:lamo
I posted one tonight.:lamo:lamo

:lamo: Now that's what I call "oneupmanship to the nth degree." Good one!

Good evening, Jack. :2wave:

 

[Jack Hays]

Yes, but how many times?

Keep deflecting. I've already shown Nature leaving "the consensus."

 

[Jack Hays]

:lamo: Now that's what I call "oneupmanship to the nth degree." Good one!

Good evening, Jack. :2wave:

Good evening, Polgara.:2wave:

3G is easy/predictable.eace

 

[Middleground]

The population of polar Bears is very difficult to ascertain. It is generally accepted that it's increasing,

NO.

Only one subpopulation out of 12 is thriving. One. Uno. Un. So how in the world would that be considered "increasing?" Does that word mean something else on your planet?

 

[Threegoofs]

Keep deflecting. I've already shown Nature leaving "the consensus."

Where? You showed an opinion piece, not a literature survey, and it says nothing about the AAAS, which are the publishers of Nature, not agreeing with the basic premise of the IPCC, which they do.

 

[Jack Hays]

NO.

Only one subpopulation out of 12 is thriving. One. Uno. Un. So how in the world would that be considered "increasing?" Does that word mean something else on your planet?

 

[Jack Hays]

Where? You showed an opinion piece, not a literature survey, and it says nothing about the AAAS, which are the publishers of Nature, not agreeing with the basic premise of the IPCC, which they do.

Nature Climate Change is a publication under the editorship of Nature. Your ship is sinking.eace


Fyfe,Gillett, Zwiers: “Over estimate in warming”

29 August, 2013 (14:26) | Data Comparisons | By: lucia
Fyfe, Gillett and Zwiers have published an “Opinion/Comment” titled “Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models”. The paper discusses precisely what we’ve been discussing here at The Blackboard lo these many years: That is, the observed trends are falling outside the range of model runs.
Read more »

eace

 

[Threegoofs]

Nature Climate Change is a publication under the editorship of Nature. Your ship is sinking.eace


Fyfe,Gillett, Zwiers: “Over estimate in warming”

29 August, 2013 (14:26) | Data Comparisons | By: lucia
Fyfe, Gillett and Zwiers have published an “Opinion/Comment” titled “Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models”. The paper discusses precisely what we’ve been discussing here at The Blackboard lo these many years: That is, the observed trends are falling outside the range of model runs.
Read more »

eace

Thanks for reposting that blog post pointing to the pay walled article. I hope you post this several more times.

Nature is a publication of AAAS. But I'm sure tge details are about as relevant to you as the details of the article are.

I don't have access to the article, and I know damn well you don't, so maybe we should get someone to read it before commenting.

 

[Jack Hays]

Thanks for reposting that blog post pointing to the pay walled article. I hope you post this several more times.

Nature is a publication of AAAS. But I'm sure tge details are about as relevant to you as the details of the article are.

I don't have access to the article, and I know damn well you don't, so maybe we should get someone to read it before commenting.

Ah, but I do have access to the article, as do you. i posted it to you. Your denial is showing.

 

[Grand Mal]

NO.

Only one subpopulation out of 12 is thriving. One. Uno. Un. So how in the world would that be considered "increasing?" Does that word mean something else on your planet?

Umm...

The truth about polar bears - Canadian Geographic

"The current scientific consensus places the worldwide polar bear population between 20,000 and 25,000 animals. Prior to the 1973 worldwide restriction on commerical polar bear hunting, that number was dramatically lower, so low that a meeting of polar bear specialists in 1965 concluded that extinction was a real possibility. Some reports even estimated the number of bears as low as 5,000 worldwide. Yet by 1990, Ian Stirling — at the time, the senior research scientist for the Canadian Wildlife Service and a professor of zoology at the University of Alberta; basically, one of the most respected polar bear scientists on the planet — felt comfortable answering the question as to whether polar bears are an endangered species by stating flatly: “They are not.” He went on to say that “the world population of polar bears is certainly greater than 20,000 and could be as high as 40,000 … I am inclined toward the upper end of that range.” Although old studies are sketchy, clearly more polar bears are alive today than there were 50 years ago, an essentially heartening fact that has not managed to pierce the public consciousness."

I found it odd, too. Elsewhere in the report it says, though, that things don't look good due to the shrinking ice in the Canadian Arctic, since two thirds of polar bears live in Canada.

 

[Jack Hays]

Thanks for reposting that blog post pointing to the pay walled article. I hope you post this several more times.

Nature is a publication of AAAS. But I'm sure tge details are about as relevant to you as the details of the article are.

I don't have access to the article, and I know damn well you don't, so maybe we should get someone to read it before commenting.

[h=1]Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years[/h]
Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models. This difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and internal climate variability.

[h=1]At a glance[/h] [h=3]Figures[/h] First | 1-3 of 3 | Last

left

1. Figure 1
2. Figure 2
3. Figure 3

[h=2][/h]

 

[EdwinWillers]

[h=1]Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years[/h]
Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models. This difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and internal climate variability. < snip >

How their models should look:


The best they've been able to do thus far:

 

[code1211]

Like Snowden?

Same general destination, but I'm not at all sure it will pause in the Moscow Air Terminal.