Great News! But Where Is The News Coverage?
From The GWPF and Dr. Benny Peiser
Exciting news about polar bears in eastern Canada: a new the peer-reviewed paper concludes that despite sea ice having declined since the 1970s, polar bear numbers in Davis Strait have not only increased to a greater density than other seasonal-ice subpopulations, but it may now have reached its ‘carrying capacity.’ This is great news. But where is the shouting from the roof-tops? This peer-reviewed paper was published February 19, 2013. No press release was issued that I could find and consequently, there was no news coverage. Funny, that. –Susan Crockford, Polar Bear Science, 10 June 2013
One of the interesting aspects of the current temperature standstill is that it persists despite several El Ninos and La Ninas. Since 2006 the influence of these events has been more pronounced in satellite data; El Ninos in 2007 and 2009-10, La Ninas in 2008, 2010–2012. These events have increased the ‘noise’ of the global temperature data in recent years. Removing this noise is tricky, but without it there is a hint, just a hint, that sans El Nino/La Nina effects and volcanic dips, the global temperature might be reducing. As usual, five more years of data will be fascinating to analyse. –David Whitehouse, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 11 June 2013
Prof. Murry Salby, climate scientist at Macquarie University of Sydney, made a presentation in Hamburg on April 18th as part of a European tour. Prof. Salby is author of the textbook Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate (Cambridge University Press) and Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics (Academic Press) and is renowned worldwide as an astrophysicist. He recently caused excitement with new findings on the relationship of the 12C- and 13C isotopes and the development of CO2-concentration. From the findings he concluded that the anthropogenic emissions only had a slight impact on the global CO2-concentrations. They are mainly a consequence of temperature changes. This relationship is known up to now only from the warming phases after the last ice ages. Prof. Salby extends this relationship to our current climate development. —Die kalte Sonne, 8 June 2013
I did a quick post yesterday on the May numbers on RSS [satellite data], which fell sharply to 0.139C. The RSS figures are anomalies from the 1979-98 baseline, and I pointed out that, against a baseline of 1981-2010, current temperatures are now only 0.039C higher. I also mentioned that the 1981-2010 average had been artificially depressed by the two eruptions, El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991. Take the two volcanoes out of the equation, and it is clear that there is nothing unusual about current temperatures. –Paul Homewood, Not a Lot Of People Know That, 8 June 2013
When the Little Ice Age caused widespread crop failures, mass starvation, and disease in populated Europe some centuries ago, the enlightened ones blamed the climate-related misery and misfortune on the black magic of sorcerers and witches – who were promptly tried and burned at the stake. In other cultures, people performed rain-dances, human sacrifices, or other bizarre rituals, all in a futile attempt to appease the weather gods. Of course the victims of these rituals were often political opponents. Today nothing has changed apparently, as Der Spiegel poignantly demonstrates with its latest online round of hysterics titled Flood Drama in Germany: We’re to Blame! by Jakob Augstein. According to Augstein, today’s German flooding is a result of man’s sins against the climate. Climate deniers are mostly to blame for the “Katastrophe“.—Pierre Goselin, No Tricks Zone, 11 June 2013
I have some urgent news regarding Arctic sea ice…
Having studied the satellite-sourced graphs daily on the Sea Ice Page at Wattsupwiththat, I can make the following prediction:
‘Arctic sea ice trends in 2013 will be incredibly average…’
More on polar bears – study also showed good body mass presently although in a previous period of INCREASING ice and increasing polar bear population, the body massed declined probably due to competition for available food.
http://polarbearscience.com/2013/06/12/davis-strait-polar-bears-again-body-condition-declined-while-population-increased/#more-2071
Wayne,
The main food source for PB’s is around the very edge of the ice.
If sea ice expands the PB’s have to travel much further to get a feed.
If sea ice contracts, its like having a MacDonalds just around the corner. 🙂
All polar bear populations increased from the 1970s, because that was when international regulations on polar bear hunting were enacted. This is clear from the literature, and nothing to do with climate change.
Like land glaciers, it appears that most, but not all, populations are in decline or at risk. A proper analysis of polar bear population would include all data available.
The data for the Peacock study comes from 2005 – 2007 (per their abstract). They point out that reproductive rates have declined, possibly as a result of sea ice changes. Commensurate with previous reports, this suggests that, because of lower reproductive rates, that community is at risk, along with others. Some populations do not seem to be at risk at this time.
http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/status-table.html
“barry” admits that the rise in the Polar bear population has “nothing to do with climate change.”
That argument cuts both ways: climate change had nothing to do with the past polar bear decline, either, which was due to hunting [Polar bear skins have doubled in price over the past 3 years].
dbstealey,
the point is that the article omits information like the things you mention, and thus is spurious. Data should be investigated properly, or it is misleading. Clearly, hunting prior to the 70s was the primary cause of polar bear decline, and regulations the primary cause of population increase. That should not be confused with climate change effects, as is the case regarding the top article.
barry,
You have absolutely no proof that ‘climate change’ [which always happens] has any effect on PB populations, and you sound ridiculous even implying it.
I provided evidence of the reason for the decline and recovery of the PB population, while you emit your opinion — which stems from your climate alarmism.
Polar bears are not dying off due to climate change.
dbstealey, I was not trying to ‘prove’ anything, just pointing out the deficiencies in the article. I’ll take it you accept my point, seeing as you have not contended it.
Your article says warmer temperatures are responsible for polar bear deaths. Not sure it corroborates your point.
The following institution is the foremost authority on polar bear populations (repository of studies, research and observations, ongoing).
http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/about.html
If you know of another resource that is as comprehensive, I will check it out and add it to my bookmarks.
barry says:
“Your article says warmer temperatures are responsible for polar bear deaths. Not sure it corroborates your point.”
=========================================
barry, it is hard to respect your point of view when you take this article seriously. FYI, it was a comic parody of your polar bear nonsense.
But the comedy went right over your head. I’m sure the other readers understood that I was making fun of your polar bear alarmism. [For more parody of climate alarmists like yourself, see here.]
I’ve given “barry” a troll time out to get his thoughts in order – Anthony